Dr Inadequte writes: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, I think intermediate forms are going to mess up any attempt to divide things into "kinds". Consider the fish-amphibian sequence. At some point you're going to have to draw a dividing line between fish and amphibians, let's say for example somewhere between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega, and announce that one is the "fish kind" and the other is the "amphibian kind". But the problem is that Tiktaalik has more in common with Acanthostega then it does with, say, a goldfish, and Acanthostega has more in common with Tiktaalik than it does with, say, a frog. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dou you have any fossil evidences that show parts of fish(internal or external) gradualy developed into parts of amphibians (internal or external)? In general science say that fish recieve sound through thier bodies,yet amphibians like frogs and toads have eardrums.Is there any fossil fish that showed thier parts slowly become parts of the amphibians? As I see the way you express things are very lacking you are just disscussing the thoughs of those proponents of evolution.Just a friendly reminder learn to analyse the things you read,instead of digesting them directly tried ti criticized.
O2 is not stable and it is continuously replenished by photosynthesis. On planets without life, there is no O2 in the atmosphere. On Earth O2 it is believed that O2 originated as a waste product from photosynthesis. So O2 did indeed originate with the first plant-like organisms (in this case, photosynthetic bacteria
The idea that the primative atmosphere was reducing is just an assupmtion scientist are not really sure that the earth had a reducing atmosphere when it was form no direct evidence had yet been found.
Still, if we move the creation back to 2 Ga (billion years), we still have to make the O2. So maybe the first bacteria and archaea were created ~4 Ga, and then these other creatures were created 2 Ga. Other than conflicting with the fossil record (and not being the most elegant of theories), it wouldn't be that bad an idea.
This one is circular reasoning . This idea is based on that because rocks are billion years sold organism too are billion yearsold. It is like saying that some organism occured at the same timewith rocks.
You should really pay attention to what is being said to you.
Iam,paying that is why I was able to asked excellent question.
You asked if there is a fossil showing a mix of fish and amphibian qualities. You asked that in response to a post that included BOTH fossils that you were looking for, yet you ignored it and asked for it again
And what is your evidence the lung fish? Can you really derive amphibians(like,frogs, toads) from lung fish? Current evidence today are saying thatlungfish are just another member of fish family.
Tiktaalik represents an intermediate form between fish and amphibians. Unlike many previous, more fishlike transitional fossils, Tiktaalik's 'fins' have basic wrist bones and simple fingers, showing that they were weight bearing. Close examination of the joints show that although they probably were not used to walk, they were more than likely used to prop up the creature’s body, push up fashion. The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets, suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint. These wrist-like features would have helped anchor the creature to the bottom in fast moving current. Also notable are the spiracles on the top of the head, which suggest the creature had primitive lungs as well as gills. This would have been useful in shallow water, where higher water temperature would lower oxygen content. This development may have led to the evolution of a more robust ribcage, a key evolutionary trait of land living creatures. The more robust ribcage of Tiktaalik would have helped support the animal’s body any time it ventured outside a fully aquatic habitat. Tiktaalik also lacked a characteristic that most fishes have - bony plates in the gill area that restrict lateral head movement. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck. This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.
In Late Devonian vertebrate speciation, descendants of pelagic lobe-finned fish – like Eusthenopteron – exhibited a sequence of adaptations:
Panderichthys, suited to muddy shallows.
Tiktaalik with limb-like fins that could take it onto land.
Early tetrapods in weed-filled swamps, such as: Acanthostega which had feet with eight digits. Ichthyostega with limbs.
Descendants also included pelagic lobe-finned fish such as coelacanth species.Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, they serve as proof that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. The mixture of both fish and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:
Fish: fish gills fish scales
"Fishapod": half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region
Tetrapod: tetrapod rib bones tetrapod mobile neck tetrapod lungs
What a wishful speculations and boundless optimsm! Do you think your bounless optism would turned those primative fish into amphibians? You showed nothing what type of mechanism turn those things.If you only tell me that primative fish somehow become amphibians and amphibians become mammals and mammals become humans, tnat is not impresive,because you are unable to provide a basic meahanism that are responsible for there transformation,only your boundless optimsm and wishful speculations.
Just a bit of advise, you shouldn't be so arrogant when you show such clear signs of being ignorant on this subject.
Actually, Im notignorant of this subject butI guess you are.
The alternative to this interpretation of the evidence is that organisms can bury themselves inside rocks. While some bacteria might be able to get inside rocks to some extend, I don't think an organism like a fish is going to manage to swim through solid rock. So, when you find a fossil fish, what is more likely, that the fish is at least as old as the rock, or that the rock is old and the fish is recent?
The book THE WORLD WE LIVE IN stated that"for at least three quarters of the book of age engraved inthe earth crustthe pages are blank"
The question therefore. How can we determine the ages of those organism if those first billion years are blank pages in the history? Just a reminder of my point that you failed to grasp; Im not talking of fish swimming of those rocks but Im talking of organism that as old of those rocks.
According to the theory of evolution, primitive fish evolves to modern fish by random mutation and natural selection.
