Jump to content


Photo

Do Creationists Argue That The Fossil Order Goes From Simple To Complex?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2016 - 04:05 AM

At another forum someone raised an issue I thought might be worthy of a debate here, because I have noticed that the evolutionists at EFF forum seem to be more educated about creationists than at EvC forum.

 

Here one member, Dr Adequate says:http://www.evcforum....rol=msg&t=19182

 

 

DrA: Creationists are dimly aware that the fossil record exhibits order, although (as we shall see) they don't really know what this order consists of. In the creationist imagination, the fossil record has crude, primitive organisms at the bottom, and then as one works up through the sedimentary layers the organisms get progressively more sophisticated, complex, agile, intelligent, etc, culminating in the awesome wonder that is Man.

 

Notice he says, "as we shall see" but in order to prove his claim he has to show that creationists really argue this.

 

Here is what creation scientists have ACTUALLY said about earlier forms:

 

 

Creation scientist: Trilobites are mostly found in Cambrian rock3 which evolutionists claim was laid down hundreds of millions of years ago. Most people mistakenly think that these were much simpler creatures than today’s. This is actually not true. The aggregate eye, for example, reveals remarkably precise design. The details in the technical section below show us that this trilobite eye, far from being ‘primitive,’ was constructed on the basis of precise optical engineering principles which people only discovered a few centuries ago......(and) ..The fossilized arthropod was an extinct giant shrimp-like creature identified as Anomalocaris6 and described as having “at least 16,000 hexagonally packed ommatidial lenses (in a single eye), rivalling the most acute compound eyes in modern arthropods.”4 So, again, complexity and stasis—arthropods’ fully-functional eyes have always been that way.

 From: http://creation.com/...bite-technology

 

The reason I raise this issue here is because I myself have never known even one creationist to argue that the fossil record starts with "primitive" forms, or that only man is a, "wonder". One thing I would consider a "wonder" is the dragon-fly, which has remained unchanged and has no evolutionary ancestors. The aerodynamics of flight is also incredible. The insect wing is incredible, The earliest insect wings are fully insect-wings, and are found in very, "old" rock.

 

So my question is - do "creationists" argue what Dr A says we do? Further still, have you ever known even ONE creationist to argue what he says we argue?

 

(To be fair to the anti-theists at EvC forum I shall give them a link to this thread. I doubt they will join the discussion here even though they're welcome because at EFF forum you basically are forced by the admin, to remain civil, polite, and are not allowed to use the propagandist, rhetorical tricks, and personal ad-hominem attacks, that so many anti-theists seem to DEPEND on). 

,

Disclaimer: I am not attacking Dr A here, I just thought what he said was pretty bemusing, and perhaps we could discuss how primitive creatures are. My understanding of evolution is that a simple primordial form (though the least form has to be complex anyway) gave rise to all forms, so then under evolutionary-terminology, the monophyletic trunk of the phylogenetic tree then led to branching (diversification, when one isn't arguing convergification, LOL) and then the species at the tips are modern. This is rather bemusing again when we consider than you ARE allowed to call a trilobite, "primitive/ancient" but not a jellyfish if the jellyfish is found in similar-aged rocks. That is to say, AT FIRST you could not call a jellyfish, "ancient" then when they found them, now they are classed as, "primitive/ancient"

 

Which logically is ODD, because if an evolutionist says, BEFORE we found jellyfish fossils, "show me a modern jellyfish in the rocks" and I can't, when they are later found in older rocks, now he will say, "a jellyfish doesn't count, it is ancient".

 

Hmmmm. So we don't find any, "modern" forms in the rocks, and when we do I guess they are then classed as, "ancient". The question is, how many other "modern" forms are only silent. (not too long ago they found a living fossil, a pelican spider, presumed ancient and extinct) (we haven't found positive evidence of them, YET) -- but creationists wouldn't expect to find bunnies with marine-forms anyway folks, in case the evolutionists didn't know this, bunnies are not marine-creatures. ;)

:acigar:



#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2016 - 06:07 AM

Digging more into this whole, "primitive" or, "ancient" issue. Before we find species X as a fossil, it is assume they didn't live back then because they are silent. That is my point, the argument from silence is to deny the antecedent as shown here;

 

If X and P species are found in the same rocks of the same age then it follows they were both alive at that time.

If they are not found together they were not alive at the same time. (denial of antecedent - if x then y, not x therefore not y)

 

The error is obvious, imagine we had not yet found species X in ancient rock, but it is alive today, we conclude it did not live back then, and then we find it.

 

It's not so much whether we later find it or not, it's that denying the antecedent is a logical error.

 

The same error can be made with modern forms that are assumed to have gone extinct. We could argue that extinct species are not found as extant creatures that they never lived to be modern.

 

But try and follow this logic. If an ancient pine tree such as the wollemi pine is found in very old rock, and is also found to be extant but is not in any of the INBETWEEN layers, then all of that silence in those eras means nothing. Meaning that it could very well be that many extinct forms simply are not alive now but they were alive thousands of years ago and they simply are extinct now. 

