Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)

Obviously, I've haven't been following the topic very closely. I do remember (wrongly?) that it originally was concerned with the hominid (sp?) transitionsals. That's why it's in the "Human Origins" forum.What to do at this point? Not sure. Maybe it's time to close this one down, for a fresh start elsewhere. Which ISN'T to say that I'm now closing the topic.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: Maybe a title change is in order (add "homind and others"). Seems to be a bit late for a forum move. Oh well, I guess I've probable just leave things alone.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-03-2004]

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

Mr Admin, sir, I suggest we continue, but move this into Evolution/Miscellaneous. We are now talking about birds not humans, therefore out of scope of 'Human origins'.

Hey Moose,There's a bit of topic drift, but only in the sense that it went from hominid transitionals to transitionals generically. Probably a normal "evolution" of the topic string . OTOH, you're right that with that shift it's really in the wrong forum. However, with the string life only some 70 posts before automatic thread death, might as well leave it alone, IMO.It might be worth Percy's time to see if there is some software thingy that can be done which will alow moderators to move a portion of a thread (i.e., spin off) rather than a whole thread. IIDB has a feature like this.)----------
{Note from Adminnemooseus - After I posted the message you're replying to, I realized the drift started at message 2. I think I might do a title modification, but otherwise leave everything alone.I think the partial move methodology exits, but I think that just sort of makes its own mess. Besides, doing such a thing really throws a kink into my all topic database methodology.Title modified - "(Hominid and other)" added.}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-03-2004][This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-03-2004]

Actually, it appears Loudmouth and Sylas have pretty much answered this. However, I'd like to make a few comments on your numbered bits. Actually, no they don't. The hindfeet of theropods and even modern birds are strikingly similar. The forelimbs are also similar, etc. If you think otherwise, please detail the differences. Really? In what way? With the discovery of basal maniraptors like Scansoriopteryx heilmanni etc, with the nicely fused collar bone commonly known as "wishbone" - today found ONLY in birds - the mere fact of its existence lends strong support to the relationship between the two. Fircula have been seen in a whole bunch of the Coelurosauria, including T rex. If the structures are different in detail, that would be expected. After all, there's tremendous variance in LIVING birds as to the details of this bone, yes? Pure assertion with no supporting evidence. You have examples of theropod lungs to compare modern bird lungs with? In fact, as I think I mentioned, I don't like the ground-up theory either. However, with the discovery of arboreal dinos like the little S. heilmanni I noted above, this contention is falsified. Too bad. Yes. I agree it hurts the ground-up proponents. That's one of the reasons why the maniraptor==>aves line looks more promising, Feduccia's thecodont idea notwithstanding. True enough, as far as it goes. Most of the theropoda - which contains a humungous number of species - aren't on the aves line for that (and many other) reasons. Eoraptors, the Herrerasauridae, the Ceratosauria, etc (all theropods) had nothing at all to do with the clade that gave rise to birds. Only one branch of the Coelurosauria - a clade that also includes such varied critters as tyranosaurs and velociraptors - had anything to do with birds, which are a shoot of the Maniraptors. One of the distinguishing features of several of the known Maniraptors is - wait for it - a fused wrist. Sorry. Theropods are found before, during and after Archy. "Theropod" is a HUGE group. Only one line gave rise to birds AND Archy - which isn't a bird, and is probably not even ancestral to birds (although this last bit remains disputed).Whatever your source is, it's pretty obviously NOT the scientists who study the issue.

You seem to be mixing definitions. You are using micro-evolution to support macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is without a doubt a fact. We have no problems on that issue. However, macro-evolution is not a fact. 1. Were you here when life began? If not, then we are making our best guess at the very least. 2. How is it that 99%, if you don't believe this number ask a geneticist, of observed mutations (the mechanism by which macro-evolution is supposed to occur)result in damage and often death to the organism (See fruitfly experiments). This is a step DOWN the evolutionary ladder. 3. Mendel's experiments on flowers proved that DNA has a LIMITED variation capacity and once you reach its limit, well look up the word limit. Dog breeders can verify this point as well. 4. In order for even the most basic life forms, Bacteria, there must be both a right handed and a left handed amino acid for life. Coupled with the many pairs which have to come together PERFECTLY, the odds of such a thing happening is enormous let alone happening millions of times. 5. If your archy is a transitional form, then it should be evidence that there may be more transitional forms out there. Well, we have collected thousands upon thousands of fossils since Darwin's time and yet this creature (possibly a prehistoric example of a platapus type of creature with a variety of traits associated with other animals) is your only hope? Oh yeah, piltdown man, opps a deliberate fraud or Nabraska man, opps, a pig, or .... Why is it that these supposedly unbiased scientists are faking evidence if the evidence is so apparent? 6. Why do we find fully formed complex creatures in pre-cambrian rock with no transitional forms? Can you answer these questions straight forwardly or are you going to avoid the questions by talking about my lack of scientific knowledge? This is a serious question.

But, I am right.

