Challenge to Creationists: Ichneumon Wasp

[SkepticThinker]

Which one I am using? I don't understand. Are they different ones. Or do you mean, man does not know what a transitional fossil is. Or they get to pick from different kinds? What?

CAN YOU PLEASE PICK ONE WE CAN WORK WITH?

It would be great to have a conversation that actually goes somewhere instead of this nonsense.

 

[nPeace]

CAN YOU PLEASE PICK ONE WE CAN WORK WITH?

It would be great to have a conversation that actually goes somewhere instead of this nonsense.

Can you explain what you want from me, because right now the nonsense isn't coming from me.
If you are not clear on what exactly you want, or are doing, then you pick one, or define what exactly you are talking about. Let's see if that makes sense, and is satisfactory for you.
Maybe then we can get somewhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which one I am using? I don't understand. Are they different ones. Or do you mean, man does not know what a transitional fossil is. Or they get to pick from different kinds? What?

We know what a transitional fossil is. Your total ignorance of what they are is why you continually look foolish here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Can you explain what you want from me, because right now the nonsense isn't coming from me.
If you are not clear on what exactly you want, or are doing, then you pick one, or define what exactly you are talking about. Let's see if that makes sense, and is satisfactory for you.
Maybe then we can get somewhere.

Good grief. This really isn't this difficult.

I want a definition of "missing link" or "transitional fossil" that we can actually work with in this discussion. From you, because you're making claims about then. If you're going to claim that there are no missing links or no transitional fossils, don't you think you (and everyone else) should know what you mean by those terms? How would you know if a thing exists or not if we're not even sure what we're talking about?

I provided you with some definitions so that maybe you could pick one and this conversation could actually go somewhere someday.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you explain what you want from me, because right now the nonsense isn't coming from me.
If you are not clear on what exactly you want, or are doing, then you pick one, or define what exactly you are talking about. Let's see if that makes sense, and is satisfactory for you.
Maybe then we can get somewhere.

How about a proper argument supported by valid sources with out massive cut and pastes that only show that you did not understand the source at best?

Is that too much to ask?

 

[Polymath257]

Good grief. This really isn't this difficult.

I want a definition of "missing link" or "transitional fossil" that we can actually work with in this discussion. From you, because you're making claims about then. If you're going to claim that there are no missing links or no transitional fossils, don't you think you (and everyone else) should know what you mean by those terms? How would you know if a thing exists or not if we're not even sure what we're talking about?

I provided you with some definitions so that maybe you could pick one and this conversation could actually go somewhere someday.

And, if the lack of such says something about evolutionary theory, that link should be made clear.

The definition given of 'missing link' is a straw man. NOBODY expects such to exist under that definition. The concept is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. The lack of 'missing links' according to that definition has no impact *at all* on the theory of evolution. it is completely irrelevant to the topic.

 

[nPeace]

Good grief. This really isn't this difficult.

I want a definition of "missing link" or "transitional fossil" that we can actually work with in this discussion. From you, because you're making claims about then. If you're going to claim that there are no missing links or no transitional fossils, don't you think you (and everyone else) should know what you mean by those terms? How would you know if a thing exists or not if we're not even sure what we're talking about?

I provided you with some definitions so that maybe you could pick one and this conversation could actually go somewhere someday.

Thank you.
Here is a definition of transitional fossil.
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you.
Here is a definition of transitional fossil.
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

Do you think it matters that they cannot be shown to be direct ancestors? But at least now you know there are more than enough transitional fossils to support the theory of evolution and also that creationists have no explanation for this phenomenon.

If creationism was true beasts such as a pegasus would be possible. For evolution, not so much. That would be an example of a creature that breaks phylogeny, an observation that would negate the theory of evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And, if the lack of such says something about evolutionary theory, that link should be made clear.

Yes, I agree. How can we have a conversation otherwise?

The definition given of 'missing link' is a straw man. NOBODY expects such to exist under that definition. The concept is irrelevant to evolutionary theory. The lack of 'missing links' according to that definition has no impact *at all* on the theory of evolution. it is completely irrelevant to the topic.

I agree again.

