Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Esquilax]

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.

How does Tiktaalik not fit the definition of a transitional form?

It has fins like a fish, and also has rudimentary fingers like a reptile. The head of a croc and the gills of a fish. The ability to turn its head like a reptile, shoulders like a reptile, yet has scales like a fish.

There are others, but lets start there.

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."

[max-greece]

I have to say I agree with Rev on this one. You guys are all nuts.

Actually I should qualify that a bit. I agree with him when he says:

Why are you wasting your time on an imbecile such as myself?

There's just too much missing to even begin to educate him, whilst, at the same time, too much that needs to be removed and over-turned in his understanding, or lack thereof, to make this a worthwhile proposition.

[pocaracas]

Sure hope it wasn't on AiG, or any similar site... Even the wikipedia is a better source of information.

And the abundance of fossils doesn't defend yours.
Either we're both wrong, or my position, with its full awareness of the nature of that absence of fossils, is the most accurate available.

Indeed, it doesn't.
But it allows them to make educated guesses as to the shape of the head... from there, more educated guesses as to the shape of the body.
And usually they insist on showing you exactly what the fossil is and how they pieced it together to arrive at the overall body.

Look at this skull... see if you can tell which parts are actual fossil (replica) and which are extrapolations:


They can even then extrapolate a face:

---

---

Of course, we know this isn't exactly what the person looked like, but it's an approximation.

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

Care to provide the article where such experiment has been carried out?
Something tells me that you'd only find homo sapiens skeletons...if any. And those wouldn't show any evolution.

---

Let him stay, but I'd like to see the other arguments with a bit higher frequency...
One a day would be nice, but I guess rev would be overwhelmed with all the replies from each thread.

I'm waiting for something before I go to number 2...and I ain't gonna tell you what it is.

Waiting for the old "there are no transitional forms, because each one is suited to their environment"?
Each one is final until environmental pressures select for slightly different features.

What sort of good would require you to go to these lengths of mental gymnastics just to arrive at the conclusion that it exists and that we should worship it?

---

or people are just making fun of me or of my God

Interesting sequence of words.
Your god? How many gods are there? One for each person?
Do you own your god?
Care to share your thoughts on why in the world such expression has been invented?... "my god"

[Confused Ape]

All I can go by is how my life changed when I became a believer. You might say, well, that was just all in his mind. Well, I believe it was supernatural. We may have to agree to disagree on that one.

Belief in God has nothing to do with evolution. People can accept evolution and still believe in God. Millions of Christians do.

Francis Collins converted to Christianity but he didn't ditch evolution in the process. This is an in depth interview with him where he relates how he came to believe in God and miracles. I'm only going to quote bits from further on in the article, though, because this is where he explains how he can believe in God and miracles while still accepting evolution.

The Question Of God - Francis Collins

COLLINS: If God is who God claims to be, and who I believe he is, then he is not explainable in natural terms. He is outside the natural world; outside of space and time. So if God chose to intervene from time to time in the natural world by allowing the occurrence of miraculous events, I don't see why that is an illogical possibility. Once one accepts that idea that there could be something outside the natural, then miracles also become possible. Lewis writes about this extremely well in his little book called Miracles.

However, I don't think miracles happen frequently. It seems to me reading the Bible there were times when miracles were occurring at greater frequency, such as in the time of Moses or Elijah or the time of Christ. I have not personally witnessed a spiritual miracle.

People can still believe that Jesus rose from the dead while accepting evolution.

He concludes with -

I think God gave us an opportunity through the use of science to understand the natural world. The idea that some are asking people to disbelieve our scientific data in order to prove that they believe in God is so unnecessary.

If God chose to create you and me as natural and spiritual beings, and decided to use the mechanism of evolution to accomplish that goal, I think that's incredibly elegant. And because God is outside of space and time, He knew what the outcome was going to be right at the beginning. It's not as if there was a chance it wouldn't work. So where, then, is the discordancy that causes so many people to see these views of science and of spirit as being incompatible? In me, they both exist. They both exist at the same moment in the day. They're not compartmentalized. They are entirely compatible. And they're part of who I am.

