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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So, how do Young Earth Creationists explain this evidence ?"
--I was hoping I wouldn't get myself in too many more topics. But what I've found is that all the transitionals that scientists would be to propose by common descent of humans is they are either apes, unusual apes, or their human. Which one doesn't fit into one of these catagories?

---

​

Here's my absolute all-time favorite quiz, TC. Why don't you tell US which one's ape, near-ape, human, near-human? Good luck.

​

---

Check out this site. This will help you understand some of the misconceptions and lies evolutionist use to push the fossil record. http://www.jackcuozzo.comOh, and please don't even start with the horse evolution. That was proven wrong 40 years ago.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.htmlThe absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages... has been a persistent and nagging,, problem for evolution.Dr. Stephen J. Gould Evolution Now p140. Professor at Harvard University in Boston.In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found — yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.Raup, David M. Evolution and the fossil record. Science vol 213 (july 17, 1981) p 289.This one below was written in a response to someone asking Paterson why he didn't include transitional fossils in the fossil record. As I understand it Paterson has the largest fossil collection in the world.I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossilDr. Colin Paterson. Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin’s Enigma p89

​

[This message has been edited by redstang281, 02-22-2002]

Why not talk about that nice picture of transitionals before claiming they don't exist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

This one below was written in a response to someone asking Paterson why he didn't include transitional fossils in the fossil record. As I understand it Paterson has the largest fossil collection in the world.

​

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossils or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil

​

Dr. Colin Paterson. Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History in correspondence to Luther Sunderland quoted in Darwin’s Enigma p89

---

I'm so glad someone mentioned Colin Patterson (sic). For two reasons:1. He is very relevant to the discussion of transitional forms because of his "transformed cladist" approach - that paleontological evidence is not suitable for discerning evidence of ancestry, only relatedness. For example, the fine photo examples of transitional forms aleady given in this thread would be seen as all related, but not descended from one another.
His attitude to inferential evidence, as a classical Humean skeptic, is rigorous and elegant: "Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no. There is no way to answer the question."
But the application of his inferential logic has no comfort whatsoever for Creationists, unless you use it in a disingenuous, even dishonest manner, such as "I'll use Patterson's attack on inferential evidence when it suits me to knock evidence for evolution, but I'll fall back on heavily inferential reasoning to support Intelligent Design or Special Creation."
2. Patterson is a fine example of how wrong Creationists are about another issue. Darwinism or neo-Darwinism is indeed the scientific orthodoxy of the day, but scientists who hold opposing views can still work in the field and rise to senior positions in the scientific community. Darwinism and the evidence on which Darwinism is based is not unchallenged. Palaeontology is a field full of personal and philosophical controversies: the rigorous and fierce scrutiny that follows every new hominid fossil is ongoing proof that such as issues as radiocarbon dating, transitionals etc are not just meekly accepted by a smug elite of Darwinists - every date, every fragment bone is subject to a level of intense review that few fields of science can equal.Finally, lets have a little quote from Mr Patterson: "No doubt other revolutions are in store, and whether we choose to follow Popper's or Kuhn's understanding of science, the one lesson we can learn from both these thinkers is that today's theory of evolution is unlikely to be the whole truth. Yet today's neo-Darwinian theory, with all its faults, is still the best that we have. It is a fruitful theory, a stimulus to thought and research, and we should accept it until someone thinks of a better one."

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-22-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 02-22-2002]

Not only have you failed to address the evidence but you have reduced to abject lies and misrepresentations. It’s one thing to argue from authority, it’s quite another to misquote, lie about, and misrepresent the supposed authority. Evolutionist lies LOL.BTW: What is it about creationists and authority? Must have something to do with the witnessing instead of evidentiary nature of their belief system.As far as Stephen Gould goes, this particular quote has been refuted so many times even AiG won't use it anymore. Here's a couple of more germane, in context, quotes from Dr. Gould:

quote:

---

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists whether through design or stupidity, I do not know as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
"Evolution as Fact and Theory," Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1994, p. 260

