Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

[Polymath257]

Well, of course, all forms of classification are human convenience models. What evolutionists do however, like mercury ( not the planet) is slide in and out of these, depending upon which best supports the theory. So, a mammal is a mammal, till it is best to imply it is transitional between a mammal and something else for the theory.

No, when an animal has a mixture of mammal and reptile characteristics because it is transitional between reptiles and mammals, then it is common to assign it arbitrarily to one side or the other. That doesn't make it non-transitional.

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course I did, and the response stands. It is a taxonomic class, that means what ?

That their complete fossil record illustrates the very things you originally claimed didn't exist, i.e., species-species transitions. As the material I provided you shows, such transitions are readily apparent. Further, the record also shows more large-scale transitions of new genera and families.

Therefore, all your claims about a lack of transitional fossils have been shown to be false.

Organisms are part of this class because -------------------------------------- ? Why aren't they part of another class, or some in one class, and others in another ----------------------------------------?

Are you not aware of how taxonomy works?

 

[metis]

No, when an animal has a mixture of mammal and reptile characteristics because it is transitional between reptiles and mammals, then it is common to assign it arbitrarily to one side or the other. That doesn't make it non-transitional.

We see a similar situation with what may well be an early common ancestor of us and the chimp lineage that was found in Chad:

In the summer of 1944, workers digging a bunker in Nazi-occupied Athens came across a fossilized lower jaw with badly damaged teeth. The jaw was shown to a geologist named Bruno von Freyberg who brought it back to Germany and misidentified it as that of a monkey. Years later, the fossil was re-examined and recognized as belonging to an ancient species of ape, dubbed Graecopithecus freybergi. But with few preserved features that would reveal anything further about the creature, the jaw was all but forgotten by scientists.

Now, that same jaw, together with a lone tooth found in Bulgaria, have re-emerged as the centrepiece of new scientific study that makes a provocative claim: The sparse remains are not from just any species of ape, the team behind the study argues. Rather, they appear to be the oldest known traces of hominins, the group that branched off from the ancestors of chimpanzees millions of years ago and evolved into modern humans... -- Rediscovered fossil suggests surprising origin for human ancestors

The reality, which you are obviously well aware of, is that "transitional forms" abound, and the gaps are very gradually being filled in over time. And it even stands to just plain old common sense: all material objects appear to change over time, and genes are material objects.

 

[Jose Fly]

Can you identify a population that can be assuredly said to be evolving as a population into a population of a different sort or type ? e,g. a population of zebra's in an intermediate state on the way to becoming horses.

Not sure what you mean by "different sort or type". Do you mean a population evolving into a new species?

Well, lets see, a fish with legs ? ( not fins that appear to function in some manner like legs)

Um, why wouldn't one phase of this transition involve the modification of fins into legs? Are you operating under the impression that the transition involved fish completely losing their fins and just sprouting legs out of nothing?

How about an amphibian with scales and not the complex skin of an amphibian ?

That would be quite difficult since fossil remains of skin are extremely rare.

How about a fish that has lungs that function like an amphibians lungs ? How about an amphibian that has gills ? And, of course, there should be a trail of transitional fossils between these phantom creatures.

Your ignorance of the very subject in which you're attempting to speak as an expert is rather astounding. Apparently you are unaware that even within existing amphibians there are species that have external gills, and others that have rather primitive lungs (so much so that they can't use them for gas exchange).

I strongly suggest you take a break from trying to debate this subject, and spend some time learning a few basics. To be perfectly honest, all you're doing at this point is making yourself look rather ridiculous.

 

[Jose Fly]

In other words he can't be bothered to look at the actual evidence.

Just like every other Christian creationist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You have no idea what the environment of the past was. There are no shoreline creatures that can be considered to be transitional or demonstrated as such. You seem particularly weak in biology/paleontology. Google is YOUR friend, take advantage of it.

Every creature is transitional.

And you have no idea what I know beyond what I share here.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Sure it has. Some cancers are now curable, and many more can be meliorated and life expectancy extended. What has the church, the Bible, or faith contributed to the effort? Prayer?

You, being a rank materialist don't understand the purpose of Christianity, therefore your question is not applicable.

That's what I thought. Nothing. You have no answer. You are reduced to simply trying to dismiss the question and questioner.

If you want to condemn medical science's progress in treating cancers to date, be sure that your ducks are in a row.

 

[shmogie]

That's what I thought. Nothing. You have no answer. You are reduced to simply trying to dismiss the question and questioner.

If you want to condemn medical science's progress in treating cancers to date, be sure that your ducks are in a row.

No, I said it as it is, you want to appoint a specific meaning to something you apparently know little about. Amazing, stating the absolute truth becomes " condemn medical medical science's progress". This is word/meaning manipulation on your part is akin to "1984". Medical science hasn't solved the problem of cancer. That is condemnation ?

 

[shmogie]

Every creature is transitional.

And you have no idea what I know beyond what I share here.

"Every creature is transitional" Gibberish

 

[sayak83]

"Every creature is transitional" Gibberish

What features do you wish for in the skeleton of a transitional fossil between a mammal and a reptile? Thanks.

 

[shmogie]

Not sure what you mean by "different sort or type". Do you mean a population evolving into a new species?


Um, why wouldn't one phase of this transition involve the modification of fins into legs? Are you operating under the impression that the transition involved fish completely losing their fins and just sprouting legs out of nothing?


