Jump to content


Photo

Missing Transitional Intermediates


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 17 January 2017 - 04:39 PM

Prediction; they will continue to find either extinct new forms we never knew about, or known forms, but they will not find any intermediate forms because it's clear they simply never existed.


We’ve already found a multitude of intermediate forms so it seems a bit bizarre to make a prediction that doesn’t even get off the starting block.

I think your problem is that you are picturing evolution in a very one dimensional way. Your objections that there is a lack of transitionals relative to “complete” forms in the fossil record would only carry any weight if evolution of a particular lineage always proceeded at a consistent rate while at each and every point on that line the representative species were equally abundant and widespread. In other words you are only looking at this from a purely temporal point of view when there is a spatial element as well.

Clearly, considering the special conditions required for fossilization coupled with the low liklehood of the specimen surviving erosional processes and actually being found we are more likely to find a particular fossil if the species was abundant and widely distributed.

Take your frequently stated example of the bat. Why do we only find fully formed bats you cry and no non flying ‘pre bats’ ? Well once evolution hits upon a highly advantageous formula (as would be the ability to fly, clearly) then it is likely that that first form would subsequently radiate into many bat species taking advantage of different niches, becoming widespread and abundant. However, the ‘pre bat’ may only have been a local population in a geographical limited area and/or adapted to a habitat not conducive to fossilisation like a forest. So logically, the “pre bat” is much less likely to be found as a fossil than the later “fully formed” bat of many species over a large range in different habitats. Still, very few of these will have been found as fossils but those found would appear to have no precursors due to statistical probability.

Clearly, examples of groups that are diverse, abundant and widespread are much more likely to be encountered than groups with opposite qualities ! Your wrong assumption is that everything through evolutionary history has been equally likely to be fossilised and found. That coupled with denial of the many intermediates that have been found, and denial of the robustness of our dating methods that shows the evolutionary pattern of first emergence of major groups in the fossil record allows you to remain in your creationist bubble.


  • Goku likes this

#22 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 17 January 2017 - 08:24 PM

The absence of transitional forms between established species has traditionally been explained as a fault of an imperfect record, an argument first advanced by Charles Darwin. The accumulation of sediments and the entrapment and fossilization of animal bones is, at best, a capricious process: as a result, geologists are familiar with the difficulties of reconstructing past events. According to the traditional position, therefore, if sedimentation and fossilization did indeed encapsulate a complete record of prehistory, then it would reveal the postulated transitional organisms. But it isn't and it doesn't.
- Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

the above quote came from a 1980 conference on macroevolution.

#23 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,260 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 January 2017 - 09:48 PM

A thought experiment to do. Look at any human being and determine how many brothers, sisters, and offssppring they have. Do this for 50 people. Now ask those same people to verify your predictitons. Compare your predictions with their answers. Now you know the problem of claiming that one fossil is related to another. Evo makes a lot of assumptions like this and so it requires great faith to beleve what they claim as intermediates is not just another "just so" story (Unless evos are peychic?) LOL
 



#24 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 January 2017 - 03:57 AM

 

 

Wibble: We’ve already found a multitude of intermediate forms so it seems a bit bizarre to make a prediction that doesn’t even get off the starting block.

 

Well to start with you need to learn the difference between a prediction and a deduction, so this doesn't bode well for the rest of your post. But talking about predictions, since if you predict both outcomes your theory is unfalsifiable, which prediction would you go with? Would you say evolution would predict finding intermediates, had we never found the fossil record until now, or would you predict we wouldn't? In this post you have argued both, meaning there is no way to infer that evolution did not happen.

 

I specifically have referred to intermediate forms so that you must provide them. You can't simply say they are there, you have to show how they are intermediate. That is to say, you have to show the intermediate steps for how a leg became a wing, for bats, pterodactyls, winged beetles, pterosaurs, dragonflies, etc...are you saying you can show the intermediates, that were between leg and wing? Are you saying you can show the intermediates for dugongs that have a cousin with elephants, coming on to land? Are you saying you can show the intermediates for jellyfish and seahorses.