 

So if we don't find trilobites in the cretacious or above, what does it really mean? You have to ASSUME evolutionary ages are true, by saying that trilobites have been extinct for vast eons simply because of modern-silence. But logically, they could have went extinct like the dingo, maybe 800 years ago, and left no trace. We know that the flesh on that T-rex was fresh enough for a macdonalds hamburger, but is there a rule saying that every extinct creature is only extinct if it is found as a fossil of immense age? For all we know the T-Rex or some other kind might have lived in a remote region as little as 500 years ago. (I am not claiming it did, I am just arguing technically true reasoning, that you can't prove it didn't just because of a lack of evidence.)



#3 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,247 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 30 June 2016 - 11:16 AM

Mike the wiz said:
 

 

At another forum someone raised an issue I thought might be worthy of a debate here, because I have noticed that the evolutionists at EFF forum seem to be more educated about creationists than at EvC forum.



Here one member, Dr Adequate says:http://www.evcforum....rol=msg&t=19182

DrA: Creationists are dimly aware that the fossil record exhibits order, although (as we shall see) they don't really know what this order consists of. In the creationist imagination, the fossil record has crude, primitive organisms at the bottom, and then as one works up through the sedimentary layers the organisms get progressively more sophisticated, complex, agile, intelligent, etc, culminating in the awesome wonder that is Man.



Notice he says, "as we shall see" but in order to prove his claim he has to show that creationists really argue this.



Here is what creation scientists have ACTUALLY said about earlier forms:

Creation scientist: Trilobites are mostly found in Cambrian rock3 which evolutionists claim was laid down hundreds of millions of years ago. Most people mistakenly think that these were much simpler creatures than today’s. This is actually not true. The aggregate eye, for example, reveals remarkably precise design. The details in the technical section below show us that this trilobite eye, far from being ‘primitive,’ was constructed on the basis of precise optical engineering principles which people only discovered a few centuries ago......(and) ..The fossilized arthropod was an extinct giant shrimp-like creature identified as Anomalocaris6 and described as having “at least 16,000 hexagonally packed ommatidial lenses (in a single eye), rivalling the most acute compound eyes in modern arthropods.”4 So, again, complexity and stasis—arthropods’ fully-functional eyes have always been that way.

From: http://creation.com/...bite-technology



The reason I raise this issue here is because I myself have never known even one creationist to argue that the fossil record starts with "primitive" forms, or that only man is a, "wonder". One thing I would consider a "wonder" is the dragon-fly, which has remained unchanged and has no evolutionary ancestors. The aerodynamics of flight is also incredible. The insect wing is incredible, The earliest insect wings are fully insect-wings, and are found in very, "old" rock.



So my question is - do "creationists" argue what Dr A says we do? Further still, have you ever known even ONE creationist to argue what he says we argue?



(To be fair to the anti-theists at EvC forum I shall give them a link to this thread. I doubt they will join the discussion here even though they're welcome because at EFF forum you basically are forced by the admin, to remain civil, polite, and are not allowed to use the propagandist, rhetorical tricks, and personal ad-hominem attacks, that so many anti-theists seem to DEPEND on).

Disclaimer: I am not attacking Dr A here, I just thought what he said was pretty bemusing, and perhaps we could discuss how primitive creatures are. My understanding of evolution is that a simple primordial form (though the least form has to be complex anyway) gave rise to all forms, so then under evolutionary-terminology, the monophyletic trunk of the phylogenetic tree then led to branching (diversification, when one isn't arguing convergification, LOL) and then the species at the tips are modern. This is rather bemusing again when we consider than you ARE allowed to call a trilobite, "primitive/ancient" but not a jellyfish if the jellyfish is found in similar-aged rocks. That is to say, AT FIRST you could not call a jellyfish, "ancient" then when they found them, now they are classed as, "primitive/ancient"

Which logically is ODD, because if an evolutionist says, BEFORE we found jellyfish fossils, "show me a modern jellyfish in the rocks" and I can't, when they are later found in older rocks, now he will say, "a jellyfish doesn't count, it is ancient".

Hmmmm. So we don't find any, "modern" forms in the rocks, and when we do I guess they are then classed as, "ancient". The question is, how many other "modern" forms are only silent. (not too long ago they found a living fossil, a pelican spider, presumed ancient and extinct) (we haven't found positive evidence of them, YET) -- but creationists wouldn't expect to find bunnies with marine-forms anyway folks, in case the evolutionists didn't know this, bunnies are not marine-creatures. ;)

[/quote]

Astute observations, Mike. When they use the word "imagiination" it is a conotation to our inate creativity which we can use to imagine anything, create it and make it true. Lol.