That would be quite difficult since fossil remains of skin are extremely rare.


Your ignorance of the very subject in which you're attempting to speak as an expert is rather astounding. Apparently you are unaware that even within existing amphibians there are species that have external gills, and others that have rather primitive lungs (so much so that they can't use them for gas exchange).

I strongly suggest you take a break from trying to debate this subject, and spend some time learning a few basics. To be perfectly honest, all you're doing at this point is making yourself look rather ridiculous.

Right. Unlike you, I made it very clear I wasn't an expert. There exists a comprehensive article on the tactics used by evolutionists in discussion's of this type. Your particular tactic is discussed thoroughly. When an evolutionist can't answer a single or set of questions, they use the tactic of "superior knowledge", they avoid the questions and assert that the questioner isn't knowledgeable enough to ask them. Also, if they can throw in a ad hominem, e.g., "you are making yourself look ridiculous", to bolster their superiority, so much the better from their standpoint. It is noted that you clearly HAVE NOT addressed the issue of the absence of transitional fossil's in any significant number, or the absence of any that are truly significant to your theory/faith. Nice try though

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, I said it as it is, you want to appoint a specific meaning to something you apparently know little about. Amazing, stating the absolute truth becomes " condemn medical medical science's progress". This is word/meaning manipulation on your part is akin to "1984". Medical science hasn't solved the problem of cancer. That is condemnation ?

Medical science has done a lot more with cancer than anything or anyone else has.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Right. Unlike you, I made it very clear I wasn't an expert. There exists a comprehensive article on the tactics used by evolutionists in discussion's of this type. Your particular tactic is discussed thoroughly. When an evolutionist can't answer a single or set of questions, they use the tactic of "superior knowledge", they avoid the questions and assert that the questioner isn't knowledgeable enough to ask them. Also, if they can throw in a ad hominem, e.g., "you are making yourself look ridiculous", to bolster their superiority, so much the better from their standpoint. It is noted that you clearly HAVE NOT addressed the issue of the absence of transitional fossil's in any significant number, or the absence of any that are truly significant to your theory/faith. Nice try though

I would love to see this list. Do you have it available?

 

[shmogie]

That their complete fossil record illustrates the very things you originally claimed didn't exist, i.e., species-species transitions. As the material I provided you shows, such transitions are readily apparent. Further, the record also shows more large-scale transitions of new genera and families.

Therefore, all your claims about a lack of transitional fossils have been shown to be false.


Are you not aware of how taxonomy works?

Oh yes, I know how taxonomy works. However, it slides around for specific purposes, and it is an arbitrary human device, not a natural one. You didn't provide any material, no matter, I found what was needed. I asked you a specific question re your chosen creatures,that you conveniently dodged, why don't you answer it? Why don't you tell me what the record shows about "large scale transitions of new genera and families" and lets see what this information tells us about the alleged smooth flow of creatures from extremely simple to extremely complex, and how they are all connected.

 

[shmogie]

I would love to see this list. Do you have it available?

Yes, I do have it, but I have no interest in sharing it. It is intended for a specific audience, and you don't qualify.

 

[shmogie]

Medical science has done a lot more with cancer than anything or anyone else has.

I totally agree with you. My best friend spent his working life as a fully tenured microbiology professor at a well known university on the disease and had some research successes noted in prestigious peer reviewed journals. He also believes in ID BTW

 

[shmogie]

What features do you wish for in the skeleton of a transitional fossil between a mammal and a reptile? Thanks.

I am not sure what a skeleton alone would say about such things as breathing mechanisms, skin or skin covering, living temperature and body temperature control, reproduction, etc.

 

[shmogie]

No, when an animal has a mixture of mammal and reptile characteristics because it is transitional between reptiles and mammals, then it is common to assign it arbitrarily to one side or the other. That doesn't make it non-transitional.

Can you tell me about the fossils of these part mammal part reptile creatures, and can you tell me further how they have been deemed part mammal and part reptile ?

 

[sayak83]

I am not sure what a skeleton alone would say about such things as breathing mechanisms, skin or skin covering, living temperature and body temperature control, reproduction, etc.

So, basically no evidence can convince you?

 

[shmogie]

Well erosion is a huge reason for gaps. The relevant layers are just washed or blown away. The more we go back in time, the more likely such erosion happens to a particular layer.

Then, given the relative rarity of fossilization, we simply don't expect to get a fossil from every line every 100,000 years. Or even every million years. If significant changes happen in 100,000 years and none of that small population gets fossilized, there will be a gap. The result will look like a 'sudden' change. it's like you take a picture every minute of a car moving around in a city. The motion will often look very 'jerky', even though it was not in reality.

And don't forget that much of evolution happens in small populations where genetic drift is a significant factor. Since small populations have a correspondingly small chance of being fossilized, that also leads to 'gaps'.

None-the-less, we can see how thing change over 10 millions of years if we have 10 representative during that time period. As Gould pointed out, even if the change is 'gradual' from one generation to the next, it can be quite 'sudden' on time intervals of a million years, which is still a *short* time period for most of paleontology.

I'd bet most paleontologists would *love* to have a good fossil from every 10 million year period from each line they study and for a sequence going for a hundred million years. That almost never happens. But when it does, we see the gradual evolution you seem to deny happens.

A reasoned response, thank you. I will have a rebuttal most likely. Your civility is refreshing.