Oh, I know that. But today the fantastic creative creative power of natural selection is seriously question. In facin 2001 scientist from Yale, MIT, and Rice issued a document questioning the creative power of natuarl selection. Developmental biologist Scott Gilbert argued that natural selection explained the " survival not the arrival of the fittest"
It has been established in molecular genetics that random mutations do not just consist of point mutations in an otherwise static volume of DNA, but also of duplication, transposition, and deletion of whole chunks of DNA, thereby enlarging or shrinking a volume of DNA to any possible size
So do you mean that mutation was responsible for bringing up those "complex coherent molecular systems of many proteins which fill the cell". That is interesting because mutation is a process that break genes so easily. A process that break genes so easily is very hard to believe as responsible of bringing up the organization,elegance, simplicity,complexeties which we observe in life. In fact research show that out of 1000 mutation only 1 did it hit their proper target. But here you are talking of multiple mutations, so if reconsider the history of life evolution take a very path than Darwin provide. In fact it had been show that if life requires multiple mutation the problem become" exponentially worse"
The point is that random mutation and natural selection, in the long run, are able to change a genome of any length and composition to another genome of a completely different length and composition. This means that there is no invisible barrier beyond which lifeforms cannot evolve.
The Law of recurrent variation show that organism " has real boundaries". The idea behind this is that organism just re- occur no new form is observed. As I already pointed out, natural selection is seriously question,so it no help to your position now.
You acknowledge the existence of primitive fish (as opposed to modern fish, I suppose). So, if you think evolution is false, then what mechanism do you propose transforms primitive fish into modern fish? And why do you think this process of transformation is limited, and how is it so?
Oh, I did not acknowledged that. My point is there is no primative fish as what Darwin desribe them, and I did not believe that there is another form of evolution that governed the transition,but I believe that fish were " specially created" . There is no transformation of organism and that is what the law of recurrent variation states.
Mentioning the "fish family" betrays at least some ignorance with respect to biological classification, which does not bode well for your knowledge of other subjects regarding evolution. It's up to you prove me wrong
Are classifications of organism provide the evidence that they evolved? Linneus was able to classify organism but he did not believe that they evolved, he only classified them. This reasoning is like saying because cars was arranged according to there forms and because some forms are similar,therefore they evolved randomly. You are wrong for sticking to unwarranted presumption like believing that natural selection could create those organism.
Well, I guess you just dont want to read things that are inconflict with your beliefs,and dont worry you are not alone some proponents of evolution omit evidence that arte inconflict with their beliefs. In other words guilty of omission. And there dishonesty is extraordinary.
Actually the fact that some proponents of evolution(i.e. Gould, Eldridge, propose punctuated equlibrium to "explain the lack of transitional link") are saying that there are no transitional forms are good proof that I was able to asked excellent question .
You asked for a fossil that was an intermediate form between fish and amphibians, you asked that question in a reply to a post that gave you the intermediate fossils that you were requesting
Let me give you some scientific reference that are saying there is no transitional forms. A book a view of life written by three evolutionist Salvador LuRIA ,Stephen jay Gould and Sam Singer, states that "fossil records are full of trends that paleontologists have been unable to explained" what confounded them is the fact that organism suddenly appeared and "remained virtually unchanged" Also the New evolutionary time table states "that the fossil record reveales surprising things about our biological origins."So, if you keep on sticking to your unwarranted presumption you are now againts to those scientist of your same psychological status.
Now, either you don't actually care to see the fossils or you don't think it represents an intermediate form. If you don't think it does represent an intermediate form, then explain why, and be specific
Actually I care. The simple reason is that some scientist say that there is and some say scientist they dont exist is a good proof that I do really care,the only differnce between us is that Im not as faithful as you.
What is it about that fossil that I linked for you that you feel does not represent an intermediate form between fish and amphibian?
Simple the fact that many things that has been considered as evidence for evolution has been disproven.I.e. lung fish.
Here is the fossil THAT YOU REQUESTED...again: Tiktaali
Here's the quote...again
Yeah,you have the quote and Miller have the picture of macro evolution. The question therfore we should raise is (Are they really happening?).The NAS brochure say that there are many intermediate "forms between fish and amphibians", but they dont find any support from the fossil record.
I'm not going to reply to your ridiculous questions, however, are you saying that humans are not mammals?
On the ground only that they used mammary glands.
Perhaps, but you have failed to show how and where I'm being ignorant
After reading my criticism I hope that you will realized that you are.
This is the abstract of Gilbert's publication that I found on the site of PubMed
Yeah, and any statement that againts your beliefs is in favor of your beliefs. How about the 100 scientist that I mention?
It shows that Gilbert's ideas fall well within the Darwinian paradigm. As usual, creationists and ID-ists have latched onto this idea and ripped it right out of its context. It pays to go to the source, traste
No! It doesnt,given that he said natural selection explain the "survival not the arrival of the fittest". Therefore he is inconflict with his self.
Quite so. But it just as easily creates whole copies of genes which are subsequently altered by more mutations
That process is not really good, infact astronomer Carl Sagan once said mutation is "lethal".