As we can all thi nk about our thinking as I encourage all of us to do t s possible that he could realize that he might be doing the same as he accuses us of doing. LOL

What he fails to understans is that "primitive' is an overlay because he has assumed evo is true (simple to more complex). As a creator we can design something smple and elegant or somethig complex like a computer. Neither do we hae to assign the biased word "primitive" to anything. LOL You correctly observed him expressing his bias. That's what God gave us a mind for. :)



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 June 2016 - 11:53 AM

 

 

Mike: What he fails to understans is that "primitive' is an overlay because he has assumed evo is true (simple to more complex). As a creator we can design something smple and elegant or somethig complex like a computer. Neither do we hae to assign the biased word "primitive" to anything. LOL You correctly observed him expressing his bias. That's what God gave us a mind for.

 

You are a wise gentlehobbit, Mike!  Yes, you're right Mike, sometimes I call these buz-words, "question begging epithets", which is what they are as you deduced.

 

I think another important point is that we can only reduce the cell so much before we start talking about a fictional primordial cell, which is only invoked to have existed on behalf of evo. Lol. (imagination)

 

What is a "creationist imagination" anyway, I would say I have no imagination compared to evolutionists, who seem to believe there could have been a transition between a quadruped and a pterosaur. One can only, "imagine" what such a transition would be. Perhaps those transitional species were fugacious vertebrate angiosperms, and the creature used it's elongated finger to stick into the ground 6 foot to absorb nutrients. ;) Or perhaps it was S@xual selection and they used that finger for picking their noses, which the females found attractive. 



#5 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 July 2016 - 02:58 AM

Oh don't tell me, don't tell me what the evos will say at EvC if they read that last post I made, let me guess; "Mike doesn't understand how evolution works."

 

Lol! (they always go for some form of ad-hominem attack in all of it's wonderful flavours and disguises). But please tell me - where are the transitionals, according to the actual definition of, "transition", for pre-pterosaurs and pre-bats, showing us the useful inbetween stages. :gotcha: 

 

If I don't understand evo, does that mean you are saying there were no inbetween stages, or transitionals? (a tear-jurkin' belly laughter!)

 

:farmer: 



#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 01 July 2016 - 01:20 PM

my most recent post refers to Mike Summers. (post number 211) (I like to tell the other side what I have said about them, if I say something or mention someone at EvC I will mention it to them at EvC and vice-versa.)

 

http://www.evcforum....=787038#m787038

 

As you can see, the personal attacks on the creationist, keep flooding in. :rolleyes: (I think they like to do it most when they think you are leaving the building. As soon as I turn to put my hand on the door knob, I feel several daggers enter my back. ;)



#7 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,242 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 03 July 2016 - 02:01 PM

If The Theory of Evolution in the Neodarwinian sense was true, there should indeed be a sequencing of "from simple to complex". 

In General the Genesis of Evolutionism makes several assumption. 
- Abiogenesis at an early stage

- Primitive life forms on a later. 
- Followed by barely developed life forms but more complex 

- Then Vertebrates
- With more complex vertebrates later.

- Finally humans. 

This is then should be somehow reflected in the layers. Since they believe that the lowest layers represent ages billions of years ago, higher hundreds of millions ago until they reach the present state. Funny enough one may find the remains of remarkably complex organisms in layers that are quite low. 

 

But expect some dodging and diving, when you debate this. 

 

(YE) Creationists generally believe that most (but not exclusively all, since there may have been other events of rapid burial) of the layers came into being during the Great Flood and that the fossils represent animals and plants that were somehow trapped in the mud within their habitat or a place they fled to. 

 

I think to debate this, one needs to have a look at the geologic literature. But bear in mind that the authors will have interpreted the evidence in the light of their paradigm, which they're taught at university and is part of the present pop culture, even if they usually don't admit to this openly.  



#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 July 2016 - 02:21 AM

Thanks Mark, some good views there. 

 

Yes, I also accept the global-flood like YECs. I don't really differ much from YECs, when you think about the term, "YEC" since it is only based on age it truly isn't a reason for creating two groups. That's why I don't feel comfortable when I say, "YECs say X", as though I am NOT a biblical Christian like them. The only difference between a YEC and me is that I am not dogmatic about the age of things. 

 

(I just wanted to explain that because at EvC forum I made a post saying I am not a YEC, which is technically true.)

 

I don't have a vast knowledge of geology but I don't believe the evos there do either. There are tell-tale signs of that in the things they reveal to me. They don't reveal those things to me on purpose but I observe them. So don't assume evo=expert. Usually they are only amateurs, when you ask for a PHD they can't provide one yet they tell us those with PHDs (creation scientists) are wrong.

 

Usually when that happens, what's really happening is that the amateur understanding of the evolutionist, makes them think problems are problems which true experts know aren't problems.

 

For example imagine a child said to me; "2 is a number", and I said, "it is an integer". She might say, "no, you're silly, 2 is a number".

