SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
First, you need to demonstrate, 1) If the supernatural exists in the first place and 2) How to identify, examine and measure it.
Let us know when that has happened. Otherwise, it's just empty speculation and guesswork.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish
- Thread starter james bond
- Start date
Let us know when that has happened. Otherwise, it's just empty speculation and guesswork.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
Well, not if>>All fossils are 'transitional'.<<
This is just more doublespeak made by evos to back up their macroevolution. They use the ToE to explain the fossils instead of using the fossils as evidence which lead to the ideas behind macroevolution and the ToE. Fossils end up being where the creature died. It's local, not global. Nothing says they were put there from the bottom up. You can't prove it experimentally.
Microevolution leads to a diverse life. There is no evidence for:
.
A) you don't understand the theory(which it seems quite clear that you do not)
And
B) Are deeply emotionally invested in it not being true.
Good day.
Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
You go with whatever you want. I'm no ape.
Stop concentrating on the few things we have in common and start looking at what makes us so dog gone different.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
When you die, although you can take your time doing that, and if your bones are preserved, you too will be a "transitional fossil" as evolution never stops.
james bond
Well-Known Member
I would say it does not exist, but then you would say I am being dishonest ha ha.
So what is a transitional fossil to me? It would be a living or fossilized organism that is believed to be an evolutionary link between two distinct taxonomic groups to show macroevolution. In other words, evolutionists suggest macoevolution when they find organisms that uniquely belong to a certain taxa when the organism possesses characteristics that uniquely belongs to different taxa. For example the mouth-anus of a simple organism is unique in the monera taxa, but is also found in humans which belong to the animal taxa. Note, one of the weaknesses of the macroevolution in the OP from an evolution standpoint is a separate mouth and anus is not unique among humans in the animal taxa.
james bond
Well-Known Member
It's not a cult, but traditional science. Today, we call it creation science because the atheist science refuse to recognize it and to differentiate from the secular science. In other words, if creation science is true, then evolutionary thought is mostly wrong.
Sorry, I think I missed this post earlier.
Skipping your ad hominem fallacy (which shows you lost), I think we may have different ideas of what constitutes transitional fossils.
Let's say we have an ape who suddenly is found to be bipedal. Then evolutionists say they are an ancestor of humans. However, this is not correct. Bipedalism is found in other creatures in the animal kingdom such as birds, kangaroos, lizards and others. The prominent evolutionist Professor Owen Lovejoy thinks apes were descended from humans.
james bond
Well-Known Member
That's BS. Notice I did not call you "dishonest" though ha ha. Why don't they demonstrate multiverses, dark energy, dark matter, aliens and so forth
. I'm sure they all been published in Science and Nature.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
The dishonest part would be saying that you've not seen any transitional fossils, when you've never actually looked.
So you agree that a transitional fossil would be a specimen that exhibits a mosiac of characteristics from different taxa, correct?
james bond
Well-Known Member
Oh, I understand the theory. It's just that the evidence does not back it up. For example, how do you explain fossils that are supposedly bottom-up in chronology when birds and fish die and they float on the water? Their remains do not sink. Also fossils do not take millions of years to form, but can be done quite rapidly. Then there is Guy Berthault's experiment on stratification. The layers do not form from bottom-up.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Well, fossils can be created in short time. I can show you the experiment.
Experiment: Fast-Formed Fossils
The second part is what I am arguing. In your terms, the fossils show a mosaic of characteristics from different taxa, but that does not necessarily mean they are transitional.
"The use of the word "transitional" implies an ancestor / descendant relationship. If evolutionists do not mean it that way, then it is they that are redefining "transitional". Certainly when the average person hears the term "transitional form" they think ancestor / descendant, not simply a mosaic of different types. It also implies individual body parts in transition from one to the other. It seems that evolutionists are playing word games that make evolution theory seem stronger than it really is.
When the non-scientific layman hears that fossil B is "transitional between" A and C, he thinks it means A-B-C, but evolutionists may mean:
this:
this:
this:
this:
or any number of other possible combinations. Usually when a Creationist says there are no transitional fossils they are talking to layman in layman terms, not evolutionist technical terms.
