Jump to content


Photo

Missing Transitional Intermediates


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#81 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 January 2017 - 04:00 AM

 

 

What If: but yet evolutionists insist we have all these wonderful transitionals.

 

What else can they do? The sparse few examples they have they have to surround with hype, and inflate them to magnify the fact they are 0.0000000001% of what is expected, and highly explainable as a bunch of chimeras

 

http://evolutionfair...ional/?p=136252

 

(message #5) (forgive my poor drawings, especially of the dino-bird, it's only a diagram.)



#82 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 30 January 2017 - 10:14 AM

The sparse few examples they have they have to surround with hype, and inflate them to magnify the fact they are 0.0000000001% of what is expected, and highly explainable as a bunch of chimeras

here is more from the same source:
According to this model, each transition is a BBB such that new classes of biological entities emerge at the end of a rapid phase of evolution (inflation) that is characterized by extensive exchange of genetic information which takes distinct forms for different BBBs.
- ibid.

the above implies extensive HGT, but remember what glansdorf says:
LUCA's genetic redundancy predicts loss of paralogous gene copies in divergent lineages to be a significant source of phylogenetic anomalies, i.e. instances where a protein tree departs from the SSU-rRNA genealogy; consequently, horizontal gene transfer may not have the rampant character assumed by many.
- The Last Universal Common Ancestor emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner.htm

question:
why is HGT being introduced, to get away from the possibility of multiple origins????

#83 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 30 January 2017 - 02:20 PM

you DID say i never responded, which implies that you wanted some kind of response or answer on my part.if you take a good honest look at epigenetics, you will find that it satisfies quite a lot of the explanations and data of evolution.phenotypic changes without the corrosponding genetic change explains the discrepancy between gene and species trees.the addition of entire genetic sequences satisfies the "jerkiness" of the fossil record, essentially it's the cause of punctuated equilibrium.the second implies epigenetics is closely related to macro evolution.there is a large body of scientists that disagree with the abilities of genetic mutation/ natural selection to effect the above changes.i doubt if fraud was the intent.first of all, evolution is a process that deals with life.in my opinion, this specifically excludes abiogenesis.the very next assumption is the hard one.a multiple or single source.the literature says:LUCA does not appear to have been a simple, primitive, hyperthermophilic prokaryote but rather a complex community of protoeukaryotes with a RNA genome, adapted to a broad range of moderate temperatures, genetically redundant, morphologically and metabolically diverse. LUCA's genetic redundancy predicts loss of paralogous gene copies in divergent lineages to be a significant source of phylogenetic anomalies, i.e. instances where a protein tree departs from the SSU-rRNA genealogy; consequently, horizontal gene transfer may not have the rampant character assumed by many.- The Last Universal Common Ancestor emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner.htmi have no idea what kind of answer you want from me.i'm just the average, every day joe, looking for answers/ explanations like 99.99999% of the planet.keep an open mind blitz, don't close out your options just because "i don't want to believe it".i believe that a very large part of the problems associated with evolutionary theory is that the scientific establishment carefully and specifically excluded certain things from the theory in order to NOT give creationists ammunition.transposons and epigenetics are perfect examples of the above.mcclintock and her transposon research was outright ignored.epigenetics has been suspected since at least 1970, and it's being paraded around like it's some kind of "new discovery".the fact that "science" never issued a retraction for what it printed about ayala speaks volumes.



"keep an open mind blitz, don't close out your options just because "i don't want to believe it".


Believe me, I do have an open mind, but I also believe that if a belief system that does NOT conform to the Scientific Method should NOT be taught in every public school Biology class..

Is THAT too much to ask? Or do I need more of an "Open Mind" when you can even answer the simplest of questions to defend it?

#84 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 30 January 2017 - 03:14 PM

"keep an open mind blitz, don't close out your options just because "i don't want to believe it".


Believe me, I do have an open mind, but I also believe that if a belief system that does NOT conform to the Scientific Method should NOT be taught in every public school Biology class..

Is THAT too much to ask? Or do I need more of an "Open Mind" when you can even answer the simplest of questions to defend it?

i think it's wrong to not tell our children that the first natural life, or common ancestry, has not been confirmed.

i also think it's wrong to envision the cell as something constructed by DNA.
it goes deeper than that, the cell is nothing less than a cell sized genetics engineering lab.
a device that alters itself according to its surroundings and then transmits that information without altering the code itself.
????
that sounds pretty complex to me.
am i missing something?

i found a new word for genetics research, palindromes.
apparently they are important, and might explain how DNA acquires genetic sequences.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#85 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 30 January 2017 - 08:43 PM

i think it's wrong to not tell our children that the first natural life, or common ancestry, has not been confirmed.i also think it's wrong to envision the cell as something constructed by DNA.it goes deeper than that, the cell is nothing less than a cell sized genetics engineering lab.a device that alters itself according to its surroundings and then transmits that information without altering the code itself.????that sounds pretty complex to me.am i missing something?i found a new word for genetics research, palindromes.apparently they are important, and might explain how DNA acquires genetic sequences.


"That sounds pretty complex to me.
am i missing something?"

No, You are right in the money there..

In fact, not only is it complex, it is IRREDUCIBLY Complex!

( Although Atheists / Darwinists continue to Lie to the public by saying there is no such thing as "Irreducible Complexity")


“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.” SJG Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College,
  • mike the wiz likes this

#86 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 14 August 2017 - 10:37 AM

While creationists claim there are "no" transitionals, the scientists who do this work claim to have found hundreds, if not thousands of them.

really?
The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

Gould summed it up pretty well  (paraphrasing): "While there are few fossils at the species level, they are abundant at higher levels."

i seriously doubt if gould made such a comment, and believed it.

#87 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 17 August 2017 - 03:42 AM

...
What else can they do? The sparse few examples they have they have to surround with hype, and inflate them to magnify the fact they are 0.0000000001% of what is expected, and highly explainable as a bunch of chimeras ...

.
How was that number derived?

#88 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 17 August 2017 - 04:59 AM

...
What else can they do? The sparse few examples they have they have to surround with hype, and inflate them to magnify the fact they are 0.0000000001% of what is expected, and highly explainable as a bunch of chimeras ...

.
How was that number derived?

well, that didn't last long.
see post 101 of the ad hoc storifying thread.

#89 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,442 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 August 2017 - 06:06 AM

Where are we to find a living transitional that we can observe today. I would like to observe some plant or animal that is transitioning to another body type?

I also would like eyes in the back of my head. But they don't seem to be developing. Nor have I observed any eye spots on any one else's hea. Moreover I have not observe anywhere on my body any evidence my body is in transition.
Has evolution stopped?
Where have all the transitionals gone?


  • mike the wiz likes this

#90 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 17 August 2017 - 12:06 PM

Where are we to find a living transitional that we can observe today. I would like to observe some plant or animal that is transitioning to another body type?

I also would like eyes in the back of my head. But they don't seem to be developing. Nor have I observed any eye spots on any one else's hea. Moreover I have not observe anywhere on my body any evidence my body is in transition.
Has evolution stopped?
Where have all the transitionals gone?

.
Let's put aside for a moment your question about whether or not there are examples of non-extinct speciation in transition. Yes? Thanks.

Does anyone here understand the implications of your final question, "Where have all the transitionals gone?" I have not read any proper treatment of the question, though it may exist in a post here, somewhere.

There is here much discussion about fossils found and their meanings. There has been little or no accurate, substantive, thorough discussion of--to my knowledge--of what has not been found.

Now, I have demonstrated how I would approach other subjects but not this subject--I'm not much interested.
.
When I asked, above:
.

...
What else can they do? The sparse few examples they have they have to surround with hype, and inflate them to magnify the fact they are 0.0000000001% of what is expected, and highly explainable as a bunch of chimeras ...

.
How was that number derived?

.
When I asked that question, I was NOT asking an idle, simple question and it had zero relationship to the one who posed the question. Capice?

Now, would anyone dare and care to give a proper treatment of the question at hand? The TWO questions, "[w]here have all the transitionals gone?" and "[h]ow was that number derived?" are the SAME question. Put another way--remember, I have two semesters of Abstract Algebra, aka "Group Theory" under my belt, both of which I received an "A"--place all the referents (nouns) concerning our knowledge of the subject--fossils, found, not found, destroyed--into three groups:

Group 1 -- All the fossils found to date, and what is known (facts) about them and what is speculated about them.
Group 2 -- All the fossils that EXIST PRESENTLY, but have yet to be discovered.
Group 3 -- One fossilized representation of all the species on Earth that EVER existed since life first began.

This is how I would approach the subject after giving it 15 minutes of thought.

One needs a true and thorough appreciation of Group 3 to understand the implications of Groups 1 and 2.

Eh?

#91 wibble

wibble

    Member

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

Posted 17 August 2017 - 01:55 PM

Does anyone here understand the implications of your final question, "Where have all the transitionals gone?" I have not read any proper treatment of the question, though it may exist in a post here, somewhere.


I've had a go a few times, including in this thread (post 21)

http://evolutionfair...mediates/page-2

 

Of course the number that Mr Wiz produced was just made up off the top of his uninformed head



#92 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 17 August 2017 - 04:21 PM

Does anyone here understand the implications of your final question, "Where have all the transitionals gone?" I have not read any proper treatment of the question, though it may exist in a post here, somewhere.

i've posted the answer to this question a number of times.
here it is again:
The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly** and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.
- The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.htm

i think what you need to understand is, how can koonin make such a peer reviewed statement such as "no intermediate grades are detectable" in connection with animal phyla.
the "soft body" explanation doesn't cut it, because to make such a comment requires the assumption that all phyla had to arrive at once instead of descending from one another.
furthermore, the record MUST be complete enough for koonin to make such a statement.
goulds PE hypothesis falls into the same sort of thing, and it has been accepted as a valid evolutionary theory.
i also believe gould was talking about the exact same thing as koonin, the missing transitionals between animal phyla.
of course, you'll either ignore this post, or brush it aside like it was never presented, or resort right back to the mainstream explanation which koonin says (and gives references for) is unreliable.

koonin dismisses the mainstream explanation of "this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal" as unreliable and gives the following reference for doing so:
Welch JJ, Fontanillas E, Bromham L. Molecular dates for the "cambrian explosion": the influence of prior assumptions. Syst Biol. 2005;54:672–678. doi: 10.1080/10635150590947212.

** koonins original phrase was ready made, and the reviewers calls him on it, thus:
"In each major class of biological objects, the principal types emerge "ready-made", and intermediate grades cannot be identified." Ouch, that will be up on ID websites faster than one can bat an eye.

koonins response:
Here I do not really understand the concern. I changed "ready-made" to "abruptly", to avoid any ID allusions and added clarifications but, beyond that, there is little I can do because this is an important sentence that accurately and clearly portrays a crucial and, to the very best of my understanding, real feature of evolutionary transitions.
- ibid.

we aren't talking about one animal phyla, but ALL of them.
ALL of them appear in the record as "ready made".

for the life of me, i cannot understand how you can possibly say phyla descended from one another.

#93 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 August 2017 - 04:01 AM

 

 

Wibble: I've had a go a few times, including in this thread (post 21) (at explaining where the transitionals are)

 

 

 

 

Wibble: Of course the number that Mr Wiz produced was just made up off the top of his uninformed head

 

 

Mike the wiz; Let me come out of debate-resting for just one moment. You do realise that if we assume that 200 fossils are transitionals, this means out of 250, 000 fossil finds 0.08% are transitionals?

 

But that is being generous, a lot of the "transitionals" on their list are only assigned to be transitionals, without any proof. For example the closest, "transitional" to an Ichthyosaur, which they would no doubt count as a transitional, is a four legged reptile, but an Ichthyosaur is a sea-reptile with fins, that is homoplastic to a dolphin.

 

So to simply class that as a transitional, would be ludicrous. (so have you checked for each of their claims, if their purported candidates represent any actual "transition", or whether they are just nominated to be transitionals? My experience of evolutionists is that when you look into their claims of transitionals, you find species which are basically simply chosen to represent a transitional, when it seems clear there isn't necessarily any connection between their candidate they call a progenitor, and the, "descendant".)

 

So before I take my rest from debate, I ask the readers this question - if the fossil record is basically a history of life on earth would you expect 0.08% of the fossils found to be transitionals? To my mind, 0.08% of the fossil record should be the creatures we find living on earth today, if history is a history of macro-evolution.

 

Your problem is Wibble, you claim macro-evolution evolved everything we see today, including all mammals, at a time when the fossil record, "recorded" this event.

 

So then logically it is of 100% irrelevance how fragmented that record is.

 

By analogy, imagine if I said to you, "we have 100 bags, and those bags are largely representative of containing tools, and in 100 bags, there are 80 tools in each bag and 20 toys in each bag."

 

Now let us open those bags, knowing they are representative of tools like the fossil record is representative of an evolution of life on earth, but now let us pretend that we only get to choose 5% of the objects since you highlighted that figure.

 

So then 5% of 10,000 is 500. Let us now divide 500 by 100 since there are 100 bags. That's 5 objects we get to pick out of each bag. Now with 80 tools in each bag and 20 toys all evenly mixed (since transitional can occur at any stage in history) imagine if from those bags we got 0.08% tools and 99.92% toys, when there are allegedly 20 toys in each and 80 tools in each.

 

Would we be able to change our conclusion and in fact say the bags largely represent toys? Somehow I think so.

 

If 0.25% would be 1 and 1/4 of a tool, then what would 0.08% represent? It means that if we round it up we found out of 500 selections, 499 toys, and about 90% of the 500th toy, and about one quarter of one tool. So that would be like basically picking approximately 500 toys from the bags, out of our 500 selection, and only picking the head off of a hammer, from one bag. And you think our conclusion should be that this selection represents best, tools? That's hilarious!

 

Toys = Animal kinds, extinct or extant.

Tools = Evolutionary transitionals.

100 bags = 100 "stages" of history. (for arguments sake)

5% of the 10,000 objects = the 5% of the fossils.

 

 

.....I rest my case.

 

[mc]*Applause from the jury*[/mc]

 

(mc = mischief content)

 

 

From; http://evolutionfair...fying/?p=139264

 

 

 

 

 

Wibblehttp://evolutionfair...mediates/page-2

 

 

Which I torn to pieces here;

 

http://evolutionfair...iates/?p=136119



#94 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 18 August 2017 - 05:46 AM

Wibble: I've had a go a few times, including in this thread (post 21) (at explaining where the transitionals are)

 
 

Wibble: Of course the number that Mr Wiz produced was just made up off the top of his uninformed head

 

Mike the wiz; Let me come out of debate-resting for just one moment. You do realise that if we assume that 200 fossils are transitionals, this means out of 250, 000 fossil finds 0.08% are transitionals?
 
But that is being generous, a lot of the "transitionals" on their list are only assigned to be transitionals, without any proof. For example the closest, "transitional" to an Ichthyosaur, which they would no doubt count as a transitional, is a four legged reptile, but an Ichthyosaur is a sea-reptile with fins, that is homoplastic to a dolphin.
 
So to simply class that as a transitional, would be ludicrous. (so have you checked for each of their claims, if their purported candidates represent any actual "transition", or whether they are just nominated to be transitionals? My experience of evolutionists is that when you look into their claims of transitionals, you find species which are basically simply chosen to represent a transitional, when it seems clear there isn't necessarily any connection between their candidate they call a progenitor, and the, "descendant".)
 
So before I take my rest from debate, I ask the readers this question - if the fossil record is basically a history of life on earth would you expect 0.08% of the fossils found to be transitionals? To my mind, 0.08% of the fossil record should be the creatures we find living on earth today, if history is a history of macro-evolution.
 
Your problem is Wibble, you claim macro-evolution evolved everything we see today, including all mammals, at a time when the fossil record, "recorded" this event.
 
So then logically it is of 100% irrelevance how fragmented that record is.
 
By analogy, imagine if I said to you, "we have 100 bags, and those bags are largely representative of containing tools, and in 100 bags, there are 80 tools in each bag and 20 toys in each bag."
 
Now let us open those bags, knowing they are representative of tools like the fossil record is representative of an evolution of life on earth, but now let us pretend that we only get to choose 5% of the objects since you highlighted that figure.
 
So then 5% of 10,000 is 500. Let us now divide 500 by 100 since there are 100 bags. That's 5 objects we get to pick out of each bag. Now with 80 tools in each bag and 20 toys all evenly mixed (since transitional can occur at any stage in history) imagine if from those bags we got 0.08% tools and 99.92% toys, when there are allegedly 20 toys in each and 80 tools in each.
 
Would we be able to change our conclusion and in fact say the bags largely represent toys? Somehow I think so.
 
If 0.25% would be 1 and 1/4 of a tool, then what would 0.08% represent? It means that if we round it up we found out of 500 selections, 499 toys, and about 90% of the 500th toy, and about one quarter of one tool. So that would be like basically picking approximately 500 toys from the bags, out of our 500 selection, and only picking the head off of a hammer, from one bag. And you think our conclusion should be that this selection represents best, tools? That's hilarious!
 
Toys = Animal kinds, extinct or extant.
Tools = Evolutionary transitionals.
100 bags = 100 "stages" of history. (for arguments sake)
5% of the 10,000 objects = the 5% of the fossils.
 
 
.....I rest my case.
 
[mc]*Applause from the jury*[/mc]
 
(mc = mischief content)

 
From; http://evolutionfair...fying/?p=139264
 
 
 

Wibblehttp://evolutionfair...mediates/page-2

 
 
Which I torn to pieces here;
 
http://evolutionfair...iates/?p=136119

.
That's what I thought.

Looks like I'm going to expand that short list very soon.

#95 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,225 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 18 August 2017 - 07:58 AM

Does anyone here understand the implications of your final question, "Where have all the transitionals gone?" I have not read any proper treatment of the question, though it may exist in a post here, somewhere.

i've posted the answer to this question a number of times.
here it is again: ...

.
This forum has the "View it anyway?" feature, as you may know. I looked at post #92 only to determine whether my three groups had been referenced.

The moment I determined that they were not, I stopped reading post #92.

You have been smoking crack if you think you answered the question that I asked, "Does anyone here understand the implications of...'Where have all the transitionals gone?'" Take special notice that my treatment of the issue does not use the word "enzymes." The only thing I reference is the existence of what we are calling "transitionals."--and I mean all of them of any kind.

#96 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 18 August 2017 - 09:06 AM

Take special notice that my treatment of the issue does not use the word "enzymes."

neither does koonin.
post 92 doesn't even include the word "enzyme".

The only thing I reference is the existence of what we are calling "transitionals."--and I mean all of them of any kind.

and what definition of "transitional" are you using?
post 92 is explicit that koonin uses the term to denote transitions between animal phyla.
koonin explicitly states none are discernible.
he also dismisses the mainstream explanation as unreliable.

what kind of conclusion are you going to draw from the above?
the only conclusion i can draw is, gradualism is a whole bunch of garbage.

there is something else that isn't explicitly stated, the fossil record HAS to be complete enough for koonin to make such a peer reviewed statement of "none are discernible".

#97 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 August 2017 - 11:11 AM

 

 

Wibble: Of course the number that Mr Wiz produced was just made up off the top of his uninformed head

 

 

https://www.brainpop...obability/quiz/

 

Attached File  prob.jpg   33.69KB   0 downloads

 

(I misunderstood the question I got incorrect, looking back I now know what it meant.)






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users