 

To STATE you have found a, "multitude" of intermediates, means you can show how exapting features became what they presently are, meaning you can show how ears became ears, how legs became legs, wings became wings, eyes became eyes, organs became organs.

 

I should tell you, your claim a, "multitude" of intermediates have been found, will not be supported by showing one or two examples, but by showing multitudinous examples.

 

 

 

Wibble: I think your problem is that you are picturing evolution in a very one dimensional way. Your objections that there is a lack of transitionals relative to “complete” forms in the fossil record would only carry any weight if evolution of a particular lineage always proceeded at a consistent rate while at each and every point on that line the representative species were equally abundant and widespread.

 

Like I said to Popoi, if you reason it this way that means that because they are absent (which you now seemingly tacitly admit, now that you are arguing they shouldn't be there it seems) then you have to treat intermediates as different from real lifeforms. That is to say, logically your argument is now tantamount to saying that, "all the missing intermediates would be low in number, but all the real lifeforms wouldn't be, meaning we would only find real lifeforms in the fossils".

 

There is no escaping the logic, because deductively we have real forms in the fossils, and then there are absent intermediate forms. They don't exist, you can't show how one form became what it is. Not one solid case.

 

 

 

Wibble: Take your frequently stated example of the bat. Why do we only find fully formed bats you cry and no non flying ‘pre bats’ ? Well once evolution hits upon a highly advantageous formula (as would be the ability to fly, clearly) then it is likely that that first form would subsequently radiate into many bat species taking advantage of different niches, becoming widespread and abundant. However, the ‘pre bat’ may only have been a local population in a geographical limited area and/or adapted to a habitat not conducive to fossilisation like a forest. So logically, the “pre bat” is much less likely to be found as a fossil than the later “fully formed” bat of many species over a large range in different habitats. Still, very few of these will have been found as fossils but those found would appear to have no precursors due to statistical probability.

 

This would also be the case for everything that allegedly evolved wings, they have no intermediates. I have heard this argument before, but the problem is you have to say that every real lifeform is highly successful, but never the intermediate stages, and since we do have examples of the stages BEFORE the intermediate stages which were also highly successful by your reasoning, then logically this means evolution chose to leave a highly successful place with high numbers, take a path towards low numbers and unsuccess then when they turn back into real lifeforms that actually exist, become successful again. And this must apply to all intermediates.

 

Yes, yet another story for why evolution is somehow true without any evidence it is. Logically a weak story, a very tenuous case because your speculation is simply that - speculation that could be regarded as mental gymnastics.

 

 

 

Wibble: Clearly, examples of groups that are diverse, abundant and widespread are much more likely to be encountered than groups with opposite qualities ! Your wrong assumption is that everything through evolutionary history has been equally likely to be fossilised and found

 

 

So you're saying every real lifeform is "diverse, abundant and widespread" and all the intermediate were not? And how do you test this notion? For example, can you show evidence that a pre-bat form lived for a short while? Oh I forget how can you, for there is no evidence a pre-bat existed, so I could also equally conjecture that it wasn't a pre-bat but was some sort of spaghetti monster.

 

Before you say, "that's unfair", why is it? Think about it - you have zero proof a pre-bat existed and I have zero proof a spaghetti monster existed, so why can't I argue that the way to become a bat is to become a spaghetti monster as it makes evolution easier to reach a successful stage?

 

 

 

Wibble: That coupled with denial of the many intermediates that have been found, and denial of the robustness of our dating methods that shows the evolutionary pattern of first emergence of major groups in the fossil record allows you to remain in your creationist bubble.

 

 

Well that's twice you claimed intermediates, I expect your multitudinous examples in your next post then. Can you show the world the intermediate stages for wings, not from artwork but from the multitude of evidence you have claimed? Oh I forget, you don't have multitidinous examples because those stages are not "diverse, abundant and widespread"

 

Heads it's evolution if it's not there, as only intermediates aren't successful

Tails the intermediates are there despite no examples of intermediate stages. 