---

.

quote:

---

The anatomical transition from reptiles to mammals is particularly well documented in the key anatomical change of jaw articulation to hearing bones. Only one bone, called the dentary, builds the mammalian jaw, while reptiles retain several small bones in the rear portion of the jaw. We can trace, through a lovely sequence of intermediates, the reduction of these small reptilian bones, and their eventual disappearance or exclusion from the jaw, including the remarkable passage of the reptilian articulation bones into the mammalian middle ear (where they became our malleus and incus, or hammer and anvil). We have even found the transitional form that creationists often proclaim inconceivable in theory for how can jawbones become ear bones if intermediaries must live with an unhinged jaw before the new joint forms? The transitional species maintains a double jaw joint, with both the old articulation of reptiles (quadrate to articular bones) and the new connection of mammals (squamosal to dentary) already in place! Thus, one joint could be lost, with passage of its bones into the ear, while the other articulation continued to guarantee a properly hinged jaw. Still, our creationist incubi, who would never let facts spoil a favorite argument, refuse to yield, and continue to assert the absence of all transitional forms by ignoring those that have been found, and continuing to taunt us with admittedly frequent examples of absence.
"Hooking Leviathan by Its Past," Dinosaur in a Haystack: Reflections in Natural History, New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1997, pp. 360-361.

---

I think that pretty well takes care of any lingering doubts about one of the two foremost modern writers on evolution.Additional Gould quotes available here.As for the Raup quote (although I haven’t found the actual quote to see what was left out), it should be understood that Dr. Raup is a specialist in extinctions. He accepts Darwinian evolution a la punctuated equilibrium. He is principally known for insisting that all major and minor extinctions are caused by impact events (a theory which is in dispute). Raup has argued that the statistics of species diversity during the Proterozoic, for example, are consistent with the hypothesis that all mass extinctions, large and small, are due to impact. The quote needs to be understood in context of the continuing argument by the PE adherents (Gould, etc), vs the strict gradualists — and not as a scientist arguing against evolution.Although Mr. P has pretty much covered Dr. Patterson, I would like to complete the alleged quote so readers can see it in context.

quote:

---

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."
-- Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History.

---

The quote is indeed taken from a letter from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland. The purpose of the letter was to protest Sunderland’s misrepresentation of Patterson’s position. The next few sentences are:

quote:

---

... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.

---

So, what Patterson is saying is that perhaps modern birds descended from the species Archaeopteryx, or perhaps they descended from a cousin species. He just doesn't know how to prove which is the case. Therefore, he refuses to make a claim he can't fully back up. BTW: Over the last 20 years since Patterson wrote this, substantial additional evidence has been found — so much so that, if Dr. Patterson were alive, he would find himself much more inclined to accept the evidence for Archeopteryx.For additional commentary, see this site.Lying for god doesn't help the creationist cause. OTOH, keep it up: the more your transparent deception is revealed, the less credible is the whole creationist argument.

Please refrain from characterizing your co-debaters responses as lies. Pointing out the problems in their arguments should be sufficient.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Please refrain from characterizing your co-debaters responses as lies. Pointing out the problems in their arguments should be sufficient.

​

--Percy

---

In general, I concur wholeheartedly. On the other hand, how would you personally characterize the deliberate misrepresentation of the "authorities" quoted?

I think some people have better nonsense detectors, some have better science educations, some have better religious educations, some have better common sense, but I think few people knowingly lie and misrepresent here. But even if someone is lying, accusing them of it is not often going to be productive.I encourage people here to focus on the weaknesses in their opponents positions rather than the motivations and intentions behind them.--Percy

