Jump to content


Photo

Missing Transitional Intermediates


  • Please log in to reply
506 replies to this topic

#501 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 17 October 2017 - 06:34 PM

Honest people can admit to the following;
 
1. If evolution is false we would expect to not generally find macro-evolutionary transitionals.
2. If creation is true we would expect to find the same kinds of forms and generally no transitionals of evolution.

you forgot one.
our current number of phyla might be all that is possible.

#502 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 18 October 2017 - 03:07 PM

Honest people can admit to the following


Right so I can only be honest if I agree with you ?

 

1. If evolution is false we would expect to not generally find macro-evolutionary transitionals.


If evolution was false we would be unable to make any coherent sense of the fossil record whatsoever. There would be zero transitionals. If there were coincidental mosaic organisms that just looked like transitionals they would be randomly placed in the rocks.
 

2. If creation is true we would expect to find the same kinds of forms and generally no transitionals of evolution.


Cherry picking the tiny minority of “forms” that remain similar to modern representatives deep into the geological record whilst ignoring the overwhelming pattern of fossil assemblages increasingly dissimilar to modern the further back you go is not an honest way of evaluating the evidence.

We haven’t got “generally no transitionals”, stop pretending. I’ve given you perfectly good reasoning why we should not expect anything like the number of transitionals you demand according to your strawman version of evolution where all species are gradually and at a consistent rate morphing en masse into something else through time.

Just one example, if creation was true there is no reason why any of the beautiful chronological sequence of whale intermediates (yes I’m aware of the creationist denials) only appear from the early Eocene (c. 50 mya) onwards. Why nothing in the entirety of the rest of the geological record ?
 

You didn’t respond to the last section of my previous post where I made a couple of statements about what we should expect to see if creation was true, do you have anything plausible to counter them ?


Any response ?

To save you time:
 

If Genesis and the Flood was true I would expect the Cambrian jellyfish to be buried in the same layer as fish and cetaceans (or considering their buoyancy more likely somewhere above). I also would expect a much higher abundance of terrestrial organisms. Why does it make sense under the Flood model that 95% of fossils are marine ? Makes perfect sense under the evolutionary view because obviously the most suitable widespread areas for sediment deposition is the oceans, not the land.
 
As for unchanged "kinds" if a certain organism has reached an optimal "design" for a given environment there is no evolutionary compulsion that it must change, and there may be constraints from it doing so anyway. That said there is very little from as far back as the Cambrian that is "unchanged" through to today, which is why you always bring up jellyfish as the only example from that period.

 
Also ignored (again)
 

If creation was true of course there would be nothing you could regard as intermediate because there would no sensible pattern of progressive change through the strata. Your geographical province idea that you sometimes put forward to explain why we see a clear and never violated separation of organism types (humans and dinosaurs for example) fails completely because fossils aren’t separated laterally in this way, they can be found in close proximity, the separation is in the vertical direction through the geological strata. I’ve said that before and it always gets ignored for some reason.


A response, per chance ?

 

Because basically you are shouting this message to me; "Mike Wibble I don't care what the facts are, I am going to argue that evolution creation is true."


Funny how creationists make statements like this that in fact apply to them.



#503 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 18 October 2017 - 03:19 PM

"There could be zero transitional fossils and the fossil record would still support evolution and falsify a single creation event."

This is a perfect example of the mindset of the evolutionist.. Facts and Evidence, Logic, Reason, and Critical thinking be damned (Pardon the pun) "My Godless worldview REQUIRES Evolution to be true SOMEHOW No matter WHAT! Remember? "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist" Richard Dawkins


"Mike the statement that the fossil record is strongly supportive of evolution still stands"

On its head maybe...


You're not really cut out for debate are you. It's all about soundbites and no substance with you isn't it.  How about you actually address something you don't agree with using " Facts and Evidence, Logic, Reason, and Critical thinking" for a change ?



#504 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 18 October 2017 - 09:34 PM

Honest people can admit to the following

Right so I can only be honest if I agree with you ?
 

1. If evolution is false we would expect to not generally find macro-evolutionary transitionals.

If evolution was false we would be unable to make any coherent sense of the fossil record whatsoever. There would be zero transitionals. If there were coincidental mosaic organisms that just looked like transitionals they would be randomly placed in the rocks.
 