 

:gotcha:

 

Attached File  intermediate.jpg   17.61KB   0 downloads

 

So you have to show how legs became legs. Not once but for everything that had to evolve them. You have to show how wings became wings for all things that evolved them, and vice versa, etc....you have to show how a seahorse evolved from a fish since fish came first as a rudimentary vertebrate, etc..to prove it is an intermediate stage, it has to show how a feature was in no uncertain terms, becoming another feature we presently have. So for example with an ichthyosaur you have to show a stage between the correct fins, and limbs. The popular examples have all been refuted, and it can be shown those examples don't really "count" because of what Blitzking said, you actually have to show how the anatomy DEFINITELY was derived from a previous form. If you don't it's just speculation that it was an intermediate, but maths shows us a few things that may look like them, out of a world of millions of species, is expected, but that those forms won't really show a definite ancestral derivation of anatomy.

 

For example;

 

 

 

Indeed, Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom,3 but evolutionists had similar high hopes for the coelacanth fin. However, when a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938, the fins turned out not to be used for walking but for deft manœuvering when swimming.[T]here are functional challenges to Darwinian interpretations. For instance, in fish the head, shoulder girdle, and circulatory systems constitute a single mechanical unit. The shoulder girdle is firmly connected to the vertebral column and is an anchor for the muscles involved in lateral undulation of the body, mouth opening, heart contractions, and timing of the blood circulation through the gills.6However, in amphibians the head is not connected to the shoulder girdle, in order to allow effective terrestrial feeding and locomotion. Evolutionists must suppose that the head became incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle, in a step-wise fashion, with functional intermediates at every stage. However, a satisfactory account of how this might have happened has never been given.’

 

Wibble, there are none mate. I don't mind if you accept evolution theory but don't pretend there are intermediates unless you can show me your multitudinous examples AND how they must be anatomically derived. In the above example, they don't show they are anatomically derived so it is merely SPECULATED that tiktaalik was an intermediate, because a happy coincidence with some strange fish made for living a particular way, gives a superficial appearance-of-evo because of mosaic features (plesiomorphies from either tetrapod or fish but not intermediate between fish and tetrapod). These aren't intermediates, you simply SAY they are.

 

Like Mike said, if it's just another "just so" story of how intermediates have somehow not been captured in time, then we might as well also accept superman-theory; (message one)

 

http://evolutionfair...with-evolution/

 

That's the problem - you could invent any excuse for evolution but the fact it doesn't turn up in the fossils, is anything but, "statistically probable". Nor can it's absence be the predicted evidence for if we enter that kind of weak conjecture then it isn't even science any more for I could argue the same for spaghetti monsters filling the gaps, and reason some imaginative reason why we wouldn't expect to see them if they had existed.

 

Imagine if I said a Martian war destroyed Mars leaving no evidence there were ever any martians and gave a clever explanation of why we would find exactly what we would see, that being nothing. Is, "nothing" really the best evidence of Martian existence? In the same way, is, "nothing" really good evidence for evolution? If we accept such tenuous ad-hoc reasoning solely invented as an escape for the fact the predicted evidence is not there, then really I have shown we could also accept any absurd thing. For example your story that intermediates were not diverse and successful, you state that as though it is a scientific fact but nobody has ever tested it. It is like me saying this; "spaghetti monsters with slow metabolisms could still exist because we know from real life forms things with slow metabolism exist."

 

Goodness grief, how does that make a pre-bat a reality? There is no functional stage you can show for any bat between limbs and wings, without selection culling the freak as soon as it lost it's claw. 

 

Lol



#25 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 18 January 2017 - 10:17 AM

the pattern we were told to find for the last 120 years doesn't exist.
- niles eldridge.

eldrideg reminded everyone at the meeting of what many fossil hunters have recognized as they trace the history of species through successive layers of sediments.
species simply appear at any given point in geologic time, persist largely unchanged for a few million years and then disappear.
there are very few examples - some would say none - of one species shading gradually into another.

the popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four toed fox like creatures to today's much larger one toed horse has long been known to be wrong.
- boyce rensberger, the houston chronicle nov. 5 1980, reprinted from the new york times.

here is what gould said about the above article by boyce:
there were some "good and responsible commentaries in the general press" and he specifically mentions an article by Boyce Rensberger in the New York Times.