 

That's a little bit like what happens at amateur debate boards, with evolutionists. They think they have found a complex reason that has creationists foxed. I have read this in the past, when I read a problem they pose, then I will go away and either ask a genuine scientist or search for literature of that posed-problem and it will 9 times out of 10 turn out to be that it was an OLD CANARD the evolutionist was arguing, that hasn't been a problem for about three decades, but because they are stuck on repeat with the old collection of 500 ad-nauseam P.R.A.T.Ts they argue, then they argue those old-canards as though they are hot off the press. LOL



#9 caffeine

caffeine

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 33
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Prague. CZ

Posted 04 July 2016 - 11:49 AM

The reason I raise this issue here is because I myself have never known even one creationist to argue that the fossil record starts with "primitive" forms, or that only man is a, "wonder". One thing I would consider a "wonder" is the dragon-fly, which has remained unchanged and has no evolutionary ancestors. The aerodynamics of flight is also incredible. The insect wing is incredible, The earliest insect wings are fully insect-wings, and are found in very, "old" rock.

 

This is a rather odd claim. Firstly, because there's no such thing as "the" dragonfly. There are a few thousand species of dragonfly known today; and there are of course many more known from the fossil record. But of course the ones in the fossil record are not the same as those we have today. Crown group dragonflies are not known from before the Jurassic. There are older things that look like dragonflies, yes - like the very famous giant Meganeura from about 150 millions years earlier; but they are not the same.

 

I understand that you may not agree with the geological timescale; but it seems odd to claim that they haven't changed when older and younger examples looks different to each other.

It's equally bizarre to claim they have no evolutionary ancestors. As a creationist of course you believe they don't; but I'm guessing you mean there's nothing proposed as ancestral - as of certain groups of which no good fossil record exists. But that's not the case with dragonflies. Aside from the extensive fossil record of stem dragonflies like Meganeura, we have examples of groups believed to be ancestral - the Archodonata and Palaeodictyoptera. I just wasted a good half hour looking for good public domain imagery, but you can see a palaeodictyopteran fossil here.

 

Of course, in rocks older than about 320 million years ago we find no winged insects. That certainly doesn't prove they weren't there, or course. A fossil can only ever provide a minimum age. But it requires a lot of special pleading to claim that all modern forms have extensive ghost lineages extending back to the beginning of life; especially given that there are no animals of any kind prior to 600 million years or so.

 

(not too long ago they found a living fossil, a pelican spider, presumed ancient and extinct)

 

'Not too long ago' meaning about 140 years age in this case. Believed extinct because they were only known from fossils in Europe, and then discovered to still exist in Madagascar.



#10 caffeine

caffeine

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 33
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Prague. CZ

Posted 04 July 2016 - 12:05 PM

If The Theory of Evolution in the Neodarwinian sense was true, there should indeed be a sequencing of "from simple to complex". 

In General the Genesis of Evolutionism makes several assumption. 
- Abiogenesis at an early stage

- Primitive life forms on a later. 
- Followed by barely developed life forms but more complex 

- Then Vertebrates
- With more complex vertebrates later.

- Finally humans. 

This is then should be somehow reflected in the layers. Since they believe that the lowest layers represent ages billions of years ago, higher hundreds of millions ago until they reach the present state. Funny enough one may find the remains of remarkably complex organisms in layers that are quite low.

 

This is not an accurate respresentation of evolutionary assumptions. Firstly because you seem to be thinking that vertebrates are more complex than invertebrates; which ignores the immense complexity of some insects, for example. I'm also not sure what a 'barely developed' lifeform would be. And humans are definitely not a 'finally'. Evolution's still very much a work in progress.

 

All that said, your simplistic is not too far from what we see. With rocks representing about 4 billion years of history, there is no sign of macroscopic life until the last 700 million or so (with a couple of very interesting but controversial exceptions). Vertebrates do not appear until a little over 500 million years ago; and humans only a blink of an eye ago (giving a number here would involve agreement on what counts as 'human', which is not simple question).

 

There are, of course, complex animals long ago. But not too long ago. Trilobites may be very old in comparison to mammals; but they're young compared to the earth. There are no complex trilobite eyes in rocks 2.5 billion years old. Indeed, there is nothing with eyes. It's difficult enough for scientists to agree if there are fossils in these rocks, since telling whether a tiny little hole is a fossil bacterium is not as simple as recognising a fossilised femur.



#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 04 July 2016 - 12:44 PM

 

 

Caffeine: This is a rather odd claim. Firstly, because there's no such thing as "the" dragonfly. There are a few thousand species of dragonfly known today; and there are of course many more known from the fossil record. But of course the ones in the fossil record are not the same as those we have today. Crown group dragonflies are not known from before the Jurassic. There are older things that look like dragonflies, yes - like the very famous giant Meganeura from about 150 millions years earlier; but they are not the same.

