Rev, either define what you think a transitional fossil is or admit this whole endeavor was just a dishonest charade.

(April 25, 2014 at 5:57 am)orogenicman Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 12:42 am)Esquilax Wrote: But it doesn't seem transitional to creationists, mostly because they never bother to define their terms in anything other than vagaries, specifically so they can move the goalposts like this.

We're arguing over a scientific term- transitional form- with somebody who doesn't care about science at all; of course there's going to be difficulties. Rev's idea of scientific is "what seems intuitively right to me at the time."

The bulk of creationists are not scientists. As such, they don't get to define scientific terms, particularly outside of published scientific journals and scientific organizations.

---

By the way, the entire argument about transitional fossils is bogus. Yes, it is very important that we search for transitional fossils in the fossil record in order to give as complete a history of organisms in the fossil record as possible. But whether we find them for all species or any particular species is irrelevant to the question of evolution. Why? Because ALL species are, by convention as well as by definition, transitional. There is no ambiguity with regard to species being transitional. They are.

There are many Christians who are brilliant. There are scientists and college professors who believe in God and question what they were taught but are scared to share this in fear of being ostracized.

Hopefully, I will get this one correctly:

Revelation777 Wrote:If I went to a local graveyard, dug up every ones bones, and lined the various bodies just so, I could create a convincing lineup showing evolution.

What that would actually demonstrate is variation in one species, Homo sapiens. You could never get Homo erectus to fit into the range of variations that exists for Homo sapiens. That is an important reason why the two are considered to be different species.

My suggestion is that we vote for two or three people for Rev to debate in future threads. Or that we come to an agreement amongst ourselves to only post meaningful, relevant posts, and to not muddy the waters with pot shots and jokes?

---

Rev, no kidding, no joking, no witty statements: Could you please tell us what you think evolution is?

(April 26, 2014 at 8:30 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 5:57 am)orogenicman Wrote: The bulk of creationists are not scientists. As such, they don't get to define scientific terms, particularly outside of published scientific journals and scientific organizations.

---

By the way, the entire argument about transitional fossils is bogus. Yes, it is very important that we search for transitional fossils in the fossil record in order to give as complete a history of organisms in the fossil record as possible. But whether we find them for all species or any particular species is irrelevant to the question of evolution. Why? Because ALL species are, by convention as well as by definition, transitional. There is no ambiguity with regard to species being transitional. They are.

There are many Christians who are brilliant. There are scientists and college professors who believe in God and question what they were taught but are scared to share this in fear of being ostracized.

That is another creationist lie. No there are not scientists afraid to come out as creationist nutballs because of ostracism.

Typical conspiracy nut bullshit.

Who? I ask, give me some names. They can't reveal themselves because they will get in big trouble if they do -- bullshit. They can't reveal themselves because they don't exist.

(April 26, 2014 at 8:28 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 12:42 am)Esquilax Wrote: But it doesn't seem transitional to creationists, mostly because they never bother to define their terms in anything other than vagaries, specifically so they can move the goalposts like this.

We're arguing over a scientific term- transitional form- with somebody who doesn't care about science at all; of course there's going to be difficulties. Rev's idea of scientific is "what seems intuitively right to me at the time."

In my soon coming concluding statement I will refer to Tiktaalik.

Tiktaalik? I GOT THIS YOU GUYS!! WATCH OUT WE ARE GOING TO TRY SCIENCE!!


"Many species of living fish are known to breathe air as well as slither on their bellies, with the help of their pectoral fins, across large expanses of land (evolutionists call this “walking”). For example, the northern snakehead and the “walking catfish” (Clarias batrachus) are air–breathing fish that can travel overland for considerable distances. The mudskippers are fish that breathe oxygen through their skin and “skip” along on land with the aid of their fleshy fins. The climbing perch (Anabas testudineus) not only breathes air and “walks” on land but is even capable of climbing trees! Yet none of these curious fish are considered by evolutionists to be ancestors of tetrapods—they are simply interesting and specialized fish."