#26 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 21 January 2017 - 03:10 PM

Well to start with you need to learn the difference between a prediction and a deduction, so this doesn't bode well for the rest of your post.


Umm you made the prediction that no intermediates will be found. The horse has already bolted on that one.
 

But talking about predictions, since if you predict both outcomes your theory is unfalsifiable, which prediction would you go with? Would you say evolution would predict finding intermediates, had we never found the fossil record until now, or would you predict we wouldn't? In this post you have argued both, meaning there is no way to infer that evolution did not happen.


Given a fossil record we would expect to find some intermediates but not all of them. It’s not either zero or all. For the self vaunted logician you seem to miss the logical fallacies that you make.
 

I specifically have referred to intermediate forms so that you must provide them. You can't simply say they are there, you have to show how they are intermediate. That is to say, you have to show the intermediate steps for how a leg became a wing, for bats, pterodactyls, winged beetles, pterosaurs, dragonflies, etc...are you saying you can show the intermediates, that were between leg and wing? Are you saying you can show the intermediates for dugongs that have a cousin with elephants, coming on to land? Are you saying you can show the intermediates for jellyfish and seahorses.


Are you saying that we haven’t found any intermediates ? It’s pretty easy to google this information. Wiki has a long list. You might deny that is what they are but then you would wouldn’t you.

Are you demanding incremental steps for each transition ? Because that is an unreasonable request in a spotty fossil record.

The winged animals you list highlight what I said in the previous post. Take beetles, they are enormously successful, diverse and widespread so it is pretty likely that they appear in the fossil record. Beetles are a monophyletic group so you are requesting that a member of the ancestral population is found. Pretty unlikely !

The earliest stem group beetles (Protocoleoptera) don’t appear in the fossil record until the Permian while representatives of modern groups are first found in Triassic strata. A question for you – why do we find no beetles at all in the Carboniferous (or earlier) ? Those coal forming forests you’d think would be an ideal habitat for a great diversity of beetles don’t you think. We find fossils of other insects then (dragonflies etc.), why no beetles ?

You mention dugongs – here is an ancient one with legs. (Not found in strata that wouldn't make evolutionary sense, say the Jurassic for example, but the early Eocene, 50 mya)

http://www.savethema..._fossil_13.html

You can claim that you could fabricate intermediates out of a mosaic of forms all you want but discovery of intermediate fossils do not exist in a vacuum. The first appearance of new groups in the fossil record make chronological sense and corroborate with morphological, embryological and molecular evidence.
 



#27 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 January 2017 - 05:04 PM

Are you saying that we haven’t found any intermediates ? It’s pretty easy to google this information. Wiki has a long list. You might deny that is what they are but then you would wouldn’t you.

it's amazing how evolution went from "few to none" to "a long list" in 30 years.
can you actually provide a timeline for these discoveries?

stasis is the predominate feature of the fossil record, niles has flat out stated gradual change doesn't exist in the fossil record.

also, species aren't the durable units of evolution, protein sequences have a deeper history than many species.

#28 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 21 January 2017 - 05:36 PM

it's amazing how evolution went from "few to none" to "a long list" in 30 years.
can you actually provide a timeline for these discoveries?


Where do you get the idea that there were "few to none" 30 years ago ?
 

stasis is the predominate feature of the fossil record, niles has flat out stated gradual change doesn't exist in the fossil record.


If he did say that then he is wrong. In the Cretaceous chalk we see gradual change in Micraster (sea urchins) and Inoceramus bivalves, in other deposits (Quaternary from memory) there are gradual changes in Foramanifera.

Normally we don't see a gradual sequence of change in the sedimentary record because most strata only represent snapshots in time not a continuous record of deposition (like chalk was in a stable environment over millions of years). And of course new species generally appear in peripheral isolated populations (otherwise interbreeding would prevent speciation). This gives illusion of sudden appearance in the fossil record if the peripheral population expands in range and replaces the ancestral type.