While a field of study is free to define its internal terms as its practitioners see fit, when they use a common term in different way, they are obligated to distinguish between the technical and common uses of the term, but in this case it is seldom done.
The use of the word "transitional" is also loaded with evolutionary presupposition. A more appropriate term would be a "mosaic fossil".
If one assumes the common ancestor postulated evolution, then these mosaic fossils would show how different types are related even if they are out of sequence and/or not mosaic in other ways. However, when looked at from a more skeptical viewpoint, they often do not show any clear evidence of an actual transition. Sometimes the data is complete enough to make a good case that the animals are indeed related, but at other times it is not.
However, evolution requires that one type of living thing evolved into another type, via intermediates that would be transitional (in the normal meaning of the word) between the two types, and we should expect to find evidence of these amongst the fossil record. By claiming that there are "transitional" forms, but that these are not "transitional" in the normal understanding of the word, Talk.Origins has tacitly admitted that there are no such fossils, just as creationists claim"
Transitional fossils are lacking (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Last edited:
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
So you say. What you say following this begs a wholly different narrative.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Ok, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever seen, even from creationists. Unless you want to argue that all fossils were formed by soaking in epsom salt solution, I fail to see the point.
Before I get to the rest of your post, I have to ask: Why did you just copy and paste from Creationwiki without giving them credit? Isn't that plagiarism and a violation of forum rules?
"7. Quotations and Citations/References
Plagiarism is illegal. All quotations, whether to posts of other members or to material external to RF, should be properly referenced or cited."
Plagiarism is illegal. All quotations, whether to posts of other members or to material external to RF, should be properly referenced or cited."
james bond
Well-Known Member
Fixed. What's your next complaint to avoid that you lost the argument.
james bond
Well-Known Member
The point is evolution is dumbest thing you've ever seen because fossils formed because the creature died and became fossilized in the vicinity of where they were found. It probably didn't take millions of years and could have happened in a matter of days. Also, it's not that it shows chronology or anything like that. Those are HUGE assumptions. What happens when you assume? You make an *** out of you and me. That's why I provided an experiment while evolutionists have no experiments.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Good.
Oh for the love of.......
What are you, 5 years old? Do you want to actually discuss this topic like an adult? If not, let me know now.
I guess in an odd sort of way seeing you admit that we see evolution happen is progress.
So you do actually believe that the epsom salt and sponge thing is indicative of all fossils. Amazing.
What assumptions are you talking about?
Incorrect.
Experimental evolution of multicellularity
Experimental evolution of resistance to an antimicrobial peptide
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Not a separate theory.....
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Please provide an explanation of how fossilization can occur in days
Clear and Well-established evidence that all land animals evolved from Fish
This is part of a new thread I am making but is relevant here:-
1)Transitional Sea to Land Fossils and trends in Evolution
The theory of evolution predicts that descent with modification with natural selection will create species that will show biological similarities with their ancestral lineage while slowly diverging as time progresses into newer types of body structure. The theory of evolution predicts that when we look at two very different seeming types (land animals and fish), there will be ancient animals who lived in the past who would share characteristics of both fish and land animals and we would see a chronological sequence where we would see certain types of fossil fish appear that are more and more land animal like until the first fossils of land amphibians crop up.
Thus the theory of evolution predicts a pattern, a pattern that has no reason to exist otherwise. Here is the pattern
1) The ancient earth will have no land animals but only fish in the sea. This is indeed what we see before 400 million years.
2) There will eventually be groups of fish that will have some similarities with land animals. This is observed in the fossil record with lungfish (fish with lungs) and other lobe-finned fish (fish with four fleshy limb like fin lobes) cropping up from 400 million years. No land animals are found yet.
3) Some groups of lobe finned fish are seen to adapt to shallow waters and begin to sport primitive limb bones in their fins
Example Eusthenopteron. 385 million years ago, after generic lungfish are seen and before any animals are seen.