The reason scientist don't say those fish are proof of evolution is because they weren't around before tetrapods. Also taxonomy says that tetrapod decend from lobe-fined fish,not ray-fined fish,which is what those walking fish are. Also walking isn't the the only trait of tiktaalik. Tiktaalik has a neck,ribs that are located on the sides of the vertabre instead of on the top and bottom of it , and ear notches which only appear on tetrapods. Is there a living fish with those tetrapod traits? Don't think so.1

"Most evolutionists look to crossopterygian fish for the ancestors of tetrapods—even though unlike many living fish, none of these fish are known to be capable of either walking or breathing out of water."

Except that you will name them later, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

"These fish have fleshy pectoral fins containing bony elements (considered similar to tetrapod legs). These similarities have prompted evolutionists to confidently declare that crossopterygians evolved into tetrapods."

Or you can look at the fossils you name that you use in a attempt to dismiss the evidence and think your audience is stupid to realize this.

"According to evolutionists, the crossopterygians flourished about 380 million years ago and all were once believed to have become extinct about 80 million years ago. However, in 1938 a fishing trawler netted a fish in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Madagascar that was identified as a crossopterygian fish, previously known only from the fossil record as the coelacanth. Since then, dozens of living coelacanths have been discovered."

Ya because you know gravity never thought something and then it was shown wrong. Gravity has never been wrong ever. Accept those few times it was. Because you know science tends to change its mind when it is wrong,right? You know we are aloud to change unlike you because we know science isn't perfect but you claim that the bible is and you have to change one thing because its wrong then the bible is false,right?


"This came as a huge shock to evolutionists who assumed that the reason the coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record was because they evolved into land-dwelling tetrapods; yet, here they were very much alive—and swimming!"

Facepalm Strawman! They are lobe-fined fishes but not the ancestors of tetrapods but they shared a common ancestor. They shared a common ancestor thats it.2

"At the very least, evolutionists expected to observe some hint of walking behavior in the coelacanth, but nothing of the kind has ever been observed. Coelacanths have been observed swimming backward, upside–down, and even standing on their head but they have never been observed to walk on land or in the sea."

Maybe because they split off with tetrapods. Celocanths are actinistia, while tetrapods are rhipidistia.

"Since living lobe-fin fish have not met expectations, evolutionists have turned to other fossilized lobe-fins for the ancestors of tetrapods. Until recently, the most popular crossopterygian candidates for ancestors of tetrapods were Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys. Both of these fish, like the Coelacanth, have fleshy pectoral fins with bones. But according to Daeschler, Shubin, and Jenkins (Nature 440(7085): 757–763, April 2006)—the discoverers of Tiktaalik—these fish possess relatively few evolutionarily important similarities to tetrapods and that until now, “our understanding of major transformations at the fish–tetrapod transition has remained limited.”

Ya the existed as a transition between lobe-fined fishes and animals like tiktaalik. Why do you creationist use transitional fossils that transition into other transitional fossils and think it can disprove evolution? Facepalm Is there a fallacy for this?

"In the April 2006 issue of Nature, Daeschler, et al. reported the discovery of several fossilized specimens of a crossopterygian fish named Tiktaalik roseae in sedimentary layers in arctic Canada. They confidently declared that Tiktaalik “represents an intermediate between fish with fins and tetrapods with limbs.”
Whatever else we might say about Tiktaalik, it is a fish. Like nearly all bony fishes, these fish have small pelvic fins, retain fin rays in their paired appendages and have well-developed gills—all consistent with an entirely aquatic life style."

Ya it is a fish, so are tetrapods because you can't leave your evolutionary ancestry. Don't believe me, look at a taxonomic tree and try it. Also what about its neck,riv position, and ear notches.

"In order to support the weight of the body on land, and permit walking, the most proximal bones of the limbs must be securely attached to the rest of the body. The hind limbs in particular have a robust pelvic girdle securely attached to the vertebral column. This differs radically from that of any fish including Tiktaalik. Essentially all fish (including Tiktaalik) have small pelvic fins relative to their pectoral fins. The legs of tetrapods are just the opposite: the hind limbs attached to the pelvic girdle are almost always more robust than the fore limbs attached to the pectoral girdle."

