Jump to content


Photo

Living Transitional Species


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
53 replies to this topic

#1 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 13 January 2006 - 10:19 AM

I see a contradiction in evolutionary thinking.
Evoluitonists all agree that not all species have to evolve, i.e., there is nothing that is driving evolution onward and upward. The fossil record tells us that sharks, for example, haven't changed in (alledgedly)200-300 million years. Many other species have remained unchanged, reportedly over vast eons of time.

Given the agreement that species don't have to evolve and very often don't, why is it that there are no living transiitonal species? If you look at the evolutionary tree of life, all living species are related by innumerable hypothetical common ancestors, not by direct linkage. This is a major contradiction in evolution theory, because on the one hand they're saying that living things don't have to change and very often don't... and on the other hand they're saying that things are always changing... thus, no living transitionals.

#2 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 January 2006 - 12:31 AM

I have the answer for both sides.

The creationist:
Because it never happened.

Evolutionist:

Natural selection and time and mutations and no odds count and.... and ..... etc....

Not mocking it, just tired of the same old song and dance on this issue. :)

#3 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 January 2006 - 07:45 AM

:)

Given the agreement that species don't have to evolve and very often don't, why is it that there are no living transiitonal species?


This is one of the basic ideas when I start the "Has time ran out thread".

Evolutionists rely on time as the means to support their illusion. The problem is that in all of recorded human history, no one has ever witnessed such an event. If you want to rely on time, then there has to be a continous change in most everything going on around us, and that should be obvoius to the casual observer. Such change is not found in nature, and is a heavy argument against goo-to-you evolution.

As mentioned in another thread, another answer is that all things are transitional species, and all fossils are transitional species.

It embarassing...... :) I'm grateful that I don't have to live with that kind of thining in my head......

Terry

#4 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 14 January 2006 - 02:28 PM

As mentioned in another thread, another answer is that all things are transitional species, and all fossils are transitional species. 


My point is that if you look at an evolutionary tree of life, there is no living thing that is a direct ancestor to another. Example: A chimp is not a direct ancestor to a human... they both share a common ancestor. When a living coelocanth was examined, it was found not to be a true link, but another peripheral branch. No one can point to anything that is a direct ancestor to something else, when you're talking about macroevolution. It is also recognized that many lines do not change, e.g. sharks... To me, the complete absense of true links implies that everything must constantly be evolving... however, all agree that many species did not evolve for many millions of years.

#5 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 January 2006 - 02:41 PM

I see a contradiction in evolutionary thinking.
Evoluitonists all agree that not all species have to evolve, i.e., there is nothing that is driving evolution onward and upward.


Sort of. We can agree that it give the appearance of not evolving.


The fossil record tells us that sharks, for example, haven't changed in (alledgedly)200-300 million years. Many other species have remained unchanged, reportedly over vast eons of time.


Sort of. But I think I know what you mean, i.e. sharks have changed little in comparison with other species.



Given the agreement that species don't have to evolve and very often don't, why is it that there are no living transiitonal species?


I’m not sure I get your point. e.g. if we take this very simplistic (and erroneous) description of evolution:

life evolved from Fish, to amphibian, to reptile to mammal. Then why can’t you say an amphibian is an example of a living transitional?


If you look at the evolutionary tree of life, all living species are related by innumerable hypothetical common ancestors, not by direct linkage. This is a major contradiction in evolution theory, because on the one hand they're saying that living things don't have to change and very often don't... and on the other hand they're saying that things are always changing... thus, no living transitionals.


Basically life wont evolve if they live in an unchanging environment. Environmental pressure drives evolution on.

#6 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 15 January 2006 - 03:35 PM

quote=chance,Jan 15 2006, 02:41 PM


Sort of.  But I think I know what you mean, i.e. sharks have changed little in comparison with other species.


Sharks is not an isolated example... there are many species that are static over eons of time. Animals do not have to change.

I’m not sure I get your point.   e.g. if we take this very simplistic (and erroneous) description of evolution:

life evolved from Fish, to amphibian, to reptile to mammal.  Then why can’t you say an amphibian is an example of a living transitional?