Yes, we can answer your questions straightforwardly ... but I for one will not answer any except the one that is relevant to this topic. No, we've got thousands and thousands and thousands of transitional fossils; Archy's just one of the best known, and it's impressive. Of course, in a sense, every fossil is a transitional.Some of the many, many, many other fossils that are obviously transitional forms are the many whale fossils, the thousands of hominid fossils, snails, Foraminiferida, and on and on and on ...Sad to say, that and your other questions do reveal extreme ignorance about the subjects of your questions, and they do reveal the nature of the sources of what little you think you know. See CA221: Were you there? , CB101: Most mutations harmful?, CB010: Probability of Abiogenesis, and CC300: Cambrian Explosion.

"Yes, we can answer your questions straightforwardly ... but I for one will not answer any except the one that is relevant to this topic.""No, we've got thousands and thousands and thousands of transitional fossils; Archy's just one of the best known, and it's impressive. Of course, in a sense, every fossil is a transitional."The other questions are relevent because if it is shown that these transitions CAN NOT EVEN OCCUR in the first place, then to talk about Archy is irrelevent. I suspect you aren't answering the other questions because you know the falsify your claims. Real science, the scientific method by nature is negative. In order to prove a proposition true is by trying to prove it false. If it can not be proven false, it is reasonable to assume it true. Evolution from the get-go fails this test. We are yet to observe the spontaneous generation that would have been necessary for the non-living matter that makes up our reality to change into living matter. There are countless experiments which have shown evolution false. Yet, evolutionists are blind to this because they have set out to prove their theory true instead of false. When they do this, wow, they just happen to find EXACTLY WHAT THEY LOOK FOR, like Archy. Suprise, suprise. Finally, and oddly this proves my point, you are seeing a transitional form in Archy because that is what you want to see. If this were not the case, then your own camp of evolutionists wouldn't be arguing about whether it is bird or reptile.
P.S. Try http://www.trueorigin.org/ for truth instead of talk.This message has been edited by ex libres, 05-26-2004 12:47 PMThis message has been edited by ex libres, 05-26-2004 12:48 PM

First, one very important point.How life originated is totally immaterial to Evolution. That is a whole different subject for a different thread.You make a statement ... but then use as justification the fact that no one yet has shown a way to generate living matter from non-living matter.That has nothing to do with Evolution and so simply doesn't matter. It really is irrelevant. Also, it is very likely that within a decade or two, it will be proven to be false.You go on to say ... but offer no supporting data. That is called an assertion and it is simply not evidence.Most of the posters here are pretty familar with trueorigin.com and infact, many of the Evolutionists here probably are far more familar with it than the Creationists.If you can find some data to back up your assertions, we will all be happy to discuss that data with you. The best recomendation I can make at this time is to find what you believe to be one strong argument that might disprove TOE. Come back and propose a thread on that argument. Test it and see if it can be supported.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Populist RNA-World Propaganda
A pro-evolution booklet called Science and Creationism, recently released on the Internet by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),[1] summarized the origin of life section as follows:

​

‘For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells.’ [2]

​

No one disputes the existence of living organisms on earth, and that cells indeed are capable of using simple building blocks to generate the required complex biochemicals at the necessary time, location and concentration. The question is whether the massive co-ordination of the metabolic processes which perform such feats could have arisen without intelligent guidance and driven by only statistical and thermodynamic constraints.

---

Ok I'll take this quote on from the Safarit article in your link. The problem as I see it lies in the ordering textually of "metabolic" adjective, "guidance" verb, and "statistics" as a noun for whatever in heaven and Earth "buliding blocks" mean. I HAVE NEVER thought scietifically about my toddler play toys. What I dont understand is why modern science does not use the "black body" of Newton in some statistical mechanics. If it did there would have to be a human artificer to create such a science of nature and depending on how such survives economically (if) there might be room for continued religous worship but I have not outside my own ideas been able to see how to resolve this if one does not first understand the equilibrium posistion of Gladyshev.I have ideas on "time". I would like to hear a second opnion on what is the "necessary" time. Time in a lineage of human panmictic splitting of an EFFECTIVE Population number? Or will we always be debating if the numeration per noun verb adjective is not effective nor efficient??

You still haven't answered my other questions. And when you get down to it, spontaneous generation is exactly what you MUST believe in if you believe in macro-evolution. So, stop avoiding the glaring fact that evolution has lost, if it ever had, its legs. Join the 21st century and look at new advances in science and how they have shed light on many of evolutionist theories.

The other subjects were not on this topic. Please try to stick to the issue of whether or not there are transitional fossils.TTBOMK, several people have answered that part of your message.If you want to wander off subject, please propose a new thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

"TrueCreation,Please examine the very first post, which established this thread.
The evidence HAS been posted. Once you have viewed the images I took the trouble to post, please tell us what you see, perhaps a brief analysis. No one expects you to post a dissertation on these fossils - just look at them and tell us how it compares to known, modern organisms."I'll answer this. I've examined the first post. Here is what I see. BONES. These are bones, I have bones, apes have bones, therefore, I must be an ape or a picture of bones. This is how it compares to known modern organisms.

You still haven't answered my questions and I think I know why. Perhaps you truely do not see that my questions are domminoes leading up to the topic, so again, they are relative. Perhapes you still believe your evolution fairy tale because you only look at a piece of the puzzle rather than the puzzle as a whole. Answer my questions or i will assume Christian 1 Evolutionist 0.

Assume away, Cliff.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion