Jump to content


Photo

Missing Transitional Intermediates


  • Please log in to reply
648 replies to this topic

#641 Gneiss girl

Gneiss girl

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Age: 50
  • (private)
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Western US

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:30 AM

what if,

Praying for you... :rolleyes:



#642 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 15 November 2017 - 09:40 AM

what if,
Praying for you... :rolleyes:



And my family is praying for you as well..

#643 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 21 November 2017 - 10:26 AM

the old saying is true, you don't know what you have until it's gone.

but anyway, let's not derail the thread any further.

#644 Lion of Judah

Lion of Judah

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I love to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. This is my first and most important interest.

    Biblical history; Creation Science; Intelligent design; Reading and writing; Debating Creation/Evolution; Social work stuff; YouTube videos; college football
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Idaho

Posted 25 November 2017 - 03:04 PM

"Without the bible bias it is abundantly clear what the fossil record shows, there is a clear pattern of evolutionary change (most obvious with Chordata)."

 

Wibble - One does not have to hold a biblical perspective to see that the fossils are mixed up and out of order and are not led up to a gradual, completely continuous transitional sequence as evolutionary theory proposes. The fossils do not present a "family tree" for there is no trunk and no branches, only distinct twigs!

 

Anyone who studies the fossils can see and knows this fact. 

 

Best wishes.


  • Blitzking likes this

#645 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 25 November 2017 - 07:04 PM

"Without the bible bias it is abundantly clear what the fossil record shows, there is a clear pattern of evolutionary change (most obvious with Chordata)."

 

Wibble - One does not have to hold a biblical perspective to see that the fossils are mixed up and out of order and are not led up to a gradual, completely continuous transitional sequence as evolutionary theory proposes. The fossils do not present a "family tree" for there is no trunk and no branches, only distinct twigs!

 

Anyone who studies the fossils can see and knows this fact. 

 

Best wishes.

 

I honestly don't know how you can assert that if you have any knowledge of the fossil record.  The fossils are so not mixed up and out of order ! Else why would there be creationist "explanations" of the order, such as "differential escape" and "ecological zonation" ?

 

You should know that a completely continuous transitional sequence is not expected from the fossil record because evolution does not occur en masse across large geographical ranges at a constant rate preserved with a globally consistent rain of sedimentary material. On the other hand, continuous inter species gradations are seen in the fossil record in certain formations, such as the Micraster sea urchins in Cretaceous chalk, which I have lost count of the number of times I've mentioned on this forum yet always gets ignored because the Flood can't explain it.



#646 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 25 November 2017 - 09:52 PM

"Without the bible bias it is abundantly clear what the fossil record shows, there is a clear pattern of evolutionary change (most obvious with Chordata)."
 
Wibble - One does not have to hold a biblical perspective to see that the fossils are mixed up and out of order and are not led up to a gradual, completely continuous transitional sequence as evolutionary theory proposes. The fossils do not present a "family tree" for there is no trunk and no branches, only distinct twigs!
 
Anyone who studies the fossils can see and knows this fact. 
 
Best wishes.




Indeed.. It makes one wonder what Wibble bases his authority to make such sweeping dogmatic assertions as if he keeps on Parroting them they will suddenly become true.. I am guessing he will have better luck trying to indoctrinate people into believing his "Facts" on Talk Origins or one of the other Atheist websites where his Dogma will be embraced with open arms..

HOWEVER

Surely you can bet your last dollar he will be back in 2 weeks and post "The "Fossil Record" shows a clear pattern of evolutionary change" like he has done here dozens of times before.. You see, Wibble knows much more about the "Fossil Record" than Chief Paleontologist of the British Museum Colin Patterson or many other Prominent "Evolutionary" Paleontologists did, not because of reality, but because Wibble Desperately NEEDS it to be true due to the IMPLICATIONS of Darwins Myth.. His Guru summed it up best.. "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist" Richard Dawkins

Dr Colin Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following statement which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL for which one could make a watertight argument

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"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.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualist accounts of evolution."

(Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as a trade secret of Paleontology. Evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

(Dr. Stephan J Gould, Harvard Paleontologist,)

---------------------------------------------------------------------


"It remains true, as every paleontologist (EXCEPT WIBBLE) knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences." (Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)

------------------------------------------

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational."
(Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

---------------------------------------

"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)
  • Lion of Judah likes this

#647 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 26 November 2017 - 12:58 PM

Dr Colin Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following statement which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’


He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL for which one could make a watertight argument


What the creationist Sunderland failed to include in his book (quote mining again) is the remainder of the above statement which puts Patterson’s statement into context.

"... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question."

So what Patterson was saying is not that there are no transitionals but that it is not possible to establish from the fossil record whether a particular specimen is a direct ancestor of anything, for example Archaeopteryx, which clearly has transitional features between reptile and bird but it is likely an evolutionary side branch rather than a direct ancestor of the robin in your garden.

In Patterson’s book you mention he writes this:

"In several animal and plant groups, enough fossils are known to bridge the wide gaps between existing types. In mammals, for example, the gap between horses, asses and zebras (genus Equus) and their closest living relatives, the rhinoceroses and tapirs, is filled by an extensive series of fossils extending back sixty-million years to a small animal, Hyracotherium, which can only be distinguished from the rhinoceros-tapir group by one or two horse-like details of the skull. There are many other examples of fossil 'missing links', such as Archaeopteryx, the Jurassic bird which links birds with dinosaurs (Fig. 45), and Ichthyostega, the late Devonian amphibian which links land vertebrates and the extinct choanate (having internal nostrils) fishes." (Patterson, 1978, p. 130).

So your repeated quoting of Patterson is shown to be without any value. It’s just your usual quote mining tactic because Patterson clearly did accept there are transitional fossils as is proven in the above excerpt.

As for SJG, for some reason you seem unable to absorb his message for creationists like you, which you’ve been shown many times.

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

That was in 1994, and we’ve found many more since then.

 

"It remains true, as every paleontologist (EXCEPT WIBBLE) knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual completely continuous transitional sequences." (Dr. George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard)


And now you misrepresent me, you naughty boy. Where have I said that the evolutionary history of most taxa in the record are known by "gradual completely continuous transitional sequences" ? When I say there is a clear pattern of evolutionary change in the fossil record I am referring to the pattern of first appearance in the geological strata, which makes abundant sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but none from a creationist and Noahic flood perspective short of laughable explanations such as "differential escape".


  • StormanNorman and Goku like this

#648 Lion of Judah

Lion of Judah

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:I love to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. This is my first and most important interest.

    Biblical history; Creation Science; Intelligent design; Reading and writing; Debating Creation/Evolution; Social work stuff; YouTube videos; college football
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Idaho

Posted 26 November 2017 - 01:22 PM

"I honestly don't know how you can assert that if you have any knowledge of the fossil record."

 

Wibble - I am not claiming to possess superior knowledge of the fossils, but simply pointing out their order does not corroborate evolutionary theory.

 

"The fossils are so not mixed up and out of order !"

 

Using the standard strata time charts determines that certain fossils should always be in certain strata. However, fossils are oftentimes found in the wrong place. This is well charted. 

 

"You should know that a completely continuous transitional sequence is not expected from the fossil record because evolution does not occur en masse across large geographical ranges at a constant rate preserved with a globally consistent rain of sedimentary material. On the other hand, continuous inter species gradations are seen in the fossil record in certain formations"

 

Your statement indicates that any and all discoveries of the fossils can be accommodated to fit evolutionary theory. 

 

Best wishes. 



#649 what if

what if

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 27 November 2017 - 09:08 AM

gradualism, as it pertains to evolution, is a ruse, and steven j. gould knew it was (is).

fransico ayala was correct, small changes do not accumulate.

 

i've presented evidence in my NAIG thread which shows where some of this comes from.

it also throws doubt on every alleged "retraction" ever made in regards to evolution.

can you spell F-R-A-U-D-U-L-E-N-T ?

 

every single tenet of the modern synthesis has either been overturned or rewritten,

the modern synthesis is most likely what you think evolution is.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users