Isn't brachiasarus's forelimbs more robust then its hind limbs? And is it not a tetrapod? Yes to both.3

"It is significant that the “earliest” true tetrapods recognized by evolutionists (such as Acanthostega and Ichthyostega) have all of the distinguishing features of tetrapod limbs (and their attachment bones) and were clearly capable of walking and breathing on land. The structural differences between the tetrapod leg and the fish fin is easily understood when we consider that the fish has no need to support its weight in water where it is essentially weightless."

Good job mentioning those tow fossils, should have known. Both inched on land to move, and both had the gills of fish, in fact acanthostega has a operculum.

"Finally, no fish (including Tiktaalik) has true finger or toe bones. Instead, fish have slender bony fin rays, which even evolutionists concede are not homologous or related in any way to digits. While fin rays are ideal for swimming in water, they are unsuited to bear weight on land and thus permit only a slithering and belly-dragging mode of locomotion on land (in certain living species) that can be described as “walking” in only the most trivial sense of the word."



Except this, good job Answers in Genesis, you have proven you can't play science right.

"Finally, what about the popular claim that Tiktaalik is the “missing link” between fish and tetrapods?
In their review article on Tiktaalik, Ahlberg and Clack (Nature 440(7085):747–749) tell us that “the concept of ‘missing links’ has a powerful grasp on the imagination: the rare transitional fossils that apparently capture the origins of major groups of organisms are uniquely evocative.” The authors concede that the whole concept of “missing links” has been loaded with “unfounded notions of evolutionary ‘progress’ and with a mistaken emphasis on the single intermediate fossil as the key to understanding evolutionary transition.”
Sadly, “unfounded notions” of this kind continue to be uncritically taught and accepted in the popular media and in our schools. Even more sadly, these unfounded notions have been used to undermine the authority of Holy Scripture."

Yes it is, and you have to lie just to ignore the tetrapod traits tiktaalik has(it has more tetrapod traits the fish traits anyway.) Looks like creationist can't find their inner fish.



http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...lking-fish

1. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik2.html
2. http://tolweb.org/Sarcopterygii/14922
3. http://www.livescience.com/25024-brachiosaurus.html

also

Well it looks like I'm going to get on creationist about Tiktaalik. Looks like they can't find there inner fish. The infamous (no) Answers in Genesis has a response to this. They were upset to see scientific minds laugh at them. So they attacked a newspaper article on it instead of a scientific paper. Wonder why? There are a few things the two authors said that made me laugh so i'll address them before I get to tiktaalik.

"The discovery of the fossil “Tiktaalik” has been one of the most-widely picked up pro-evolution media stories since the (in)famous 1996 claim eventually shown to be false that life had been found in a meteorite from Mars."

First they talk about life on mars being debunked. First off life on mars is still a mystery to scientist. Knowing creationist and how they put there faults on us so they can look even, they think when science talks about something new they are researching, they think they're saying it is proof for evolution. Well sorry to break it to you but no scientist has said that life on mars is proof of evolution. At best it would more support abiogenesis. Also there is still a debate on it. I for one have not accepted that life is on mars until there is a scientific consensus that says that it did. Even at the time of it's discovery they were still debating on weather its true or not.(1)

"Some paleontologists are even claiming that Tiktaalik has the potential to become another Archaeopteryx for any evolutionist wanting to cite an ironclad example of a transitional form."

I now have another thing I can debunk from your website, thanks answers in genesis your making this to easy.Thumbsup

"The reports say that the skeletons (supposedly 375 million years old and up to nine feet long) have fish characteristics such as fins and a gill, but also characteristics that, according to the Times, “anticipate the emergence of land animals—and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs … .”
This part is very funny. I love that in this part they mention two of tiktaalik's fish traits but then never name its tetrapod traits that show how its connected to amphibians,reptiles, and birds(get it). This is so that their cover isn't blown and they won't get caught lying for Jesus by there followers.