You're on an atheist forum so most of the people here don't believe in God. If, however, you were on a lot of Christian forums you'd get the same reception if you used Answers In Genesis as so called proof that evolution is wrong.

We believe Jesus, the Son of God, always was. He took on humanity apx. 2014 years ago.

This belief doesn't rely on evolution being wrong. Millions of Christians believe the above while still accepting evolution.

I can accept that changes happen over time...from slime to scientist is undigestible

In other words you don't like the idea that evolution is how God did it so you're grasping at any old rubbish in hope of proving that science is wrong.

Is the harsh truth is that once you die your dead, that's it, you no longer exist?

Whether or not we continue after death has nothing to do with evolution. Millions of Christians who accept evolution still believe what Christianity teaches about death.

Evolution is no threat to anyone's faith in God and Jesus. This includes your own faith.

[orogenicman]

How does Tiktaalik not fit the definition of a transitional form?

It has fins like a fish, and also has rudimentary fingers like a reptile. The head of a croc and the gills of a fish. The ability to turn its head like a reptile, shoulders like a reptile, yet has scales like a fish.

There are others, but lets start there.

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.

[Duke Guilmon]

If a kind or basic type of animal over a long period of time has evolved into a different kind of basic type of animal, then it is reasonable to expect a plethora of transitional forms in the fossil record. However, this is not the case, rather, the fossil record shows the original diversity of animal and plant forms.

Evolution models of the fossil record predict the following:
- wholesale transitions in organisms over time
- primitive forms evolving into complex forms
- gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms

We do not find any of these to be true based on our fossil record.

Trilobites are an example of an organism appearing suddenly in the fossil record void of any evidence of transitions. Furthermore, trilobites have an organized complexity comparable to modern day invertebrates.

The facts remain, fossils have been discovered to suddenly appear in the record without transition. This is what would be expected from intelligent design not macroevolution.

Picked an old one but lets start.

"Evolutionists have long speculated that birds evolved from reptiles. At one time or another, virtually every living and extinct class of reptiles has been proposed as the ancestor of birds. The famous Darwinian apologist Thomas Huxley was the first to speculate (in the mid 1800s) that birds evolved from dinosaurs."

Really? When, because it has always been dinosaurs in science. Remember Dinosaurs were first found in the 19th Century.1

"One of the main reasons that Deinonychus and other similar theropod dinosaurs (called dromaeosaurs) seemed to be plausible ancestors to birds is that, like birds, these creatures walked solely on their hind legs and have only three digits on their hands. But as we shall see, there are many problems with transforming any dinosaur, and particularly a theropod, into a bird."

It is also because some have avian structures, like allosaurus having a wishbone.2

"Warm-blooded vs. cold-blooded
Seemingly forgotten in all the claims that birds are essentially dinosaurs (or at least that they evolved from dinosaurs) is the fact that dinosaurs are reptiles. There are many differences between birds and reptiles, including the fact that (with precious few exceptions) living reptiles are cold-blooded creatures, while birds and mammals are warm-blooded. Indeed, even compared to most mammals, birds have exceptionally high body temperatures resulting from a high metabolic rate.
The difference between cold- and warm-blooded animals isn’t simply in the relative temperature of the blood but rather in their ability to maintain a constant body core temperature. Thus, warm-blooded animals such as birds and mammals have internal physiological mechanisms to maintain an essentially constant body temperature; they are more properly called “endothermic.” In contrast, reptiles have a varying body temperature influenced by their surrounding environment and are called “ectothermic.” An ectothermic animal can adjust its body temperature behaviorally (e.g., moving between shade and sun), even achieving higher body temperature than a so-called warm-blooded animal, but this is done by outside factors.

Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution, has concluded that “there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic.”4 Feduccia says that despite the lack of evidence “many authors have tried to make specimens conform to the hot-blooded theropod dogma.”

First not dogma, we don't break down your church walls and force you guys to learn this, nor is it used for hate. Second, this issue is still in discussion, unlike you guys we don't make claims until we have evidence. However new research shows that dinosaurs might be endothermic.3

"Another argument for endothermy in dinosaurs is based on the eggs and assumed brood behavior of dinosaurs, but this speculation too has been challenged.3 There is in fact no theropod brooding behavior not known to occur in crocodiles and other cold-blooded living reptiles."