2. If creation is true we would expect to find the same kinds of forms and generally no transitionals of evolution.

Cherry picking the tiny minority of “forms” that remain similar to modern representatives deep into the geological record whilst ignoring the overwhelming pattern of fossil assemblages increasingly dissimilar to modern the further back you go is not an honest way of evaluating the evidence.
We haven’t got “generally no transitionals”, stop pretending. I’ve given you perfectly good reasoning why we should not expect anything like the number of transitionals you demand according to your strawman version of evolution where all species are gradually and at a consistent rate morphing en masse into something else through time.
Just one example, if creation was true there is no reason why any of the beautiful chronological sequence of whale intermediates (yes I’m aware of the creationist denials) only appear from the early Eocene (c. 50 mya) onwards. Why nothing in the entirety of the rest of the geological record ?
 

You didn’t respond to the last section of my previous post where I made a couple of statements about what we should expect to see if creation was true, do you have anything plausible to counter them ?

Any response ?
To save you time:
 

If Genesis and the Flood was true I would expect the Cambrian jellyfish to be buried in the same layer as fish and cetaceans (or considering their buoyancy more likely somewhere above). I also would expect a much higher abundance of terrestrial organisms. Why does it make sense under the Flood model that 95% of fossils are marine ? Makes perfect sense under the evolutionary view because obviously the most suitable widespread areas for sediment deposition is the oceans, not the land.
 
As for unchanged "kinds" if a certain organism has reached an optimal "design" for a given environment there is no evolutionary compulsion that it must change, and there may be constraints from it doing so anyway. That said there is very little from as far back as the Cambrian that is "unchanged" through to today, which is why you always bring up jellyfish as the only example from that period.

 
Also ignored (again)
 

If creation was true of course there would be nothing you could regard as intermediate because there would no sensible pattern of progressive change through the strata. Your geographical province idea that you sometimes put forward to explain why we see a clear and never violated separation of organism types (humans and dinosaurs for example) fails completely because fossils aren’t separated laterally in this way, they can be found in close proximity, the separation is in the vertical direction through the geological strata. I’ve said that before and it always gets ignored for some reason.

A response, per chance ?
 

Because basically you are shouting this message to me; "Mike Wibble I don't care what the facts are, I am going to argue that evolution creation is true."

Funny how creationists make statements like this that in fact apply to them.


"If evolution was false we would be unable to make any coherent sense of the fossil record whatsoever. There would be zero transitionals."


Yup.. You said it! Here.. Just for starters.. The Paleontologists know.. The Emperor is Stark Naked.... Bad news for Accidentalists

"In most people's minds, fossils and Evolution go hand in hand. In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind of life slowly and gradually changed to another kind of life. But missing links are the trade secret, in a sense, of paleontology. The point is, the links are still missing. What we really find are gaps that sharpen up the boundaries between kinds. It's those gaps which provide us with the evidence of Creation of separate kinds. As a matter of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions. What we do find are separate and complex kinds, pointing to Creation."
(Dr Gary Parker Biologist/paleontologist and former ardent Evolutionist.)


"There are gaps in the fossil graveyard, places where there should be intermediate forms, but where there is nothing whatsoever instead. No paleontologist..denies that this is so. It is simply a fact, Darwin's theory and the fossil record are in conflict."

(Dr. David Berlinsky)


"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

(Dr. Ronald R. West Paleontologist)


"None of five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilised organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another."
(Luther Sunderland, science researcher)

"As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record."
(Tom Kemp, Oxford University)

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places."
(Francis Hitching, archaeologist).

"There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration... The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."
(T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective",Science Progress, vol 48, January 1960, pp. 1, 3.)

"The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution [i.e., a species becoming a new species] accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."
(Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution (Freeman, San Francisco, 1977), p. 39)

"Despite the bright promise that palaeontology provides means of 'seeing' Evolution, it has provided some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and palaeontology does not provide them." (emphasis added)
(David Kitts, Ph.D. Palaeontology and Evolutionary Theory, Evolution, Vol.28 (Sep.1974) p.467)

"In China its O.K. to criticize Darwin but not the government, while in the United States its O.K. to criticize the government, but not Darwin."
(Chinese Paleontologist Dr. Jun Yaun. Chen)

#505 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:04 PM

Honest people can admit to the following

Right so I can only be honest if I agree with you ?

1. If evolution is false we would expect to not generally find macro-evolutionary transitionals.

If evolution was false we would be unable to make any coherent sense of the fossil record whatsoever. There would be zero transitionals. If there were coincidental mosaic organisms that just looked like transitionals they would be randomly placed in the rocks.