Hard to believe" doesn't cut it. It's also hard to believe that a man on a stage can saw a girl in half, and have her dart around the stage in one piece a minute later. It's hard to believe until you know how the trick is done, which suggests it might be a good idea to study the magic of Darwinian evolution before you declare it "hard to believe".
Are mutations producing anything new? The famous experiment on fruitfly drosophila melanogaster did not produce anything new,the fruitly remained a fruitfly. In fact modern research show that they have no significant effect on the creature only on their owners.
The magic we observe today (in responds of your second sentence),can be observe directly and can be proven that the trick is indeed done. Why compare proven things to unproven things.? As you said it is also "hard to believe that a man on stage can saw a girl in half" until ethe magician reveals his or her trick. Therefore in evolution who represents the magician? Mutation? Does mutation reveals it trick to you and not to others(i.e. Dean Kenyon,who said that biochemical evolution was undocumented).
This so-called "law of recurrent variation" is pure invention in aid of creationist/ID-ist arguing. It has no scientific standing whatsoever.
Actually Im, not surprise that you reasct in this manner, this the way proponents of evolution behave whenever they encounter any scientifc laws that are inconflict with their beliefs. The law of recurrent is not a "so- called law" it well established that organism has real boundaries and they canot go beyond that boundaries.
You're not paying attention. I was merely saying that you don't know what you're talking about, and it shows. For your information: in Linnean classification fish are a class, in modern taxonomy things are a little more complicated. In any case, fish are not, as you suggested, a family.
Some science professor are saying that fish is indeed a family.
If intellectual men will list the history of fraud science evolution will be on the top.
Even IF Sagan were qualified to say this, I call bullshit on this one. Give me the complete source, or admit you were lying.
You can call bullshit anything you like, I will not hold you. Why should I give you the complete source if after all you just call them bullshit for the simple reason that you dont like?
No. The fruitly doesnt became anything new,or you just have poor sight that is why you say that.
You really don't know what evolution is all about, do you?
No. But I guess you dont. It predicts that over period of time an organism will become into something new, but as we observed the fruitly remained a fruitly ,hence it violates the prediction.
Stop lying. There were many effects on the fruitflies, including new species.
I am happy if you can give me one.
Same with evolutions.
Evidence will do better than words.
I don't know, you keep bringing up creationsism, not us.
This op is all about a logical account of creation,hence it is only right and proper to bring the issue of creationism here.
[qs]There exists no scientific law that contradicts evolution. Stop lying[q/qs]
Why not research about the law of recurrent variation so that you will know. I will not bother myself to point to you where those boundaries if after all you just ignore it, because you dont like to see it.
Actually, it will probably be creationsim.
The fact that evolution cannot explained how those complexities came about by natural selection is a good proof that evolution is a fraud science.
You are lying: in that respect he is in agreement with himself and every other biologist in the world.
In his abstract he wrote that natural selection pruducing anything new ,while on that quote he said that natural doesnt produce anything new. Is he in agreement with his self? Or you simply dont understand.
You are lying. This is why you cannot quote him saying any such thing.
That is real.
You are lying, as anyone familiar with the thousands of experiments on fruit flies will be well aware.
Serious scientist are saying they doesnt produce anything new,only stupid ones.
You are lying. This is why you cannot cite this imaginary "modern research".
That is not imaginary that is real, I will not bother myself to show you those modern research because they are very obvious. Did you not see them.?
The lies of the notorious creationist fraud Dean Kenyon do not constitute evidence.
You claimed that you have a Ph.D degree in math,but this type of reasoning is childish this is something that a Ph.D degree holder must not posses. Actually he is not noturious given that he said that he is a very "much Darwinist" back then in fact he co authored the book biochemical predestination which influenced many proponents of evolution(maybe including you). But as he examined the evidence he found out that it is inconsistent with Darwin's prediction that is the real reason that he give is hhis evolutionary beliefs. He also found out that noprotein can assemblle with out the help from genetic information.
You are lying. This is why you can produce no evidence for these imaginary boundaries.
Feel free to research about the law of recurrent variation and then come back so that we can talk the matter. But Iam afraid you cannot do that for the simple reason that you are not concern of any evidences that are inconflict with your beliefs. For you all evidences that are fatal to your beliefs are just nothing but lies. So. Why should I show you.?
... says the habitual liar.
These words are excellent description of you and those people who believe in evolution.
Let's hear from some actual intellectual men.
No! They aren't. The fact is they are actual liar. Given that many scientist disagree with them.
Gould and Eldridge were talking about transitionals at the level of speciation not at higher levels. They have/had no problem with transitionals between higher groups like orders and classes. Eg. from fish to amphibian or reptile to mammal
Gould and Eldridge are paleontologist ,they are both expers on seashell fossils they formulated punctuated equlibrium for the simple reason that,they found no transitional forms between shells,not as what you had suggested. Regarding the evolution of fish to amhibian and then from amphibian to reptile and finally from amphibian to mammal I will vbe very glad if you can show to me that transitional forms.(i.e. gills to lungs.)