 

[Bear Wild]

The theory of evolution does give various ideas of explanation, but does not give provable explanations. I understand people are comfortable with the thought that it supports their ideas for living, but many people believe it has a dangerous effect on humans feeling as it relates to other members of the natural world.
The Bible does explains just how connected we are. The Bible does give clear logical answers, and does give a clear explanation of the diversity of life which harmonizes with what we see in nature today.
The Bible is not a book of myth as some people claim, but rather a well kept record which has been preserved down to our day. No other book compares with the Bible, in worldwide scope, and the information within it has worldwide benefits.
It has inspired aids in the furtherance of its influence.
The 5 Most Translated Literary Texts In The World
The 20 Most Translated Texts in History

The bible is a complex book of myths, metaphors, philosophy and historical people. Genesis is a myth of the beginning just as the myth of Sky Woman is a similar myth for another people. Both have significant meaning to those who cherish the stories. They are not a logical explanation for the diversity of life and are not meant to be and exact account of how the world came about. Popularity does not guarantee truth. In Genesis humans have dominion and there is a separation from the rest of the natural world in the myth of Sky Woman there is a cooperation with the other life of the natural world and a harmony.
What do you mean about danger when evolution relates to other members of the natural world. Do you really think humans can live on this earth without the rest of the living things we share this world with? That relation is not a danger it is what allows us to live on this amazing Earth.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thank you.
Here is a definition of transitional fossil.
A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

Hey, look at that! You finally answered the question!

So now perhaps you can explain how any of the examples you've been given over the last month or so do not meet the definition you posted.

 

[Bear Wild]

You can keep that for yourself.
We have an amazing and accurate record of history, and information that is both reliable and trustworthy.
There is a lot we are learning, and much of what we learn has long been documented.
The ideas of men are just that - ideas.
People can believe what they want.
If one wants to understand how life came to be on earth, the Bible gives a clear logical answer, and explains, not only the process, but also the reason for life, and the intelligence of humans over animals.
It explains the reasons for man's qualities, and his ability to use intelligent communication, both physical and spiritual.
There is a long list of things it explains, that are beyond the theory of evolution to explain - Some of these things are only now being realized, in all fields of study.
Those who see this evidence, go forward with it.
Others go with what they feel must be accepted.
To each his own.

I was not going to discuss the details of genesis but you make the statement that the bible gives a clear logical answer and the reason for life as well as the intelligence of humans over animals. I do now want to insult the genesis myth of offend anyone but only to question what you mean by a clear logical answer. God creates man from clay which is okay as a metaphor but humans are mainly carbon based and full of water. Now God creates a Adam first then takes a rib from man to create a woman. The problem with this is the man's genetic makeup should have created a clone with a xy sex chromosome. This is not a logical answer since Eve should have an xx sex chromosome. Then a serpent who is not supposed to be as intelligent Adam or Eve but gets them to eat the apple and get cast out of the garden of Eden. Now we have two genetically identical humans who create the human race which has a huge diversity in genetic patterns and have males with xy and females with xx sex chromosomes. Unless God is doing constant genetic engineering to create the diversity then we do not have a clear logical answer. The myth has meaning to those who belong to that faith but it does not explain anything. Similarly the Myth of Noah and the ark also has a serious problem because given the dimensions of the boat you could not fit all of the species in it not to mention the life that lives in water since the flood whether salt water or fresh water would kill the water creatures not adapted to which ever salinity it is. Again the myth has important meaning to those of that faith but it does not give an anything that comes close to a clear logical answer. Again I hope my analogy did not offend anyone it was merely to show that evolution theory explains human intelligence and the diversity of life forms but the bible at least in my opinion was never meant to do that.

 

[ecco]

Now God creates a Adam first then takes a rib from man to create a woman.

I believe the original versions used the penile bone to explain why, among mammals, humans are just among the few that do not have one.

 

[ecco]

Life would be so much easier for today's Christians if Marcion had prevailed.

 

[InChrist]

The foundation was indeed faulty. Two hundred years ago science believed all things fit into two categories: Life and Non-Life. ToE explained how we got from the earliest "Life" to where we are now.

However, science, unlike religion, constantly evolves as new discoveries are made and new knowledge is acquired.

Science now realizes that the concept of Either Life Or Non-Life is faulty. Science now realizes that is an unbroken continuum from (and before) atoms to molecules to protein chains to ambiguous things to cells to us.