2. If creation is true we would expect to find the same kinds of forms and generally no transitionals of evolution.

Cherry picking the tiny minority of “forms” that remain similar to modern representatives deep into the geological record whilst ignoring the overwhelming pattern of fossil assemblages increasingly dissimilar to modern the further back you go is not an honest way of evaluating the evidence.

We haven’t got “generally no transitionals”, stop pretending. I’ve given you perfectly good reasoning why we should not expect anything like the number of transitionals you demand according to your strawman version of evolution where all species are gradually and at a consistent rate morphing en masse into something else through time.

Just one example, if creation was true there is no reason why any of the beautiful chronological sequence of whale intermediates (yes I’m aware of the creationist denials) only appear from the early Eocene (c. 50 mya) onwards. Why nothing in the entirety of the rest of the geological record ?

You didn’t respond to the last section of my previous post where I made a couple of statements about what we should expect to see if creation was true, do you have anything plausible to counter them ?

Any response ?

To save you time:

If Genesis and the Flood was true I would expect the Cambrian jellyfish to be buried in the same layer as fish and cetaceans (or considering their buoyancy more likely somewhere above). I also would expect a much higher abundance of terrestrial organisms. Why does it make sense under the Flood model that 95% of fossils are marine ? Makes perfect sense under the evolutionary view because obviously the most suitable widespread areas for sediment deposition is the oceans, not the land.

As for unchanged "kinds" if a certain organism has reached an optimal "design" for a given environment there is no evolutionary compulsion that it must change, and there may be constraints from it doing so anyway. That said there is very little from as far back as the Cambrian that is "unchanged" through to today, which is why you always bring up jellyfish as the only example from that period.


Also ignored (again)

If creation was true of course there would be nothing you could regard as intermediate because there would no sensible pattern of progressive change through the strata. Your geographical province idea that you sometimes put forward to explain why we see a clear and never violated separation of organism types (humans and dinosaurs for example) fails completely because fossils aren’t separated laterally in this way, they can be found in close proximity, the separation is in the vertical direction through the geological strata. I’ve said that before and it always gets ignored for some reason.

A response, per chance ?

Because basically you are shouting this message to me; "Mike Wibble I don't care what the facts are, I am going to argue that evolution creation is true."

Funny how creationists make statements like this that in fact apply to them.

"There could be zero transitional fossils and the fossil record would still support evolution and falsify a single creation event."
This is a perfect example of the mindset of the evolutionist.. Facts and Evidence, Logic, Reason, and Critical thinking be damned (Pardon the pun) "My Godless worldview REQUIRES Evolution to be true SOMEHOW No matter WHAT! Remember? "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist" Richard Dawkins
"Mike the statement that the fossil record is strongly supportive of evolution still stands"
On its head maybe...

You're not really cut out for debate are you. It's all about soundbites and no substance with you isn't it. How about you actually address something you don't agree with using " Facts and Evidence, Logic, Reason, and Critical thinking" for a change ?

"You're not really cut out for debate are you."

I don't know.. I guess it depends on the subject that is being debated... Maybe, when it comes to Haberdashery or Ornithology, I may not be "Cut out for it" and may not do too well..

HOWEVER

When it comes to the subject of "Evolution" (AKA Abiogenesis followed by UCA for all flora and fauna) I sure wouldnt want to debate me and try to defend the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth against myself.. would you? LOL.. (Actually, you bob and weave, evade and avoid doing so.. Remember the Vital Organs Fiasco? I do..)

(Hint : When it comes to debating the hilarious hypothesis of UCA for all flora and fauna, I am the Atheist's absolute worst Nightmare) LOL

BTW..


THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING
By Jim Thinnsen


"Evolution" "Predicts" EVERYTHING

So they have ALL THE BASES COVERED!!!!

1 Instant "Evolution" (One Generation) Hopeful Monsters / SALTATION

2 Fast "Evolution" PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM

3 Slow ..Plodding Methodological "Evolution" DARWINIAN MODEL

4 Non Existent "Evolution" 300 MYO LIVING FOSSILS

So evolution happens....

INSTANTLY

QUICKLY

SLOWLY

NEVER

The predictive power of "Evolution" is sure amazing isnt it? LOL

"Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

Richard Dawkins

#506 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 18 October 2017 - 10:24 PM

Honest people can admit to the following

Right so I can only be honest if I agree with you ?
 