Palaeos Vertebrates Sarcopterygii: Osteolepiformes: Eusthenopteron
With the typical bone structure in the limbs that will become characteristic of all later land animals
4) By 375 million years, fish-amphibian transition animals like Tiktaalik are being found showing further development of limbs, heads and other features that make them more and more similar to land vertebrates.
Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals
"Its extraordinary blend of gills, scales, fins and lungs, combined with a movable neck, sturdy ribcage and crocodile-like head, placed Tiktaalik half way between fish and the earliest four-legged land animals.In work published on Monday, researchers describe fossils of the back half of Tiktaalik for the first time. The report shows that the animal had a large, robust pelvic girdle, a prominent hip joint, and long hind fins. The powerful fins could have propelled the beast in the water, but also helped it walk on riverbeds, or scramble around on mudflats."
5) Finally we have Acanthostega and Icthyostega that are discovered after 370 million years that, as I discussed, have many of the features that show them to be clearly amphibious.
Ictheyostega, a 370 million year old fish-amphibian transitional species that had fish like traits (tail fins, gills, fish like snout and teeth) and land animal like traits (four legs with feet and fingers, shoulders and necks and hips and lungs) . Found in the horizon between the arising of lungfish ancestors (lobe finned fish, 420 million years) and later modern amphibians (320 million years) . Just accident or evolution?
Full CT-scanned image of the animal based on fossils (over 200 individuals found)
Full details of anatomy
Ichthyostega
How it moved on land, hauling its body like seals
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-shift-shore-extinct-tetrapod-ichthyostega.html
6)Its only after this, from 360 million years, that land vertebrate fossils begin to enter the fossil record. An example is an ancient land walking amphibious animal Perderpes from 350 million years who show striking similarity with earlier Acanthostega and yet has more well developed legs and shoulders that are now capable of supporting its full weight on land.
7) Thus from 400-350 million years, the fossil record show a chronological sequence where -at one end we have only primitive fishes and no vertebrate animals whatsoever on land, and the other end we have the first land walking amphibians. And in between we have a whole sequence of fish-amphibian animals whose bodies begin by looking like the ancient fishes but take on characteristics of the primitive amphibians over time, until at the end we have the first land walking amphibians! This is exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution, where descent through modification and natural selection is expected to generate just this kind of a pattern as the animals slowly evolve from fully marine fishes to land-walking amphibians through 50 million years of evolution over successive generations.
8) Your "Jehova created everything directly when he wanted to" can neither predict such a pattern or explain why its rational to expect such a pattern. He could have created land animals with fully developed features along with all the fishes directly 450 million years ago. All the fishes, all the reptiles, all the amphibians, all the birds could have been created at the same time, fully modern . He could have created them billions of years ago instead of waiting around for 4 billion years since the formation of earth and populating the earth with nothing but bacteria, amoeba and plankton for the first 3.5 billion years of life.
In your theory there is no reason to expect
i) Simple unicellular prokaryotic life to predate complex multicellular life by a billion years (in evolution this is expected)
ii) Eukaryotic cells to arise after prokaryotic cells by a billion years (in evolution this is expected)
iii) Simplest types of animals like jellyfish and sponge to predate complex animals by 100 million years (in evolution you expect this)
iv) Early forms of invertebrate and vertebrate life look very primitive and less well developed than later types in the Cambrian era (in evolution you expect this)
v) Fish fossils to show distinct stages of sequential development of modern features over a 100 million year period like from jawless varieties to jaws, from bony plates to scales, from no internal skeleton to internal skeleton (the flexible vertebra), from early lobe like fins to more aerodynamic ray like fins. (evolution predicts this)
vi) For vertebrate animals to appear on land much much after the emergence of fish and the earliest of them showing a clear sequence of intermediate forms between certain fish and the first amphibians.(evolution predicts this)
vii) For amphibians to arise first, then reptiles, then mammals, then dinosaurs and then birds with clear sequence of forms intermediate between each of these group just at the time point of emergence.(evolution predicts this)
It appears Jehovah went into an enormous amount of trouble trying to time and finetune his designed animals so that it looks like they arose by evolution. It seems his only goals were to make evolution appear to be correct rather than good design of perfected animals! Thousands and thousands of very different animals filled the same ecological niche over the eons again and again before becoming extinct and replaced by new forms living almost the exact same way. What is this? A perfect omnipotent, omniscient designer can't decide what he wants and changing each and every animal type every 2-3 million years or so for the last 600 million years? Building and rebuilding species, moving the continents and oceans around again and again, building and eroding mountains again and again and again eon after eon of pointless mindless transformations and re-transformations. This is design?? Wow!! He is psychotic or something? You belittle God by hanging onto such a regressive view of creation.