• Chemistry covers the "Atoms To Molecules To Protein Chains" portion.
• The study of abiogenesis is investigating the "Molecules To Protein Chains To Ambiguous Things To Cells" portion.
• The Theory of Evolution (ToE) covers the "Cells To Us" portion.

Science does not now realize this, but those who embrace Darwinian evolution speculate and believe this continuum and that the first life form(s) arose from inanimate matter. The scientific fact is that this has never been documented despite repeated attempts which discount this idea of "an unbroken continuum from atoms to molecules to protein chains to ambiguous things to cells to us".

Everything science knows about biochemistry stands against any chance origin of "Atoms To Molecules To Protein Chains" "Molecules To Protein Chains To Ambiguous Things To Cells" "Cells To Us". The first cell and its proteins could not reasonably form by chance because living cells do not reproduce by being made entirely of simple self-replicating molecules. Instead, there is a completely interdependent system in biological cells of complex biochemical enzymes which read and translate the information stored in DNA in order to build themselves and to replicate the DNA during cell division. The instructions are copied to an RNA strand by enzymes. The instructions in the RNA are read by the ribosomes, which then produce the very enzymes necessary to do all this, whose instructions are encoded in the DNA. Each requires the other in order for the cell to reproduce. So because life 9living cells) require this interdependent system and does not use simple, self-replicating molecules any idea that life arose from simple, self- replicating molecules to proteins or abiogenesis is irrelevant to the origin of life.

 

[InChrist]

Now we have another theory? NOW!? You are at least 40 years behind in you level of knowledge.

Do you even understand what punctuated equilibrium means?

I'd think that from your perspective in the span of millions and millions of years...only 40 years would qualify as now.

 

[InChrist]

It appears that only the willfully ignorant oppose the theory. And "missing links" is a creationist idea. It is a misnomer for "transitional fossils" and there are countless transitional fossils. Creationists hate her and lie about her all of the time, but for human evolution Lucy stands out. But since you like videos so much:

What a lame video! All is does is make a baseless claim there are thousands of transitional fossils without any kind of support, then begins flashing through pictures and names of fossils without any kind of explanations or demonstrating in any way how or why they are transitional fossils. No evidence or proof provided, but everyone is supposed to accept the message of the video or shut-up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What a lame video! All is does is make a baseless claim there are thousands of transitional fossils without any kind of support, then begins flashing through pictures and names of fossils without any kind of explanations or demonstrating in any way how or why they are transitional fossils. No evidence or proof provided, but everyone is supposed to accept the message of the video or shut-up.

Nope. It gives countless examples of transitional fossils. No baseless claims. If you do not understand something the proper action is to ask questions. It is not to break the Ninth Commandment, especially if one claims to be a Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science does not now realize this, but those who embrace Darwinian evolution speculate and believe this continuum and that the first life form(s) arose from inanimate matter. The scientific fact is that this has never been documented despite repeated attempts which discount this idea of "an unbroken continuum from atoms to molecules to protein chains to ambiguous things to cells to us".

Everything science knows about biochemistry stands against any chance origin of "Atoms To Molecules To Protein Chains" "Molecules To Protein Chains To Ambiguous Things To Cells" "Cells To Us". The first cell and its proteins could not reasonably form by chance because living cells do not reproduce by being made entirely of simple self-replicating molecules. Instead, there is a completely interdependent system in biological cells of complex biochemical enzymes which read and translate the information stored in DNA in order to build themselves and to replicate the DNA during cell division. The instructions are copied to an RNA strand by enzymes. The instructions in the RNA are read by the ribosomes, which then produce the very enzymes necessary to do all this, whose instructions are encoded in the DNA. Each requires the other in order for the cell to reproduce. So because life 9living cells) require this interdependent system and does not use simple, self-replicating molecules any idea that life arose from simple, self- replicating molecules to proteins or abiogenesis is irrelevant to the origin of life.

Now this is an example of a lame claim. One that you cannot support properly.

 

[nPeace]

What a lame video! All is does is make a baseless claim there are thousands of transitional fossils without any kind of support, then begins flashing through pictures and names of fossils without any kind of explanations or demonstrating in any way how or why they are transitional fossils. No evidence or proof provided, but everyone is supposed to accept the message of the video or shut-up.

I would have given you 7 of those, but you can only get one. Sorry.
Well put.