"No creationist to our knowledge has yet done a careful analysis on this fossil. Until one of our scientists or an adjunct AiG researcher has conducted a careful study, we will not issue a conclusive statement."

This has to be the funniest thing they have said on this article. Creationist don't want to look at the fossil for research. They want to look at it so they can go "I've seen the fossil there are no tetrapod traits about it." You guys don't care about looking at it you just want to make your lie look more credible. Nice try. Now on to tiktaalik.


"There is the coelacanth fish, found in the same geological system (Devonian it is called) as this Tiktaalik discovery, that also has lobe fins. These lobe fins were once thought to enable the coelacanth to walk on the ocean floor (in fact it was, like “Tiklaalik,” once considered by evolutionists to be a type of transitional form). Later, it was determined that the coelacanth fins were used for better maneuvering through the water, and not for walking. The new creature uncovered in the Arctic might be something similar."

What's funny is that you guys don't give a source for this. Wonder why?Consider The regular coelacanth was never said to have done what tiktaalik has done. It has been said it was thought to be able to walk. But science doing what it does corrected that mistake. Also coelacanth is not like a lungfish and a tetrapod(2), which fairs much better. Also coelacanths were around before tiktaalik evolved.(3) Also never once did a hear a scientist say ever that coelacanths were a part of the collection of tetrapod transitional fossils. If you under stood science you would know that these lobed-fined fishes had a common ancestor. There was however another fish that had to deal with tetrapods. It may not have been with coelacanths or with tiktaalik but it comes in between. It was asteolepis(4), another transitional fossil connecting lobe-fined fishes with early tetrapods like tiktaalik.

"Also, there are other creatures (e.g., the Panderichthys) that are thought to be fish and yet appear to be similar in lobe and fin structure to Tiktaalik. In addition, the bones for Panderichthys, Tiktaalik and the coelacanth are embedded in the muscle, and are not attached to the axial skeleton, which you would find in a reptile or amphibian (and which would be necessary for weight-bearing appendages)."

There needs to be a word for the creationist act of using transitional fossil in an attempt to ignore other transitional fossils. Panderichthys existed before tiktaalik(4). Panderichthys shows a link between lobe-fined fishes and early tetrapods as well(5). Though it is correct that tiktaalik didn't walk like later tetrapods, however it did have fins that were much different then it's early ancestors(6). But I'm going to pour more salt on these creationist wounds and list some more of tiktaalik's tetrapod traits. It had a neck,ribs, a flat head, and ear notches. So tiktaalik did have fins but they were different from panderichthys and coelacanths. Quit lying for jesus.

"As we often state on this website, keep in mind that evolutionists and creationists have the same facts (e.g., fossils), but interpret the facts uncovered today differently in regard to the past. Because evolutionists want to discover transitional forms, when they find a very old fish with leg-bone-like bones in its fins, they want to interpret this as evidence that it is some sort of transitional creature. However, other fish seem to have the same sort of structure as stated above, and these bones are not constructed as one would expect for weight-bearing legs. It may be just another example of the wonderful design of our Creator God."
You guys made me laughLaughat,cryWeeping,and laugh again. We don't look at the same evidence. When science saw tiktaalik we truly examined it with a skeptical objective mind. That's also why you only looked at tiktaalik's fish traits. If you really looking at the same evidence then you would notice the tetrapod traits. Also if your god can make mismatch animals then why didn't he create catbug or the warners, so that when we see tiktaalik we can tell that it was just what god wanted to create? Why did your god make it so we would think evolution happens in the first place? Well there goes the god can't lie business.

"All they have actually found is a fish that is another example of a lobe-finned fish (one of which still lives today—the coelacanth) that has bones similar in position to those seen in the arm and wrist of land-walking creatures—except these structures support fins with rays in them, not digits like fingers and toes (and as has been stated, they are NOT connected to the axial skeleton)."