An young earth view is even more ridiculous. Not only does this go against all geological, physical and astronomical evidence, it assumes the absurdity of believing all animals ancient and modern (ammonites to T-rex to pterosaurs to lions to rabbits to eagles to icthysaurs to otters to...) living side by side! It cannot explain why 90% of sedimentary rocks that also happen to be consistently dated to be the oldest has not a single animal fossil, and then suddenly the last 10% have animals, but not in random assemblages but in graded order of more primitive and alien looking to more advanced and modern looking, with distinct blocks of similar species in various layers. It cannot explain the pattern above whatsoever if all species were living together. And where are the drowned humans in the Cambrian, Ordovician or Triassic rocks? Can humans swim better than ammonites or icthyosaurs? This is just a taste of the absurd. There are many many more.
This is part of a new thread I am making but is relevant here:-
1)Transitional Sea to Land Fossils and trends in Evolution
The theory of evolution predicts that descent with modification with natural selection will create species that will show biological similarities with their ancestral lineage while slowly diverging as time progresses into newer types of body structure. The theory of evolution predicts that when we look at two very different seeming types (land animals and fish), there will be ancient animals who lived in the past who would share characteristics of both fish and land animals and we would see a chronological sequence where we would see certain types of fossil fish appear that are more and more land animal like until the first fossils of land amphibians crop up.
Thus the theory of evolution predicts a pattern, a pattern that has no reason to exist otherwise. Here is the pattern
1) The ancient earth will have no land animals but only fish in the sea. This is indeed what we see before 400 million years.
2) There will eventually be groups of fish that will have some similarities with land animals. This is observed in the fossil record with lungfish (fish with lungs) and other lobe-finned fish (fish with four fleshy limb like fin lobes) cropping up from 400 million years. No land animals are found yet.
3) Some groups of lobe finned fish are seen to adapt to shallow waters and begin to sport primitive limb bones in their fins
Example Eusthenopteron. 385 million years ago, after generic lungfish are seen and before any animals are seen.
Palaeos Vertebrates Sarcopterygii: Osteolepiformes: Eusthenopteron
With the typical bone structure in the limbs that will become characteristic of all later land animals
4) By 375 million years, fish-amphibian transition animals like Tiktaalik are being found showing further development of limbs, heads and other features that make them more and more similar to land vertebrates.
Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals
"Its extraordinary blend of gills, scales, fins and lungs, combined with a movable neck, sturdy ribcage and crocodile-like head, placed Tiktaalik half way between fish and the earliest four-legged land animals.In work published on Monday, researchers describe fossils of the back half of Tiktaalik for the first time. The report shows that the animal had a large, robust pelvic girdle, a prominent hip joint, and long hind fins. The powerful fins could have propelled the beast in the water, but also helped it walk on riverbeds, or scramble around on mudflats."
5) Finally we have Acanthostega and Icthyostega that are discovered after 370 million years that, as I discussed, have many of the features that show them to be clearly amphibious.
Ictheyostega, a 370 million year old fish-amphibian transitional species that had fish like traits (tail fins, gills, fish like snout and teeth) and land animal like traits (four legs with feet and fingers, shoulders and necks and hips and lungs) . Found in the horizon between the arising of lungfish ancestors (lobe finned fish, 420 million years) and later modern amphibians (320 million years) . Just accident or evolution?
Full CT-scanned image of the animal based on fossils (over 200 individuals found)
Full details of anatomy
Ichthyostega
How it moved on land, hauling its body like seals
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-shift-shore-extinct-tetrapod-ichthyostega.html
6)Its only after this, from 360 million years, that land vertebrate fossils begin to enter the fossil record. An example is an ancient land walking amphibious animal Perderpes from 350 million years who show striking similarity with earlier Acanthostega and yet has more well developed legs and shoulders that are now capable of supporting its full weight on land.