Look at an evolutionary tree of life... fish and amphibians have a common ancestor... amphibians did not evolve from fish. That "common ancestor" is extinct. The same is true with the relationship of amphibians to reptiles and reptiles to mammals... i.e., not direct lineage, only hypothetical common ancestors. The total absence of any direct ancestors can only imply one thing.... that all species are constantly changing. My point is that the fossil record has taught us that many species do not change. I think all evolutionists agree on this. The shark, for example, is often referred to as a "living fossil". Thus, we have a contradiction. The facts tell us that species very often do not (alledgedly) evolve over millions of years, yet today no direct ancestors are living, which implies that they would have had to evolve.... every species.

#7 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 15 January 2006 - 07:48 PM

Sort of.  But I think I know what you mean, i.e. sharks have changed little in comparison with other species.


Sharks is not an isolated example... there are many species that are static over eons of time. Animals do not have to change.


I agree. The ToE does not mandate that life ‘must’ evolve. One must be careful about saying something has not evolved especially if the only evidence is the skeleton, sharks have changes certain species are extinct.


I’m not sure I get your point. e.g. if we take this very simplistic (and erroneous) description of evolution:

life evolved from Fish, to amphibian, to reptile to mammal. Then why can’t you say an amphibian is an example of a living transitional?

Look at an evolutionary tree of life... fish and amphibians have a common ancestor... amphibians did not evolve from fish.


Err the tree of life I’m familiar with has amphibian evolving from fish.

That "common ancestor" is extinct.

The specific common ancestor may or may not be extinct, but what is wrong with the fish, to amphibian, to reptile to mammal by way of example.



The same is true with the relationship of amphibians to reptiles and reptiles to mammals... i.e., not direct lineage, only hypothetical common ancestors. The total absence of any direct ancestors can only imply one thing.... that all species are constantly changing.


The speed of that change will be directly related to the environmental pressure, a shark in the ocean has little pressure, it’s the top dog, in an environment that requires streamlining above all else, basically you can’t get much better than a shark, so little change. The land is different, heat cold, wind, rain ice, storms, etc all make it for a hazardous place to live, thus many solutions for the many varied environments.



My point is that the fossil record has taught us that many species do not change. I think all evolutionists agree on this. The shark, for example, is often referred to as a "living fossil". Thus, we have a contradiction. The facts tell us that species very often do not (alledgedly) evolve over millions of years, yet today no direct ancestors are living, which implies that they would have had to evolve.... every species.


There is no contradiction, the variable you are not accounting for is the environment, the environment dictates the speed of evolution, slow or fast.

#8 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 15 January 2006 - 09:58 PM

quote=chance,Jan 15 2006, 07:48 PM


I agree.  The ToE does not mandate that life ‘must’ evolve. One must be careful about saying something has not evolved especially if the only evidence is the skeleton, sharks have changes certain species are extinct.


I agree, and evolutionists would do well to exercise far more caution in interpreting the fossil record.

I’m not sure I get your point. e.g. if we take this very simplistic (and erroneous) description of evolution:

life evolved from Fish, to amphibian, to reptile to mammal.  Then why can’t you say an amphibian is an example of a living transitional?
Err the tree of life I’m familiar with has amphibian evolving from fish.


I haven't as yet seen a tree of life as you describe. Here is one I found on an internet search.... http://library.think...ia/treeolif.jpg
I've seen quite a few just like this... posted in pro-evolutionary literature. Everything is a peripheral dead end branch.

#9 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 January 2006 - 02:05 PM

I’m not sure I get your point.  e.g. if we take this very simplistic (and erroneous) description of evolution:

life evolved from Fish, to amphibian, to reptile to mammal.  Then why can’t you say an amphibian is an example of a living transitional?
Err the tree of life I’m familiar with has amphibian evolving from fish.


I haven't as yet seen a tree of life as you describe. Here is one I found on an internet search.... http://library.think...ia/treeolif.jpg
I've seen quite a few just like this... posted in pro-evolutionary literature. Everything is a peripheral dead end branch.


That’s not a very good tree of life because it is only representing the ‘change’, have a look at fish in that picture, by that tree of life there should be no fish now as they have all evolved into amphibians. The tree of life (Phylogenetic tree) should have a fish line all the way to the present, like this one (need to scroll down a bit) http://users.rcn.com...T/Taxonomy.html

Now using this tree, one can see that a living transitional need only be a ‘survivor from the past’, which is really all they are.

#10 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 16 January 2006 - 05:43 PM

[quote name='chance' date='Jan 16 2006, 02:05 PM']
[/quote]

That’s not a very good tree of life because it is only representing the ‘change’, have a look at fish in that picture, by that tree of life there should be no fish now as they have all evolved into amphibians. The tree of life (Phylogenetic tree) should have a fish line all the way to the present, like this one (need to scroll down a bit) http://users.rcn.com...T/Taxonomy.html

Now using this tree, one can see that a living transitional need only be a ‘survivor from the past’, which is really all they are.