Great which fish. You left no source its like you just expect someone to read this and not check your sources. Also there are fossils that are fish and tetrapods. Talk origins gives some examples(7). You guys can't mention these though other wise your fans would learn that you're lying. I already explained coelacanths so i won't repeat my self on it. This is why you made me an atheist AIG and you earned my you made me an athiest awardSmartass.

"We will, however, continue to use words like “might” and “appear” until AiG can gain better access to the researchers’ findings and also study fossil fish that are similar to Tiktaalik. It is vital that we gather as much data as we can. At some time, we might discover (as was the case when closer examination revealed the really was no evidence of life on that Mars meteorite) that this fossil discovery has an alternative/better interpretation of the evidence."

To translate the first part in english, they're basically saying until we see the fossil in real life then walk away so we can tell you it has no tetrapod traits. I went over the mars thing as well so i won't repeat myself. There is already the best interpretation. It has been examined before. It has passed peer-review. What you are trying to say is to find a better excuse then the ones you already have.

"For the moment, we can confidently state that evolutionists have no examples of mutations or evolutionary processes that can lead to an increase in genetic information in a creature that would, for example, develop the appendage of a land animal from the fin of a fish (as would be required by molecules-to-man evolution). Evolution is stopped in its tracks at this point."

Really? I wish you creationist would stop making this empty and false claim. What about bacteria that became multi-celled(8), or the HeLa cells(9). This abstract shows what a beneficial mutation is.(10) Tiktaalik is a good fossil, I just explained why.

"This website has consistently demonstrated that fossil creatures are essentially the same (stasis), or have degenerated (lost information, the opposite of what evolution requires). This is predicted in the creation model (animals reproducing “after their kind”; Genesis 1:24–25). Also, creationists have shown that the evidence found in the fossil record is highly consistent with catastrophism (i.e., a worldwide flood such as the Flood of Noah in the book of Genesis)."

Your website has consistently lied. I hate liars. You lie so you can make money off of peoples delusions. Fossils will stay the same because they're dead. However when they were alive tetrapods could reproduce and pass on traits. Also evolution is only gaining. In evolution losing parts is some times the benefit. Evolution is a lot more then what you make it liars.(11) I already got you on your whole kind lie before. This is my prediction, the creation model is a lie used to trick and enslave the masses into giving you apologist money. Your religion will one day die at the hands of reality. And that day is coming,that's why your master Ken Ham is complaining about teens being atheist, because each generation coming is getting to smart for your BS. I don't care if it happens before I die or after.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ssing-link

1. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-na...-78138144/

2. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v49...12027.html

3. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...vograms_04

4. http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fishfossils/...olepis.htm

5. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v45...07339.html

6. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html

7. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html

8. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/lab-...okaryotes/

9. http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ce...a-cell.htm

10. http://www.genetics.org/content/176/3/1759

11. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary...0_0/evo_02

And don't try the foot prints because the paper even says that the foot prints are primitive.

" Has a distinct manus(hand) and pes(foot) prints of somewhat different size arranged in diagonal stride sequence. The animal is moving in a straight line and is not leaving a body drag. The prints are circular without digit impressions or displacement rims. A single,slightly larger print on the same slab shows a strong posterior displacement rim with digit marks."
You only read the abstract did you? You also said i was stupid as well, but i read the paper and you read the abstract. If you did you would know that was said. Don't call me stupid if you are going to lie and expect us to not research into this, why are not creationist we look into claims that people make.

Look up the pdf of this paper from nature.

And to claim it as debunking evolution would be a bad idea. Not every one agrees with the foot prints, and those that do are still questioning it.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...king-land/

It is like those triassic period bird foot prints. Remember those? Course not if you did you would realize that it made creationist(and to be fair some scientist) look stupid.

(April 26, 2014 at 8:37 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: My suggestion is that we vote for two or three people for Rev to debate in future threads. Or that we come to an agreement amongst ourselves to only post meaningful, relevant posts, and to not muddy the waters with pot shots and jokes?

---

Rev, no kidding, no joking, no witty statements: Could you please tell us what you think evolution is?