Dinosaur brooding is more in favor of feathers seeing as a naked animal isn't good at instillation.

"All dinosaurs are divided into two major groups based on the structure of their hips (pelvic bones): the lizard-hipped dinosaurs (saurischians) and the bird-hipped dinosaurs (ornithiscians). The main difference between the two hip structures is that the pubic bone of the bird-hipped dinosaurs is directed toward the rear (as it is in birds) rather than entirely to the front (as it is in mammals and reptiles)."

Well it depends on the theropod to avian transitional fossil you are loooking at. Archaeopteryx shows a hip that has a combination of avian and theropod hips4,While Anchiornis, would have a more theropod like one5

"One of the main lines of evidence cited by evolutionists for the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs is the three-fingered “hand” found in both birds and theropods. The problem is that recent studies have shown that there is a digital mismatch between birds and theropods.
Most terrestrial vertebrates have an embryological development based on the five-fingered hand. In the case of birds and theropod dinosaurs, two of the five fingers are lost (or greatly reduced) and three are retained during development of the embryo. If birds evolved from theropods, one would expect the same three fingers to be retained in both birds and theropod dinosaurs, but such is not the case. Evidence shows that the fingers retained in theropod dinosaurs are fingers 1, 2, and 3 (the “thumb” is finger 1) while the fingers retained in birds are 2, 3, and 4.5"

Again, Look at the two examples above both have unfused fingers.

"If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian-type lung in such dinosaurs. While fossils generally do not preserve soft tissue such as lungs, a very fine theropod dinosaur fossil (Sinosauropteryx) has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved. The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile—not a bird.6 If theropod dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, one might expect to find evidence of an avian-type lung in such dinosaurs. While fossils generally do not preserve soft tissue such as lungs, a very fine theropod dinosaur fossil (Sinosauropteryx) has been found in which the outline of the visceral cavity has been well preserved. The evidence clearly indicates that this theropod had lung and respiratory mechanics similar to that of a crocodile—not a bird."

Funny you bring this up. You should read more. There actually is evidence that non-avian dinosaurs had airsacs, ask Coelophisis if you don't believe me.6

"Structures described as “protofeathers” in the dinosaur fossils Sinosauropteryx and Sinithosaurus are filamentous and sometimes have interlaced structures bearing no obvious resemblance to feathers. It now appears likely that these filaments (often referred to as “dino-fuzz”) are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen) found in the deep dermal layer of the skin. Feduccia laments that “the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information.”
\Structures described as “protofeathers” in the dinosaur fossils Sinosauropteryx and Sinithosaurus are filamentous and sometimes have interlaced structures bearing no obvious resemblance to feathers. It now appears likely that these filaments (often referred to as “dino-fuzz”) are actually connective tissue fibers (collagen) found in the deep dermal layer of the skin. Feduccia laments that “the major and most worrying problem of the feathered dinosaur hypothesis is that the integumental structures have been homologized with avian feathers on the basis of anatomically and paleontologically unsound and misleading information.”10

Let me start with your examples first. The feather dinosaur you talk about is not a bird ancestor. At best it may give us insight about what the first feathers would look like. Birds first appeared in the late Jurassic. Sinosauropteryx was in the late Cretaceous. So the example you gave with sinosauropteryx and confuciusornis is bad. In fact we already knew that, so why make an argument off of it?

"Complicating matters even further is the fact that true birds have been found among the Liaoning province fossils in the same layers as their presumed dinosaur ancestors. The obvious bird fossil Confuciusornis sanctus, for example, has long slender tail feathers resembling those of a modern scissor-tail flycatcher. Two taxa (Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx) that were thought to be dinosaurs with true feathers are now generally conceded to be flightless birds."

Good job, a fossil that was media hyped and science didn't hype it. Next you will be telling my that Miley Cyrus disproves evolution.