View Post

[/quote]

Using that tree, my point is still made..... there are no direct ancestors, only hypothetical ones. Thus, one would have to presumed that ALL species are ALWAYS changing..... and we know that they are not.

By the way, did you notice the obvious display on that website of Haeckle's fraudulent drawings, posted as evidence for evolution?

#11 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 16 January 2006 - 07:42 PM

That’s not a very good tree of life because it is only representing the ‘change’, have a look at fish in that picture, by that tree of life there should be no fish now as they have all evolved into amphibians. The tree of life (Phylogenetic tree) should have a fish line all the way to the present, like this one (need to scroll down a bit) http://users.rcn.com...T/Taxonomy.html

Now using this tree, one can see that a living transitional need only be a ‘survivor from the past’, which is really all they are.


Using that tree, my point is still made..... there are no direct ancestors, only hypothetical ones. Thus, one would have to presumed that ALL species are ALWAYS changing..... and we know that they are not.


What’s hypothetical about a fish being our direct ancestor? (and thus an example of a living transitional). How can you presume that all species are changing, some will and some wont, it depends upon the environment they find themselves in. e.g. land locked fish may evolve to become amphibians while those remaining in the ocean do not.


By the way, did you notice the obvious display on that website of Haeckle's fraudulent drawings, posted as evidence for evolution?


Curses (gnashes teeth) your not supposed to see that! :)

#12 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 16 January 2006 - 08:41 PM

quote=chance,Jan 16 2006, 07:42 PM


What’s hypothetical about a fish being our direct ancestor? (and thus an example of a living transitional).

Look again at the evolutionary tree that you posted... man did not evolve from a fish... he evolved from a hypothetical common ancestor of fishes. Notice that all species are terminal branches, not links.

How can you presume that all species are changing, some will and some wont,....


I'm saying that if you look at the evolutionary tree of life, all direct ancestors to every living species have become extinct. Man did not evolve from fish, according to evolutionists. Therefore, the evolutionary tree implies that all species are in a constant state of change. If they were not, why would we not see any direct ancestors today?

it depends upon the environment they find themselves in. e.g. land locked fish may evolve to become amphibians while those remaining in the ocean do not


Seems logical, but this doesn't coincide with evidence. For example, the coelocanth, originally thought to have morphologic features preadapted to terrrestrial life, was discovered to be a deep water marine fish.

#13 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 17 January 2006 - 02:26 PM

What’s hypothetical about a fish being our direct ancestor? (and thus an example of a living transitional).


Look again at the evolutionary tree that you posted... man did not evolve from a fish... he evolved from a hypothetical common ancestor of fishes. Notice that all species are terminal branches, not links.


Yes it like this:


Fish
|
|------man
fish
|
|

looks like a fish to me. Follow the tuna back down the line, that other line it connects to is also fish. (admittedly not the best diagram also). Man evolved from an ancestor of ‘modern fish’, yet still fish non the less.

How can you presume that all species are changing, some will and some wont,....


I'm saying that if you look at the evolutionary tree of life, all direct ancestors to every living species have become extinct. Man did not evolve from fish, according to evolutionists. Therefore, the evolutionary tree implies that all species are in a constant state of change. If they were not, why would we not see any direct ancestors today?


Extinction – ok lets assume you find a fossil of an extinct fish, what options are there:
a. this particular linage is extinct because they did not leave an descendants, and
b. this particular linage is extinct, yet a branch of this same species evolved into something else still around.

Both scenarios are predicted and part of the ToE. In each case the original find can be said to be extinct, but this has no bearing on what descendants survived.


fish
|---man
|
|
|----- another extinct fish
|
extinct fish



it depends upon the environment they find themselves in. e.g. land locked fish may evolve to become amphibians while those remaining in the ocean do not


Seems logical, but this doesn't coincide with evidence. For example, the coelocanth, originally thought to have morphologic features preadapted to terrrestrial life, was discovered to be a deep water marine fish.


No different to other animals ‘back tracking’ back into the ocean, whales, seals, penguins, walrus, otters, one group continued on the land another turned back. Evolution is not like a single straight line, it more like the branches of a tree at each turning point there are dozens of paths available, all explored.