Hi, Redstang!I think we're all still wondering why you persist in providing out-of-context quotes of evolutionists expressing beliefs they clearly do not hold. If they really believed what your quotes make them appear to be saying then Creationism must have replaced evolution long ago. But they don't and it hasn't.You also have to answer a larger question. If evolutionists are really perpetuating the theory through a 150 year old conspiracy of lies and distortions, how do they agree on which made-up "story" is the one they'll all support?A much deeper question is why? Evolutionists are Christians, Moslems and Hindus, theists and atheists, believers and agnostics, yet they all believe the earth is 4.56 billion years old and that all life on earth is descended from one or a few original organisms. Why would all these different groups conspire secretly and successfully for over a century? What is it they gain from this? And how could it be done anyway?One of the most important requirements in solving a mystery is establishing a motive, and so far you don't have one. No evolutionist thinks that accepting evolution will bring spiritual rewards in the afterlife, so that's not it.The reason there's such unanimity about evolution is because it has a factual foundation. Simply mining Creationist websites for quotes isn't going to change that.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:

Oh, and please don't even start with the horse evolution. That was proven wrong 40 years ago.

---

It wasn't disproven, it has been revised however. Hypohippus, Anchitherium, Archeohippus, Hippidium, & Hipparion (& related genera) are no longer inferred in the direct line of Hyracotherium-Equus lineage.Why not try to explain the vestigial toes in ALL modern horse embryos, & occasionally, modern horses?Mark

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
It wasn't disproven, it has been revised however. Hypohippus, Anchitherium, Archeohippus, Hippidium, & Hipparion (& related genera) are no longer inferred in the direct line of Hyracotherium-Equus lineage.

​

Why not try to explain the vestigial toes in ALL modern horse embryos, & occasionally, modern horses?

​

Mark

---

Not all modern horses born have vestigial extra toes, but they all have vestigial tarsal bones (splint bones) on the medial and lateral sides of the main lower leg bone (coffin bone).They articulate at their tops with the knee joint, and are connected to the cannon bone below that with only soft tissue. (Why would a non-weightbearing bone need to articulate a joint?) The medial (inside) splint bones on the front legs are easily injured by blunt trauma; the other front hoof strikes the thin, sensitive bone and causes pain and inflammation which leads to partial calcification and fusion of the splint to the cannon. Concussion can also cause inflammation and may also lead to calcification. "Popped splints" are common in young horses, age 1-4.Sometimes, the calcification in older horses wnds up being so extensive that it interferes with the tendons and ligaments in the leg, rendering the horse lame, and sometimes requiring sugical removal of the roughened splint bone.Now, why would a creature which never had other toes, and was specially-designed, have all of this stuff in it's design, and also why would it be designed with this vulnerable weakness?

Percy: Point taken (and excellent example, btw).I fear I tend to become a bit, err, dogmatic when the exact same misquotation is rehashed over and over and over - in spite of being thoroughly refuted innumerable times - occasionally for decades. Especially when the quotation is specifically designed to illustrate an obvious distortion (i.e., the Evil Global Evolutionist Conspiracy (TM)).Specific knowledge of a subject area aside, common sense in any reasonably intelligent person (which redstang assuredly is), would lead one to question a seemingly contradictory statement such as these (and most of the other quotes in the famous "Revised Quote Book" from which the above were lifted). After all, why in the world would Stephen Gould, a paleontologist who has devoted his life's work to evolution, who invented the theory of punctuated equilibrium as a mechanism for evolution, who is one of the foremost writers on Darwinian evolution, and whose primary beef with biologists rests on his disagreement with strict gradualism (and not evolution), even be considered as someone denying the facts of the science he has made his life's work? If you read a one-line quote from the Cardinal of New York that somehow seem to indicate he was denying the existence of god, it would behoove you to question the validity of the quotation - regardless of your particular belief system.The only ways in which such quotations could be taken at face value are:
1) the reader is ignorant;
2) the reader accepts the quotation, and because it matches his/her worldview, is willing to perpetuate it without question;
3) the reader is deliberately attempting to deceive.Since 1 and 2 require either blind faith or lack of intelligence (or both), which is NOT the case with redstang, only number 3 seems to apply.I will attempt to use your example methodology in future rebuttals of this type of post. Still, it is very frustrating...