7) Thus from 400-350 million years, the fossil record show a chronological sequence where -at one end we have only primitive fishes and no vertebrate animals whatsoever on land, and the other end we have the first land walking amphibians. And in between we have a whole sequence of fish-amphibian animals whose bodies begin by looking like the ancient fishes but take on characteristics of the primitive amphibians over time, until at the end we have the first land walking amphibians! This is exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution, where descent through modification and natural selection is expected to generate just this kind of a pattern as the animals slowly evolve from fully marine fishes to land-walking amphibians through 50 million years of evolution over successive generations.
8) Your "Jehova created everything directly when he wanted to" can neither predict such a pattern or explain why its rational to expect such a pattern. He could have created land animals with fully developed features along with all the fishes directly 450 million years ago. All the fishes, all the reptiles, all the amphibians, all the birds could have been created at the same time, fully modern . He could have created them billions of years ago instead of waiting around for 4 billion years since the formation of earth and populating the earth with nothing but bacteria, amoeba and plankton for the first 3.5 billion years of life.
In your theory there is no reason to expect
i) Simple unicellular prokaryotic life to predate complex multicellular life by a billion years (in evolution this is expected)
ii) Eukaryotic cells to arise after prokaryotic cells by a billion years (in evolution this is expected)
iii) Simplest types of animals like jellyfish and sponge to predate complex animals by 100 million years (in evolution you expect this)
iv) Early forms of invertebrate and vertebrate life look very primitive and less well developed than later types in the Cambrian era (in evolution you expect this)
v) Fish fossils to show distinct stages of sequential development of modern features over a 100 million year period like from jawless varieties to jaws, from bony plates to scales, from no internal skeleton to internal skeleton (the flexible vertebra), from early lobe like fins to more aerodynamic ray like fins. (evolution predicts this)
vi) For vertebrate animals to appear on land much much after the emergence of fish and the earliest of them showing a clear sequence of intermediate forms between certain fish and the first amphibians.(evolution predicts this)
vii) For amphibians to arise first, then reptiles, then mammals, then dinosaurs and then birds with clear sequence of forms intermediate between each of these group just at the time point of emergence.(evolution predicts this)
It appears Jehovah went into an enormous amount of trouble trying to time and finetune his designed animals so that it looks like they arose by evolution. It seems his only goals were to make evolution appear to be correct rather than good design of perfected animals! Thousands and thousands of very different animals filled the same ecological niche over the eons again and again before becoming extinct and replaced by new forms living almost the exact same way. What is this? A perfect omnipotent, omniscient designer can't decide what he wants and changing each and every animal type every 2-3 million years or so for the last 600 million years? Building and rebuilding species, moving the continents and oceans around again and again, building and eroding mountains again and again and again eon after eon of pointless mindless transformations and re-transformations. This is design?? Wow!! He is psychotic or something? You belittle God by hanging onto such a regressive view of creation.
An young earth view is even more ridiculous. Not only does this go against all geological, physical and astronomical evidence, it assumes the absurdity of believing all animals ancient and modern (ammonites to T-rex to pterosaurs to lions to rabbits to eagles to icthysaurs to otters to...) living side by side! It cannot explain why 90% of sedimentary rocks that also happen to be consistently dated to be the oldest has not a single animal fossil, and then suddenly the last 10% have animals, but not in random assemblages but in graded order of more primitive and alien looking to more advanced and modern looking, with distinct blocks of similar species in various layers. It cannot explain the pattern above whatsoever if all species were living together. And where are the drowned humans in the Cambrian, Ordovician or Triassic rocks? Can humans swim better than ammonites or icthyosaurs? This is just a taste of the absurd. There are many many more.
Shad
Veteran Member
Berthault's view are nothing new, based on centuries to decades of outdated information. His claims regarding creationism only come out after he moved on to Creationist tripe, he never submits such claims to peer-review. Geologist reject his views and his limited experiments.