#29 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 January 2017 - 06:48 PM

Where do you get the idea that there were "few to none" 30 years ago ?

post 25

If he did say that then he is wrong. In the Cretaceous chalk we see gradual change in Micraster (sea urchins) and Inoceramus bivalves, in other deposits (Quaternary from memory) there are gradual changes in Foramanifera.

i'm sure you can indeed show a "gradual change".
we can produce "gradual changes" at will by selective breeding.
what are you trying to do, confuse the issue?

Normally we don't see a gradual sequence of change in the sedimentary record because most strata only represent snapshots in time not a continuous record of deposition (like chalk was in a stable environment over millions of years). And of course new species generally appear in peripheral isolated populations (otherwise interbreeding would prevent speciation). This gives illusion of sudden appearance in the fossil record if the peripheral population expands in range and replaces the ancestral type.

nice explanation, but has this actually been demonstrated.

the fact still remains that the pattern of "gradualness" doesn't exist in the record.
i don't know about you, but i'm in no position to call eldridge a liar.
plus, gould himself says boyces article was "good and responsible journalism".

#30 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 January 2017 - 03:44 AM

 

 

Wibble: Normally we don't see a gradual sequence of change in the sedimentary record because most strata only represent snapshots in time

 

And I've shown several times, "What If", with several lengthy explanations, why this is logically incorrect, fallacious reasoning, for numerous reasons. For starters, if I take snapshots of a chef preparing meals in time, I won't only take pictures of complete meals, I will take pictures of meals being cooked (intermediate stages). So this excuse is LOGICALLY WORTHLESS

 

I speak to, "What If" as pretty much think it is 100% pointless to talk to the evolutionists anymore, they wouldn't see an elephant if it was right in their room.

 

It is piss-poor reasoning beyond description, because it is TANTAMOUNT (equal to saying) that "therefore all evolutionary forms will not be found, and all lifeforms will be, fully formed, be it wings, legs, fins whatever, but never in an intermediate stage"

 

"What If", what are the chances of that, if all lifeforms are equal?

 

That is to say, if 50 females enter a room and 50 males, is there a reason the room will only reveal females on the CCTV?

 

But it's worse than that, the numbers for intermediates would SWAMP the actual lifeforms we find, meaning it would actually be more like 90 females and 10 males, unless we accept-by-faith yet another special pleading fallacy of evolution, that "only the intermediates were few in number".

 

Which is like saying, "the females aren't on the CCTV as they have a special bio-film which makes them invisible."

 

Until the evolutionists actually prove their claims rather than just repeating them ad-nauseam, then what I have said remains unaffected by their rhetorical tricks.

 

 

 

Wibble: Are you saying that we haven’t found any intermediates ? It’s pretty easy to google this information. Wiki has a long list. You might deny that is what they are but then you would wouldn’t you.

Are you demanding incremental steps for each transition ? Because that is an unreasonable request in a spotty fossil record.

The winged animals you list highlight what I said in the previous post. Take beetles, they are enormously successful, diverse and widespread so it is pretty likely that they appear in the fossil record. Beetles are a monophyletic group so you are requesting that a member of the ancestral population is found. Pretty unlikely !

The earliest stem group beetles (Protocoleoptera) don’t appear in the fossil record until the Permian while representatives of modern groups are first found in Triassic strata. A question for you – why do we find no beetles at all in the Carboniferous (or earlier) ? 

 

Lol. Nice try Wibble. Your post asks if we haven't found intermediates as if to make out they are numerous, then you explain all the reasons why there aren't any and give a bunch of EXCUSES. Always your line of reasoning is the same, "evolution can't be seen because of X excuse, how dare you expect evolution to show itself." LOL

 

No, I am not saying they haven't found any intermediates in the post you addressed, I was responding to your claim there are "multitudes" of them. So far you have shown me NONE. You must show multitudinous examples, according to your claims there are multitudes of intermediates.