Hi Quetzal!

---

Quetzal writes:
The only ways in which such quotations could be taken at face value are:

1. the reader is ignorant;
2. the reader accepts the quotation, and because it matches his/her worldview, is willing to perpetuate it without question;
3. the reader is deliberately attempting to deceive.

---

Well, we're all ignorant, it just varies depending on the topic. I think what you're really getting at is that people shouldn't make claims that reach beyond the extent of their knowledge. In Redstang's case, he makes claims based not upon his own authority and knowledge, but upon what he trusts to be authority and knowledge standing behind the information at the Creationist websites he favors.

---

I will attempt to use your example methodology in future rebuttals of this type of post. Still, it is very frustrating...

---

Well, I don't want to tell people what methodology to use, so maybe I went to far. Please use your own methods, just please also follow the guidelines.The debate can become very repetitive. I think people would be well advised to be prepared to patiently re-explain their evidence and arguments, even with the same person. Heck, especially with the same person. Everything doesn't sink in all at once. Oftentimes it helps to come back to a previous point.Effecting a change of mind is an exceeding slow process, and on a polarizing topic like Creation/Evolution it happens but rarely. Those on both sides of this debate have to take a realistic view of the possible outcomes of their efforts here. Before you can plant a seed you have to prepare the soil. After you've spent a month discussing a topic with someone, if you've gotten through the "prepare the soil" stage then you've gone a long ways and should feel well-satisfied. And if you plant a seed, wow! And if something sprouts, well then, "Hallelujah!"--Percy

​

[This message has been edited by Percipient, 02-23-2002]

I re-worked my reading of Croizat based on the image NOVA presented about trasition (this week TV) that really only told of RED HILL and did not find that the cladistics was supported but rather that it (the produced show) led to the loss of teaching of projective geometry. This need not have been the produced case if the herpetology was less loose and more continuous with right rather than female choice of Fisher's choice that he only went so far as to "completely" disagree with Wright.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
I think we're all still wondering why you persist in providing out-of-context quotes of evolutionists expressing beliefs they clearly do not hold. If they really believed what your quotes make them appear to be saying then Creationism must have replaced evolution long ago. But they don't and it hasn't.

---

I'm not sure how any of those quotes can be explained in any other context other than their obvious meanings. Oh, and the reasons why creationism hasn't replaced evolutionISM could fill a book. I'm certain the largest reason is because many people don't want there to be a God. Evolution provides them with an alternative. As for christians who believe in evolution? Those are just people who have been indoctrinated into believe evolution is fact, or people who believe God *has* to perform his work in a way that we can understand(evolution.) Neither of which is true. [b] [QUOTE]You also have to answer a larger question. If evolutionists are really perpetuating the theory through a 150 year old conspiracy of lies and distortions, how do they agree on which made-up "story" is the one they'll all support? [/b][/QUOTE]They don't agree. Because of the lack of transitional fossils, some evolutionist believe in immediate evolution, ie "the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg." While others believe in slow progressive evolution while maintaining the belief that transitional fossils will be found. The quotes I have given cite examples of evolutionists actually looking at the big picture. [b] [QUOTE]One of the most important requirements in solving a mystery is establishing a motive, and so far you don't have one. No evolutionist thinks that accepting evolution will bring spiritual rewards in the afterlife, so that's not it.[/b][/QUOTE]Well if evolution is true it helps people think the bible is wrong, right? So that would mean liberation from biblical rules. [b] [QUOTE]The reason there's such unanimity about evolution is because it has a factual foundation. Simply mining Creationist websites for quotes isn't going to change that.[/b][/QUOTE]It's ok to have a theory based on observed science. It's not ok to force it upon everyone when it's unsubstantiated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Why not talk about that nice picture of transitionals before claiming they don't exist?

---

Even if the fossils are not in question, the interpretation still remains.There is a variety of skulls in human population today and we're all human.I can line up all the pens on my desk in order from smallest to biggest, but that doesn't prove they evolved from an eraser.