I'd be happy if he just explained what the specific characteristics of a transitional fossil are.

(April 26, 2014 at 8:30 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 5:57 am)orogenicman Wrote: The bulk of creationists are not scientists. As such, they don't get to define scientific terms, particularly outside of published scientific journals and scientific organizations.

---

By the way, the entire argument about transitional fossils is bogus. Yes, it is very important that we search for transitional fossils in the fossil record in order to give as complete a history of organisms in the fossil record as possible. But whether we find them for all species or any particular species is irrelevant to the question of evolution. Why? Because ALL species are, by convention as well as by definition, transitional. There is no ambiguity with regard to species being transitional. They are.

There are many Christians who are brilliant. There are scientists and college professors who believe in God and question what they were taught but are scared to share this in fear of being ostracized.

The issue is not whether or not scientists who believe in god are conducting valid science. The issue is whether they allow their religious bias to influence their science. If they are scientists worthy of their titles, they don't allow such biases to influence their work. As Galileo (who was a very devout catholic) once said:

"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".

I am certain that there are scientists who do believe. And I am also pretty sure that most of them think the way Galileo did. The fact remains that most scientists are not creationists, and most of the so-called creation scientists are not actually conducting any scientific research that makes creationist conclusions that is being published in peer reviewed science journals. I often see creationists list specific scientists as supporting creationism, and yet when you check their lists of publications, none of their peer reviewed research involves creationism. So it is disingenuous to refer to their works as supporting creationism when they clearly do not, regardless of whether they offer personal support for the belief.

(April 26, 2014 at 8:42 pm)Godlesspanther Wrote:

(April 26, 2014 at 8:37 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: My suggestion is that we vote for two or three people for Rev to debate in future threads. Or that we come to an agreement amongst ourselves to only post meaningful, relevant posts, and to not muddy the waters with pot shots and jokes?

---

Rev, no kidding, no joking, no witty statements: Could you please tell us what you think evolution is?

I'd be happy if he just explained what the specific characteristics of a transitional fossil are.

Do what I do, if they won't define it you do. You go to every source defining the word and place it on the table. If they don't like it they can happily shut up.

(April 25, 2014 at 12:20 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(April 24, 2014 at 11:03 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I guess you guys were smarted then him since he just was an agnostic.

Intelligence has little to do with whether someone is an atheist, a theist, or an agnostic, you blithering fool. Being smart doesn't make you right, only being right makes you right, and shouldn't you be an agnostic if people so much smarter than you are? AND most of us are AGNOSTICS anyway, you cretin. How much do we have to dumb it down for you to get that we don't claim to know that no God or gods exist, which makes (most of) us AGNOSTICS, it's not BELIEVING any God or gods exist that makes us ATHEISTS, and there's no contradiction between being an agnostic atheist, or, for that matter, an agnostic theist.

I just don't have it in me to keep being impersonal about this. Congratulations on raising your level of idiocy to a point where I can't stand it anymore. I like to think I'm one of our more patient contributors, but I have my limits.

I hear what you have to say and get your point. Please don't leave, I appreciate your posts. Would like you around to hear your views on Argument #2.

---

(April 25, 2014 at 2:19 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(April 24, 2014 at 11:50 pm)Revelation777 Wrote:

Part of the problem lies is what you guys see as a transitional fossil, I don't. That is why we are at a standstill and we need to go to Argument #1 but I am waiting for something.

What characteristics must a fossil have in order for you to consider it a transitional fossil? You've implied you're looking for specific things. What are they?

I answered that already.

---

(April 25, 2014 at 5:44 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 25, 2014 at 2:19 pm)rasetsu Wrote: What characteristics must a fossil have in order for you to consider it a transitional fossil? You've implied you're looking for specific things. What are they?

He'll never say this, but secretly, the answer is "nothing that any fossil will ever have." Out loud he'll give us some nonsense remarkably similar to the crocoduck, if he answers at all. Mark my words.

Kangaraccoon would be a nice start.