1. If evolution is false we would expect to not generally find macro-evolutionary transitionals.

If evolution was false we would be unable to make any coherent sense of the fossil record whatsoever. There would be zero transitionals. If there were coincidental mosaic organisms that just looked like transitionals they would be randomly placed in the rocks.
 

2. If creation is true we would expect to find the same kinds of forms and generally no transitionals of evolution.

Cherry picking the tiny minority of “forms” that remain similar to modern representatives deep into the geological record whilst ignoring the overwhelming pattern of fossil assemblages increasingly dissimilar to modern the further back you go is not an honest way of evaluating the evidence.
We haven’t got “generally no transitionals”, stop pretending. I’ve given you perfectly good reasoning why we should not expect anything like the number of transitionals you demand according to your strawman version of evolution where all species are gradually and at a consistent rate morphing en masse into something else through time.
Just one example, if creation was true there is no reason why any of the beautiful chronological sequence of whale intermediates (yes I’m aware of the creationist denials) only appear from the early Eocene (c. 50 mya) onwards. Why nothing in the entirety of the rest of the geological record ?
 

You didn’t respond to the last section of my previous post where I made a couple of statements about what we should expect to see if creation was true, do you have anything plausible to counter them ?

Any response ?
To save you time:
 

If Genesis and the Flood was true I would expect the Cambrian jellyfish to be buried in the same layer as fish and cetaceans (or considering their buoyancy more likely somewhere above). I also would expect a much higher abundance of terrestrial organisms. Why does it make sense under the Flood model that 95% of fossils are marine ? Makes perfect sense under the evolutionary view because obviously the most suitable widespread areas for sediment deposition is the oceans, not the land.
 
As for unchanged "kinds" if a certain organism has reached an optimal "design" for a given environment there is no evolutionary compulsion that it must change, and there may be constraints from it doing so anyway. That said there is very little from as far back as the Cambrian that is "unchanged" through to today, which is why you always bring up jellyfish as the only example from that period.

 
Also ignored (again)
 

If creation was true of course there would be nothing you could regard as intermediate because there would no sensible pattern of progressive change through the strata. Your geographical province idea that you sometimes put forward to explain why we see a clear and never violated separation of organism types (humans and dinosaurs for example) fails completely because fossils aren’t separated laterally in this way, they can be found in close proximity, the separation is in the vertical direction through the geological strata. I’ve said that before and it always gets ignored for some reason.

A response, per chance ?
 

Because basically you are shouting this message to me; "Mike Wibble I don't care what the facts are, I am going to argue that evolution creation is true."

Funny how creationists make statements like this that in fact apply to them.


"Cherry picking the tiny minority of “forms” that remain similar to modern representatives"


Come on.... We have the Jellyfish, (Medusa) that supposedly "arrived on the scene" over "500 MYO" that are virtually INDISTINGUISHABLE from "Modern" Jellyfish.. That puts them "In the middle of the 'Cambrian"..

THEREFORE..

You want us to believe that over the course of "500,000,000 Years" while the one Jellyfish was "Evolving" ZERO, One of his brothers was "Evolving" Into a Wibble???? (Man)


Oh.. I'm sorry, I am not very good at debating.. So you must be right..

Just kidding... Have a nice evening


" For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 2 Tim 4

#507 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 19 October 2017 - 03:54 AM

(Hint : When it comes to debating the hilarious hypothesis of UCA for all flora and fauna, I am the Atheist's absolute worst Nightmare) LOL

 
:rotfl3:  :rotfl3: 
 
 

"Cherry picking the tiny minority of “forms” that remain similar to modern representatives"


Come on.... We have the Jellyfish, (Medusa) that supposedly "arrived on the scene" over "500 MYO" that are virtually INDISTINGUISHABLE from "Modern" Jellyfish.. That puts them "In the middle of the 'Cambrian"..

THEREFORE..

You want us to believe that over the course of "500,000,000 Years" while the one Jellyfish was "Evolving" ZERO, One of his brothers was "Evolving" Into a Wibble???? (Man)


Oh.. I'm sorry, I am not very good at debating.. So you must be right..


So you have the genotype of that Cambrian jellyfish to show us that it is exactly the same as a modern species have you ? Jellyfish (a very successful and diverse group) have clearly struck upon an optimal body plan/ecological strategy. Perhaps there is an evolutionary constraint that maintains the general jellyfish phenotype because any deviation would result in a loss of fitness. I don't know, I'm no jellyfish expert. But this is what I mean when I accused Mike W of cherry picking. What else from the Cambrian can you point out ? It's always jellyfish isn't it ?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users