 

I didn't say, "give me a multitude of excuses and change the goal posts to a question about why beetles don't appear earlier in the record."

 

Try honesty for a change; there are no intermediates as would be expected. The ones you claim are will all be highly acceptable examples of, "varieties of"...that is to say, you can give me a "variety of" bats, a "variety of" turtles, a variety of beetles, but one thing you absolutely can't show me, is a variety of intermediate forms that led to bats, led to beetles, led to turtles.

 

There are none, as would be expected if macro evolution had not happened.

 

So thanks for the multitude of excuses. :P

 

Look, that's fine if you find those excuses satisfying to you personally, but for me personally, I require a high standard of intellectual credence for something as absurd as macro-evolution. Finding a whole bunch of excuses for why evo isn't there is 100% conjecture. Logically I am afraid it is just a reality, and I state that as a person with knowledge of logical things, that you simply would find evolution in the record had it happened, there aren't any sound reasons why you wouldn't except the only sound reason you wouldn't, which is if macro-evolution did not occur.

 

A person of logic doesn't fight against the conclusion that is sound. Now again, for you personally if you want to ignore logical findings, I can accept that, but as a person with understanding of that subject, I can't ignore those things it reveals to me which are provable, deductively. Deductive proof isn't a matter of opinion, but it is no different to inferring mathematically that 2 add 2 is 4. For example I wouldn't deny a logical implication of gravity is that if I jump from a cliff on earth, I will fall to the ground. In the same way I am not going to pretend that if evolution had happened we would not see any of it when there would be, percentage-wise, more evolution in history than, "not evolution". I know you don't like it, but logic favours the one in the, "creationist bubble", for this is what we would expect to see, (complete forms) had God created the world according to kinds, like He said all along in the bible.

 

You just aren't going to make a better case for evolution with the predicted evidence of the bible. Think about it, it's like me arguing millions of intermediates would favour the bible more than evolution.

 

What do you think Wibble? That a creationist is some disease-brained maniac that doesn't have any strong arguments, and 100% of all arguments and facts are with evolutionists? That simplistic type of thinking might be expected from children perhaps.

 

The real reason you protest too much is because it's obvious that creation wins when it comes to this issue.



#31 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 635 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 22 January 2017 - 11:55 AM

And I've shown several times, "What If", with several lengthy explanations, why this is logically incorrect, fallacious reasoning, for numerous reasons. For starters, if I take snapshots of a chef preparing meals in time, I won't only take pictures of complete meals, I will take pictures of meals being cooked (intermediate stages). So this excuse is LOGICALLY WORTHLESS

You could easily only take pictures of completed meals. Whether you'd expect to find a lot of incomplete meals depends on how long the complete meals sit there, how long it takes to prepare each meal, where your camera is aimed, and how many pictures you take. You want it to be taken as given that you are likely to take a picture of a meal in progress, but that is not necessarily the case.

 

"What If", what are the chances of that, if all lifeforms are equal?

Can you support the idea that all lifeforms are equally likely to be found as fossils? Is this reflected in the fossils we have found?
 

But it's worse than that, the numbers for intermediates would SWAMP the actual lifeforms we find, meaning it would actually be more like 90 females and 10 males, unless we accept-by-faith yet another special pleading fallacy of evolution, that "only the intermediates were few in number".

Can you support the idea that the number of individual members of transitional species would be higher than the number of individuals of relatively stable species we typically find as fossils?
   

Until the evolutionists actually prove their claims rather than just repeating them ad-nauseam, then what I have said remains unaffected by their rhetorical tricks.

It shouldn’t be possible to affect your supposedly sound deductive argument, because you should be able to prove that it is sound. So far you haven’t offered much but incredulity and questionable analogies.
 

I know you don't like it, but logic favours the one in the, "creationist bubble", for this is what we would expect to see, (complete forms) had God created the world according to kinds, like He said all along in the bible.

Is it? It doesn’t seem like you’d expect species to only show up in certain strata, or to be consistent with a nested hierarchy. Creationism can account for all that because it can account for anything, but I don’t see any reason it would particularly expect those things.