 

They look exactly identical, only larger. But nobody is asking for variation of dragon-flies anyway, we are asking for the transitionals that show how they become dragon flies. Size-difference is a superficial difference, some humans are 4 foot tall, some are 7 foot. There are 50 foot crocodiles in the rocks and 8 foot ones today, the reason we know they are the same creatures is because we can identify that they are identical, anatomically speaking. So appealing to a, "variety" of X-kind, does not work, we require logical transitionals, we already accept the great variety in the already-existent dragon-flies.

 

 Attached File  dfly.jpg   51.27KB   0 downloads

 

 

 

Caffeine: It's equally bizarre to claim they have no evolutionary ancestors. As a creationist of course you believe they don't; but I'm guessing you mean there's nothing proposed as ancestral - as of certain groups of which no good fossil record exists. But that's not the case with dragonflies. Aside from the extensive fossil record of stem dragonflies like Meganeura, we have examples of groups believed to be ancestral 

 

"Believe" being the operative term. They used to believe certain species were the ancestors/transitionals of whales. Now they don't. They used to believe many transitional lineages which they have now abandoned. None of the evolutionary proposals are anything more than conjecture, unless you can show how a dragon-fly evolved from unequivocal transitionals, why should we accept that? Just labelling more creatures that already exist as their ancestors, is not good enough. So there is nothing bizarre about my claim at all - can you for example, show us how a vertical fish (seahorse) has logically qualified transitionals, showing how it made the genuine transition for a horizontal swimmer to a vertical swimmer? Can you show how the interior scapular girdle of the turtle, evolved to the inner part of the rib-cage, by actually showing the transition, showing how the design came about by evolution?

 

 

 

Caffeine: Of course, in rocks older than about 320 million years ago we find no winged insects. That certainly doesn't prove they weren't there, or course. A fossil can only ever provide a minimum age. 

 

And that is the exact problem. Alleged progenitors with no wings purportedly evolved them. Can you show the transitional forms showing how wings came to exist?

 

 

 

Caffeine: 'Not too long ago' meaning about 140 years age in this case. Believed extinct because they were only known from fossils in Europe, and then discovered to still exist in Madagascar.

 

Oh there's plenty more where that came from, recently they have found wood much earlier than evo-dating, and grass with dinos.

 

Unless you can actually show that anatomical features actually evolved, and not just provide empty-space where the question are asked then why should we accept the absurd evolution story? You can't show wing-transitions, all you can do is show me fully-formed flyers that were designed to fly, as is obvious from your link.

 

What was my original comment? Here it was:

 

 

 

mike the wiz: What is a "creationist imagination" anyway, I would say I have no imagination compared to evolutionists, who seem to believe there could have been a transition between a quadruped and a pterosaur. One can only, "imagine" what such a transition would be

 

 

Has that changed? Have I been shown any pre-bats showing the inbetween stages they would need to go through from being quadrupeds? Can you show the transitions that led to a pterosaur. (Hint : NOT a variety of bats and pterosaurs, those are already bats and pterosaurs!)

 

Just admit it, you're flummoxed. When it comes to understanding the definition of, "transitional", evolutionists need to realise that they are using an unfalsifiable definition, they are not actually showing us transitions that led to features that were not there initially. Showing fully-designed specimens just presents the same problem, how did a palaeodictyoptera evolve since it had fully-designed flight?

 

:farmer: 

 

The only "bizarre" thing, is that evolutionists can't see the obvious reality, that evolution is missing. (To read more about the LOGICAL difference between a PROVEN lineage, and a propositional one, please read this blog-entry, i wrote a long time back, it will clear up your confusion, you seem to think that if evolutionists merely claim something is a transitional, that it really is, but they themselves change their minds all the time as to what is and is not an ancestor:

http://creationworld...nimals-for.html

 

 



#12 caffeine

caffeine

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 33
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Prague. CZ

Posted 04 July 2016 - 01:37 PM

They look exactly identical, only larger. But nobody is asking for variation of dragon-flies anyway, we are asking for the transitionals that show how they become dragon flies. Size-difference is a superficial difference, some humans are 4 foot tall, some are 7 foot. There are 50 foot crocodiles in the rocks and 8 foot ones today, the reason we know they are the same creatures is because we can identify that they are identical, anatomically speaking. So appealing to a, "variety" of X-kind, does not work, we require logical transitionals, we already accept the great variety in the already-existent dragon-flies.

 

But of course they cannot be exactly identical, because what would that even mean? Again, there are thousands of species of dragonfly, all differemt from each other. And meganisopterans like your picture are different to all of them. The differences may be too small for you to consider them significant but as I already mentioned, we have abundant more distinct forms in the palaeodictyoptera - as we'd expect if we're looking at an evolutionary series.

 

"Believe" being the operative term. They used to believe certain species were the ancestors/transitionals of whales. Now they don't. They used to believe many transitional lineages which they have now abandoned. None of the evolutionary proposals are anything more than conjecture, unless you can show how a dragon-fly evolved from unequivocal transitionals, why should we accept that? Just labelling more creatures that already exist as their ancestors, is not good enough. So there is nothing bizarre about my claim at all - can you for example, show us how a vertical fish (seahorse) has logically qualified transitionals, showing how it made the genuine transition for a horizontal swimmer to a vertical swimmer? Can you show how the interior scapular girdle of the turtle, evolved to the inner part of the rib-cage, by actually showing the transition, showing how the design came about by evolution?