#14 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 17 January 2006 - 08:44 PM

quote=chance,Jan 17 2006, 02:26 PM





looks like a fish to me.  Follow the tuna back down the line, that other line it connects to is also fish. (admittedly not the best diagram also).  Man evolved from an ancestor of ‘modern fish’, yet still fish non the less.


Every evolutionary tree of life [produced by evolutionists] that I've seen does not show direct linkages as you're describing. There is always an undefined hypothetical common ancestor. Of course, there has to be... If anyone made the claim that, for example, a reptile actually evolved from an amphibian, the idea would be debunked. How do you, for example, gradually go from the reproductive system of an amphibian (aquatic eggs and complex metamorphosis) and terrestrial eggs with fully formed offspring as in reptiles? The only way it can be conceptualized is to suppose the existence of a common ancestor.
Can you show me a published example of a tree of life where a fish is portrayed as an actual ancestor of a human?

#15 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 18 January 2006 - 02:16 PM

looks like a fish to me.  Follow the tuna back down the line, that other line it connects to is also fish. (admittedly not the best diagram also).  Man evolved from an ancestor of ‘modern fish’, yet still fish non the less.


Every evolutionary tree of life [produced by evolutionists] that I've seen does not show direct linkages as you're describing. There is always an undefined hypothetical common ancestor. Of course, there has to be... If anyone made the claim that, for example, a reptile actually evolved from an amphibian, the idea would be debunked. How do you, for example, gradually go from the reproductive system of an amphibian (aquatic eggs and complex metamorphosis) and terrestrial eggs with fully formed offspring as in reptiles? The only way it can be conceptualized is to suppose the existence of a common ancestor.
Can you show me a published example of a tree of life where a fish is portrayed as an actual ancestor of a human?


Ok here is a better one obtained by googling “tree of life” evolution IMAGES.
LINK
Posted Image

Follow the fish down to the T intersection (it’s still fish within that T) note that all tetrapods spring from that root.

Even within the fish and amphibian species you have things like, life birth, psuos-placenta, hard(ish) and soft shelled eggs, various forms of developments before birth and hatching.

#16 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 18 January 2006 - 09:32 PM

quote=chance,Jan 18 2006, 02:16 PM


Ok here is a better one obtained by googling “tree of life” evolution IMAGES.
LINK
Posted Image

Follow the fish down to the T intersection (it’s still fish within that T) note that all tetrapods spring from that root.


According the the diagram, the "T intersection" is a fish precursor, not a fish. IF not, why didn't they put "fish" at the intersection? I'm not denying that the hypothetical ancestor would have had some fish=like characteristics, but evolutionists are nevertheless hypothesizing that the precursor evolved to the fish, with extinction of the precursor.

Even within the fish and amphibian species you have things like, life birth, psuos-placenta, hard(ish) and soft shelled eggs, various forms of developments before birth and hatching.


However, the point of this thread is to emphasize that no living ancestors are in existence.... no examples from the "T intersections". Why not? We know that evolution is not a must (e.g., sharks, bats, and many other examples)...

#17 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 January 2006 - 06:48 PM

According the the diagram, the "T intersection" is a fish precursor, not a fish. IF not, why didn't they put "fish" at the intersection? I'm not denying that the hypothetical ancestor would have had some fish=like characteristics, but evolutionists are nevertheless hypothesizing that the precursor evolved to the fish, with extinction of the precursor.


Where does it say it a precursor, the precursor is on the other side of the blue line. That fish line represents the entire species of fish from the present to the past.


Even within the fish and amphibian species you have things like, life birth, psuos-placenta, hard(ish) and soft shelled eggs, various forms of developments before birth and hatching.


However, the point of this thread is to emphasize that no living ancestors are in existence.... no examples from the "T intersections". Why not? We know that evolution is not a must (e.g., sharks, bats, and many other examples)...


? on what level of species are you talking about, if man came from fish and fish still exist, then fish are an example of a living ancestor. If you think you know that man came from the extinct lobed fin fish “XYZ” and that is now extinct than our direct ancestor is not represented, but the species is, in the form of all and any fish.