#32 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 January 2017 - 02:38 PM

Creationism can account for all that because it can account for anything, but I don’t see any reason it would particularly expect those things.

isn't evolutionists guilty of the same thing by invoking the "genetic mutation, natural selection" paradigm?
there is no evidence that natural selection encourages complexity.

the nearly neutral theory is the predominate mode of evolution.

and of course we have this:
the natural selection of random mutations is insufficient to account for evolution.
the role of natural selection itself is limited, it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origins of new species or for major evolutionary change. the evidence suggests most genetic changes are irrelevant and that a relative lack of natural selection may be a prerequisite for major evolutionary advance.
- beyond neodarwinism an epigenetic approach to evolution.

#33 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,538 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 January 2017 - 03:21 PM

Popoi I am not going to entertain your one-liners, but what I will say is the issues of this topic are to do with the forms in the fossils not the nature of the fossil record itself. The bible clearly says life creates according to kind, which seed is in itself, it describes the birds, cattle, etc..according to kind.

 

So my question is this; either the forms in the fossils look like they always have or they don't, those are the two possibilities. That is to say, either a jellyfish will be pretty much identical when we find it's fossil counter part or it will not. So when we find pine trees in the fossils which are identical, with no intermediates for pines, and jellyfish, turtles, bats, and the whole list, the question really is this; would we expect if the bible was true and the record is mostly from a flood, would we expect to see the same kinds of organisms unchanged or would we not, pertaining to those forms only, which is the topic at hand?

 

So then it's a question of ABC level logic; either we would expect to see any given form representative in the fossils to remain the same with no intermediates obviously, as there would be no evolution under biblical kinds, or would we expect them to not look the same?

 

Which one do you choose? Obviously if a flood happened thousands of years ago and buried jellyfish, turtles, bats, etc...then they would look the same?

 

So the only other option is they wouldn't be there and would look like they evolved with their intermediates. Is that what you are saying, that with biblical creation we would not expect to see jellyfish preserved at the time of the flood, that looked like jellyfish and no intermediates but that if the bible and flood are true you would expect to see evolution by seeing chains of transitional intermediates?

 

In other words Popoi, if you had had a heart operation would we expect to see a scar on your chest or NOT? It seems you are saying we would NOT expect to see a scar. 

 

Perhaps message 1 of this thread can reveal more to you about such contradictory reasonings;

http://evolutionfair...ence-correctly/

 

Some things by implication, simply must follow, Popoi. If Noah's flood laid down the fossil record (which is another topic) then obviously if a jellyfish existed and was fossilised we would expect as evidence that it looked the same as today's apart from superficial change which adaptation allows for such as size. In the same way what I have just said is like saying that if it rains we would expect the ground to be wet. Are you seriously going to contradict such evidence which can't help but follow given such a hypothesis?

 

Let's put it this way, if Noah's flood did create the record and it preserved a jellyfish but no evolutionary intermediates, are you saying this is not what we would expect?

 

In which case if Noah's flood did lay down the record are you saying a flood as a catastrophe, couldn't create fossils? My answer to that is; LOL! For what do the fossils show? What do you need for fossilisation? It depends on the fossils you find. We find them in the death-throws with their necks pulled back (suffocation), we find them in the middle of eating, fighting, giving birth, etc...in other words the fossil record is a record of thing preserved during life-activities.

 

What do you need to preserve things dead, that were in the middle of living? 1. stop animals from scavenging 2. Prevent oxygen and bacterial action.

 

To create a fossil, ideally you need to dump on it a massive amount of wet sediment. 

 

 

This elephant carcass provides a dramatic illustration. [Refer to Creation 24(4):56 for more photos.] The inset above shows it one day after death, the inset photo above right was taken 7–8 days later.1 Biological processes (mostly insect activity) have so ravaged its structure that it is clear that, shortly, all that will be left will be a few scattered bones.

These will also most likely succumb to the forces of erosion and destruction, unless they are buried by a local flood in sediment which then soon hardens to prevent further decay through oxygen and bacterial action

.