 

We still believe certain species are ancestral to whales, but which specifics are you thinking about?

 

More generally, what do you mean by an 'unequivocal' transitional? Evolutionary relationships can only ever be hypotheses - we don't have time machines and can't sit around for millions of years following generations of insect to note change. We can do cladistic analyses and fit them into plausible trees - but what would it even mean to have an 'unequivocal transitional'?

 

I know nothing about seahorse evolution, but we do have plausible transitionals in turtle evolution. Odonotchelys is a toothed turtle with a plastron but no carapace from the Late Triassic. It's not 'unequivocal', but what could be? Nothing is unequivocal to a sufficiently imaginative observer. If you mean that you want us to demonstrate every minute step in every evolutionary transition, then why would you expect this to be possible?

 

[qs]Oh there's plenty more where that came from, recently they have found wood much earlier than evo-dating, and grass with dinos.[/qs]

 

I do not know when wood was supposed to have evolved in either your or the consensus opinion, but given thaat molecular estimates uggests grass diversified from its nearest relatives in the Cretaceous, Cretaceaous grass is not surprising.

 

[qs]Just admit it, you're flummoxed. When it comes to understanding the definition of, "transitional", evolutionists need to realise that they are using an unfalsifiable definition, they are not actually showing us transitions that led to features that were not there initially. Showing fully-designed specimens just presents the same problem, how did a palaeodictyoptera evolve since it had fully-designed flight?[/qs[

 

But what you're requesting is impossible. All specimens are complete, functioning organisms - we're not going to find something that doesn't work (pathological specimens excluded). Yet if we present something like Tiktaalik, a fish whose pelvic and pectoral skeleton looks more like a tetrapod's limbs than any living fish, you're dissatisfied because it looks like a functioning organism. What would meet your defintion of a transitional form?



#13 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 05 July 2016 - 07:30 AM

Are you satisfied in how he (Dr A.) replied you Mike the Wiz?

As far as I can see he didn't claim the creationists claim the fossil order is from simple to complex, but I might have read over it.

Each of the other claims, I've seen creationists make.



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 July 2016 - 08:02 AM

 

 

Caffeine: But what you're requesting is impossible. All specimens are complete, functioning organisms - we're not going to find something that doesn't work (pathological specimens excluded). Yet if we present something like Tiktaalik, a fish whose pelvic and pectoral skeleton looks more like a tetrapod's limbs than any living fish, you're dissatisfied because it looks like a functioning organism. What would meet your defintion of a transitional form?

 

The red part of your quote is equivocation. I did not mean that evolution proposes that some species would not be completely functioning. I said, "fully designed specimens" which you have turned into, "completely functioning" so you can argue the popular strawman-fallacy that creationists don't understand evolution, or allude to that argument.

 

So a, fully designed specimen, in the context of what I said, meant that the specimen in question ( a dragon-fly), was fully designed to fly. If it's progenitors were not flyers, it had to evolve into a flyer. According to evolution theory, each specimen would be completely functional, so the transitionals I expect to see, are transitions between two states, which is what, "transition" means, it is a state of change.

 

So the transitional for a pre-bat would be a fully functional organism according to evolution, it would just mean that it's flying-anatomy (pentadactyl forelimb) would be an exaptation from it's quadrupedal progenitor's limbs. That means we would need to see how it was possible that such inbetween stages would be anatomically viable.

 

 

 

Caffeine: I know nothing about seahorse evolution, but we do have plausible transitionals in turtle evolution. Odonotchelys is a toothed turtle with a plastron but no carapace from the Late Triassic

 

Doesn't count if it was a quadruped with legs, and had no flippers or interior, scapular girdle. (to the rib-cage). You're not scoring any goals yet, you have to show how turtles achieved that design through evolution. We would expect to see how legs became flippers and how the inbetween anatomical stages were useful. If a leg becomes a flipper, you can draw a picture of how it might happened, but if there are no transitionals at all showing it really happened that way, then why is it rational to assume it did?

 

 

 

Caffeine: More generally, what do you mean by an 'unequivocal' transitional? Evolutionary relationships can only ever be hypotheses - we don't have time machines and can't sit around for millions of years following generations of insect to note change. We can do cladistic analyses and fit them into plausible trees - but what would it even mean to have an 'unequivocal transitional'?

 

Oh here it comes, the "nested hierarchies", he can't find any transitionals so he brings out the nested hierarchy red-herring. Do you know how many times evolutionists bring up cladistics when I ask for transitionals? They do that because they seek to show that it is indirect evidence of them but it isn't, it is just a classification of traits. We can make cladograms for unicycle- bicycle - car - truck - lorry, etc...