I’m not sure what you are trying to prove with the comment Why not? We know that evolution is not a must . What is to stop for example, a population of fish, being isolated into two populations, half get land locked, the remainder in the sea. The land locked population give rise to man while the ocean relatives do not, the lake eventually vanishes breaking the ‘direct link’ to the ‘specific’ fish ancestor, but we are still related to the ocean ancestor.
(cant quite make it work, the extinction is between lake and land fish)

Ocean fish
|
|
| |--------extinction event in lake
| |
|lake fish---land fish----man
|
|
|Ocean fish

#18 Springer

Springer

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 961 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Kalamazoo, MI

Posted 20 January 2006 - 11:47 AM

quote=chance,Jan 19 2006, 06:48 PM

Where does it say it a precursor, the precursor is on the other side of the blue line.  That fish line represents the entire species of fish from the present to the past.


Did humans evolve from chimpanzees? No, they both supposedly evolved from a common ape-like ancestor. That is what every evolutionists says, and that is what’s indicated in the diagram. We are both twigs from the same bifurcation. The same is true with amphibians and fish, humans and fish, etc. If the diagram meant something different, it certainly didn’t make that clear. It does not in any way imply that a human evolved from a fish. It indicates that humans and fish evolved from a common ancestor. If humans evolved from any living fish, why is that not made clear in the diagram?

Are you understanding the contention I’m making in this thread? Evolutionists cannot name any specific species that evolved into something else. Is there a modern fish that could be considered a precursor to man? If so, it’s not ever represented to be in the charts. Since there isn’t, why not? You will say, because it evolved and the precursor became extinct. Fine… I find it hard to believe that everything that evolved into something else became extinct, given the fact that you have agreed that not all species evolve over time, i.e., this is not a requirement of evolution.

#19 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 January 2006 - 02:09 PM

Where does it say it a precursor, the precursor is on the other side of the blue line.  That fish line represents the entire species of fish from the present to the past.



Did humans evolve from chimpanzees? No, they both supposedly evolved from a common ape-like ancestor. That is what every evolutionists says, and that is what’s indicated in the diagram. We are both twigs from the same bifurcation. The same is true with amphibians and fish, humans and fish, etc. If the diagram meant something different, it certainly didn’t make that clear. Is there a modern fish that could be considered a precursor to man? If so, it’s not ever represented to be in the charts. Since there isn’t, why not?


But Springer, the scale of the diagram you initially posted (and mine) is entirely inappropriate for displaying the principle of common ancestor to that degree, it only for showing the relationship between entire ‘kingdoms’. There are more detailed ‘trees’ that do show what you ask of.



Are you understanding the contention I’m making in this thread? Evolutionists cannot name any specific species that evolved into something else.


I would not be certain of that, but as a general rule it would be rather rash to do so given the branching nature of life, for example man there are various fossils that are consistent with evolution, but are we looking a cousin or Great…..great grandfather? There is no way to be 100% certain. I.e


Is it ----------------------------X-------------------------------US, or

Is it -----------------------|--------------------------------------US
………(ignore dots)………….|-----X



You will say, because it evolved and the precursor became extinct. Fine… I find it hard to believe that everything that evolved into something else became extinct, given the fact that you have agreed that not all species evolve over time, i.e., this is not a requirement of evolution.


You seem to be saying that you want an example of an ‘exact’ common ancestor alive today to an existing species, yes?

#20 hooberus

hooberus

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Kansas

Posted 09 February 2006 - 06:20 AM

Springer said:

I'm saying that if you look at the evolutionary tree of life, all direct ancestors to every living species have become extinct. Man did not evolve from fish, according to evolutionists.


Did humans evolve from chimpanzees? No, they both supposedly evolved from a common ape-like ancestor. That is what every evolutionists says, and that is what’s indicated in the diagram. We are both twigs from the same bifurcation. The same is true with amphibians and fish, humans and fish, etc. If the diagram meant something different, it certainly didn’t make that clear. It does not in any way imply that a human evolved from a fish. It indicates that humans and fish evolved from a common ancestor. If humans evolved from any living fish, why is that not made clear in the diagram?


Though the cladogram recently posted really deals directly only with an hypothetical evolutionary classification of characters (rather than an identification of real ancestors), the fact also remains that evolution does teach that man evolved from fish (we supposedly descended from fish that lived millions of years ago). Evolution also teaches that man shares a common ancestry with the living fish (for example one of the common ancestors would be the ancient fish that lived millions of years ago).

That said, there is nothing in evolution which should have prevented numerous decendants of transitional forms (which are also morphologically identical or similar) from being found in the living world today (as many non-transitional "living fossils" are found.)

Denton's Evolution A Theory In Crisis (I believe chapter 6) does a good job of pointing this out.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users