 

http://creation.com/...vanishing-giant



#34 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 22 January 2017 - 03:25 PM

And I've shown several times, "What If", with several lengthy explanations, why this is logically incorrect, fallacious reasoning, for numerous reasons. For starters, if I take snapshots of a chef preparing meals in time, I won't only take pictures of complete meals, I will take pictures of meals being cooked (intermediate stages). So this excuse is LOGICALLY WORTHLESS.


No your analogy is worthless because you’re not comparing like with like. Evolution isn’t a linear progression where everywhere, species are morphing into a different form at a steady rate. You just ignore the reasoning I’ve given, just so that you can continue whacking a strawman.

If a transitional form develops a new mode of living (like flying), then there is going to be a big new world of niches to fill. Therefore, the likelihood is that that new form is going to rapidly diversify (adaptive radiation) and disperse into different habitats. Do you get this ? Imagine a non flying bat ancestor evolving flight. What is the logical issue with saying that a fossil of one of the many subsequent members of the diversified clade is much more likely to be found somewhere than a member of that single type from the specific geographical location of the ancestral population ? Also, the successful new group is likely to persist for a long time, increasing the total available fossils through time while the bat ancestor, evolving towards flight, facing strong selection pressure, may only have existed for (geologically speaking) a relatively short time.

Your chef’s meal analogy only works if the pre bat is equally abundant and widespread as all radiated evolutionary descendants combined and also exists for an equal period of time.

Btw, I knew you wouldn’t answer my question about beetles, you have a track record of turning a blind eye to the features of the fossil record that completely derail Genesis literalism.
 

No, I am not saying they haven't found any intermediates in the post you addressed, I was responding to your claim there are "multitudes" of them. So far you have shown me NONE.


You could have got the job of Trump’s press secretary. So the example of the sirenian with legs didn’t exist in my previous post ?

 

If you want more, does the following list count as a multitude ?

 

http://rationalwiki....nsitional_forms
 

The real reason you protest too much is because it's obvious that creation wins when it comes to this issue.

 

:rotfl3:

 

Never used that emoticon before :)



#35 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 22 January 2017 - 03:42 PM

In which case if Noah's flood did lay down the record are you saying a flood as a catastrophe, couldn't create fossils? My answer to that is; LOL! For what do the fossils show? What do you need for fossilisation? It depends on the fossils you find. We find them in the death-throws with their necks pulled back (suffocation), we find them in the middle of eating, fighting, giving birth, etc...in other words the fossil record is a record of thing [b]preserved during life-activities


You often state this in your posts. I expect the proportion of creatures fossilised exhibiting this behaviour you state is exceedingly small. What's the source for your fighting one ? Do you not consider that a pair of fighting animals catastrophically buried by a sudden flood would retain some kind of fighting position to be fossilised ? Don't you think that they might not be swept apart ?



#36 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 January 2017 - 04:01 PM

Evolution isn’t a linear progression where everywhere, species are morphing into a different form at a steady rate.

that is essentially what evolutionists imply when they say "we are all transitional forms".

If a transitional form develops a new mode of living (like flying), . . .

science has no evidence that an organism can "sprout wings", nor can it realistically explain how an organism would.
the "genetic mutation/ natural selection" dogma does not explain evolution.

If you want more, does the following list count as a multitude ?
 
http://rationalwiki....nsitional_forms

i've learned enough about evolution to realize you must scrutinize every scrap of data it produces.
let me guess, your link immediately above also shows a "long list" of transitionals.
if so, then how do you resolve it with post 25?

#37 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 22 January 2017 - 04:42 PM

that is essentially what evolutionists imply when they say "we are all transitional forms".
science has no evidence that an organism can "sprout wings", nor can it realistically explain how an organism would.


That's good because science doesn't say that organisms "sprout wings". Wings could never develop from scratch with the purpose of allowing the organism to fly in the future.
 

let me guess, your link immediately above also shows a "long list" of transitionals.
if so, then how do you resolve it with post 25?


Do you think Eldredge and Gould believed there are no transitionals ?






3 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Goku