 

Do you have difficulty with sticking to the topic, what we were actually talking about is evolutionists showing us tangible fossil-transitionals, cladistics is another topic, and cladistics doesn't involve any transitionals, cladistics exists to group synapomorphies (derived shared characteristics), the point of cladograms is to show the shared traits of morphology, it has nothing to do with transitional lineages. They do not even fit with the phylogenetic tree, especially the homoplasies, which make mince-meat out of them. Ask our resident-expert more about this if you dare. (Bonedigger). I shall not discuss this, as it has little to do with what we were discussing. But suffice to say, if you have a cladogram involving a platypus, how do you know whether to include a duck? :think: 

 

Is that the best you have then? Slightly "different" dragon-flies, with superficial changes? We know a vast array of species exist, this has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with an insatiably imaginative mind.

 

 

 

 Caffeine: we're not going to find something that doesn't work (pathological specimens excluded)

 

You don't understand. Every flying insect you have shown me has been anatomically correctly designed for flying. How did an insect wing evolve? How did those pair of wings achieve the correct shape? Are there any transitionals to support the claim? What were the wings used for before fully correct aerodynamical morphology was in place.

 

Saying, "it's impossible" to find real transitions in the fossil record, isn't a great encouragement for evolution. You seem to be saying, "every species is fully designed". Indeed, that is the problem, because transitional-stages would lead to some very odd, "designs". What would a pterosaur look like before it flew, how was it's morphology useful in the inbetween transitions?



#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 July 2016 - 09:00 AM

 

Fjuri: Are you satisfied in how he (Dr A.) replied you Mike the Wiz?

As far as I can see he didn't claim the creationists claim the fossil order is from simple to complex, but I might have read over it.

 

Dr A is a bit of a vociferous politician, with his heavy use of QBEs. Had he wanted to have an adult conversation with creationists he wouldn't have said, "creationists are dimly aware" he would have just said something like this;

 

"creationists argue that with evolution the fossil record has to contain organisms that go from simple to complex but I would argue that it doesn't have to be that way".

 

The problem is Fjuri, according to evolution organisms do have to be less complex to begin with, otherwise they could argue that a giraffe could emerge from a primordial swamp.

 

(Oh...brilliant one Mike! Enoch would be proud!)  :gotcha: 



#16 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 05 July 2016 - 09:31 AM

Dr A is a bit of a vociferous politician, with his heavy use of QBEs. Had he wanted to have an adult conversation with creationists he wouldn't have said, "creationists are dimly aware" he would have just said something like this;

 

"creationists argue that with evolution the fossil record has to contain organisms that go from simple to complex but I would argue that it doesn't have to be that way".

 

The problem is Fjuri, according to evolution organisms do have to be less complex to begin with, otherwise they could argue that a giraffe could emerge from a primordial swamp.

So your claim is that, "if evolution where true, the fossil record would contain simpler organisms at the older layers, and more complex organisms at the newer layers".

 

Is that a correct description of your position?



#17 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,406 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 05 July 2016 - 10:17 AM

 

Fjuri: So your claim is that, "if evolution where true, the fossil record would contain simpler organisms at the older layers, and more complex organisms at the newer layers".

 

Is that a correct description of your position?

 

Not quite, because it takes more fleshing-out than that if you want to avoid arguing a strawman of our position. We need to give a fuller explanation. I would say that there has to be a decrease in information/anatomical complexity, etc..at some stage. If that were not the case, couldn't a giraffe emerge from a primordial swamp?

 

The first primordial organism would have to be simple, in the sense that a real organism is complex, and the simplest cell is still irreducibly complex. The specified complexity would be too great and if you reduce it further, the cell won't function, so you have to assume it was some sort of fictional primordial cell, nothing like today's real and actually-existent, cells. 

 

 

CMI: A living cell is capable of acquiring all the resources it needs from its surroundings and reproducing itself. The first cell had to be free-living; that is, it could not depend on other cells for its survival because other cells did not exist. Parasites cannot be a model for ‘first life’ because they need existing cells to survive. This also rules out virusesand the like as the precursors to life as they must have living cells that they can parasitize to reproduce themselves. Prions, misshaped proteins that cause disease, have nothing to do with the origin of life because they can only ‘replicate’ by causing proteins manufactured by a cell to become misshaped.

The first things needed are the right ingredients. It’s bit like baking a cake; you can’t make a banana cake if you have no bananas or flour... sugars,4 which also form the backbone of DNA and RNA. Living cells have ways of keeping them apart and protecting them to prevent such cross-reactions, or can repair the damage when it occurs, but a chemical soup has no such facility.

Cells are incredibly complex arrangements of simpler chemicals. I am not going to cover every chemical that a first cell would need; it would take a book and some to cover it

 

http://creation.com/origin-of-life

 

The fact is, such problems cannot be solved and evolution really would need a cell to be much less specifically complex.

 

What is Dr A's answer? I am past caring what propagandists think.



#18 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 05 July 2016 - 11:06 AM

Not quite, because it takes more fleshing-out than that if you want to avoid arguing a strawman of our position. We need to give a fuller explanation. I would say that there has to be a decrease in information/anatomical complexity, etc..at some stage. 

Wouldn't that be why I asked the question?

 

The first primordial organism would have to be simple, in the sense that a real organism is complex, and the simplest cell is still irreducibly complex. The specified complexity would be too great and if you reduce it further, the cell won't function, so you have to assume it was some sort of fictional primordial cell, nothing like today's real and actually-existent, cells. 

Would a strand of self-replicating molecules leave a fossil though? Be I recognize that nothing prior to basic cells have been found. They are in the oldest layers though. In later layers we can find multi-cellular organisms (= more complex) and so on.

 

Does every species have to be irreducibly complex? (according to the theory of evolution)

Is every species irreducibly complex?  (according to you)



#19 caffeine

caffeine

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Age: 33
  • (private)
  • Atheist
  • Prague. CZ

Posted 05 July 2016 - 12:26 PM


The red part of your quote is equivocation. I did not mean that evolution proposes that some species would not be completely functioning. I said, "fully designed specimens" which you have turned into, "completely functioning" so you can argue the popular strawman-fallacy that creationists don't understand evolution, or allude to that argument.

 

 

Not 'equivocation'. 'Misunderstanding'. Please don't pretend you can define the intention of everything I write. It's irritating and insulting.

 

 


So a, fully designed specimen, in the context of what I said, meant that the specimen in question ( a dragon-fly), was fully designed to fly. If it's progenitors were not flyers, it had to evolve into a flyer. According to evolution theory, each specimen would be completely functional, so the transitionals I expect to see, are transitions between two states, which is what, "transition" means, it is a state of change.

 

So the transitional for a pre-bat would be a fully functional organism according to evolution, it would just mean that it's flying-anatomy (pentadactyl forelimb) would be an exaptation from it's quadrupedal progenitor's limbs. That means we would need to see how it was possible that such inbetween stages would be anatomically viable.

 

 

If your point was that we don't know where insect wings came from, then fair enough. That is an unanswered question; and not one an amateur like me is able to deal with. We do still have good candidate ancestors for dragonflies that are clearly not, themselves, dragonflies. But they were winged insects.

 


Doesn't count if it was a quadruped with legs, and had no flippers or interior, scapular girdle. (to the rib-cage). You're not scoring any goals yet, you have to show how turtles achieved that design through evolution. We would expect to see how legs became flippers and how the inbetween anatomical stages were useful. If a leg becomes a flipper, you can draw a picture of how it might happened, but if there are no transitionals at all showing it really happened that way, then why is it rational to assume it did?

 

 

Whether it had flippers is not a simple question, since turtle flippers look pretty much the same as terrestrial turtle's legs once you strip away the flesh - as you can see below (how do you reduce image size on this forum, by the way?). It requires no imagination at all to imagine how the transitional phases between a leg and a flipper would be helpful, since they are clearly the same basic structure and you can swim with a leg (as many animals do). Webbed toes would work even better, and fusing the whole thing into a flipper would work better still provided you didn't still need to walk on land at some point. That's a very easy one.

 

eimbricataskeletonnmnh614.jpg

turtleforelimbamy-becky.JPG

As for the relation of the pectoral girdle to the rib cage, it's not inside, no. It's not behind as in a typical reptile either, though. The anterior ribs flare backwards away from the scapula in much the same way they develop embryonically in a modern turtle. People have, indeed, drawn pictures of it. I'll just link to the picture from National Geographic since I've already filled up with post with a giant turtle skeleton).

 

 

Oh here it comes, the "nested hierarchies", he can't find any transitionals so he brings out the nested hierarchy red-herring. Do you know how many times evolutionists bring up cladistics when I ask for transitionals? They do that because they seek to show that it is indirect evidence of them but it isn't, it is just a classification of traits. We can make cladograms for unicycle- bicycle - car - truck - lorry, etc...

 

Do you have difficulty with sticking to the topic, what we were actually talking about is evolutionists showing us tangible fossil-transitionals, cladistics is another topic, and cladistics doesn't involve any transitionals, cladistics exists to group synapomorphies (derived shared characteristics), the point of cladograms is to show the shared traits of morphology, it has nothing to do with transitional lineages. They do not even fit with the phylogenetic tree, especially the homoplasies, which make mince-meat out of them. Ask our resident-expert more about this if you dare. (Bonedigger). I shall not discuss this, as it has little to do with what we were discussing. But suffice to say, if you have a cladogram involving a platypus, how do you know whether to include a duck? :think:

 

 

My point was only that the relationships can only ever be hypotheses. No one could ever demonstrate an 'unequivocal' ancestor-descendant relationship - just more, or less, plausible hypotheses. That's not a weakness of the model - it's just a consequence of living in the real world.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users