"What would it prove if features common to one type of animal were found on another? Nothing. Simply put, God uses various designs with various creatures. Take the platypus, for example—a mosaic. It has several design features that are shared with other animals, and yet it is completely distinct. So if a dinosaur (or mammal) is ever found with feathers, it would call into question our human criteria for classification, not biblical veracity. What’s needed to support evolution is not an unusual mosaic of complete traits, but a trait in transition, such as a “scale-feather,” what creationist biologists would call a “sceather.”

Yes, it would imply something, espacially knowing that this was predicted before the evidence was found based on observation of avian anatomy.7. The platypus is a bad example. Seeing as all it's structures are only similar in looks(the duck "bill") or that you lie about(that it has venom as deadly as a cobra).

"If birds evolved from dinosaurs or any other reptile, then feathers must have evolved from reptilian scales. Evolutionists are so confident that feathers evolved from scales that they often claim that feathers are very similar to scales. The popular Encarta computerized encyclopedia (1997) describes feathers as a “horny outgrowth of skin peculiar to the bird but similar in structure and origin to the scales of fish and reptiles.”

Stop living in creationist land and start living in reality. It is really said they are branched structures,NOT FROM SCALES! My goodness we knew that for a long time.8

"One of the biggest dilemmas for those who want to believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds is that the so-called feathered dinosaurs found thus far are dated to be about 20 million years more recent than Archaeopteryx."

Look up AnchiornisDodgy

"Some modern birds, such as the ostrich, have fingers on their wings, and the juvenile hoatzin (a South American bird) has well-developed fingers and toes with which it can climb trees."

Hoatzin have two claws because the two out of the three were fused, archaeopteryx has all of them unfused.

"One of the biggest problems for evolutionists is explaining the origin of flight. To make matters worse, evolutionists believe that the flying birds evolved before the nonflying birds, such as penguins."

I would like to add that flying avians to penguins is known. Secondly,the origin of flight is being researched.9

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...ark_1_10_1

1. http://video.nationalgeographic.com/vide...saurus-sci

2. http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/dinos/inter...hbone.html

3. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...194948.htm

4. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en..._fig23.jpg

5. http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/spec...ornis.html

6. http://sauroposeidon.files.wordpress.com...r-sacs.pdf

7. http://faculty.msj.edu/kritskg/darwin/Si...pteryx.pdf

8. http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm

9. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...130817.htm

[Tonus]

You guys also do not know me, yet make me out to be this complete deluded religious fanatic with the IQ of a common house fly.

I don't think your IQ is that low, but the rest... yeah.

If you feel that you are being overwhelmed, then take longer to create and post replies. Take the time to check what you are using as support for your claims or beliefs; unknowingly grabbing out-of-context quotes that turn out to work against you simply reinforces the assumption that you are just tossing darts at the wall blindly, hoping that a few of them find the mark.

Maybe you are overwhelmed by dealing with so many responses from people, and maybe it's a convenient way to cover for the weakness of your position. Why not pray to god for guidance and he can help you to offer us more than bad quotes and cheap excuses. Otherwise, perhaps his plan is for you to make a bad impression on an atheist message board? His ways are inscrutable, after all.

[Thackerie]

Moderator hat on.

What gives is this is a *discussion* forum. Posting only a link or video as an argument or rebuttal is frowned upon here. As is quoting from sources without attribution or any indication that the material is not original. The former is contrary to the purpose of this forum, and the latter is dishonest.

In addition, you rarely respond to substantive rebuttals of your "arguments", if one can call them that. This runs contrary to the number one rule of this forum.

In short, this is a place to use your own words.

You are not being persecuted. The problem is with YOU.

Yes yes.... bring the rain...
I havent had this much fun since I watched a cock fight in a whore house...

For real fun, watch a whore fight in a hen house,

[JuliaL]

I have some sympathy that you feel you're too overwhelmed to respond but consider where you are.
I'd still like to hear how you explain the lack of transitional forms required by the 'standard' creationist explanation of the flood story.

Some really funny stories result when creationists try to make plausible the stories of the bible. Let me help:

1) Maybe there was no lack of space in the ark for the millions of species we observe today because, like the Tardis, the ark was bigger on the inside than on the outside.
or
2) Maybe there are no observable dramatic changes in the number of species observed in the paleological record around flood time because;
a) all the millions of species existed before the flood,
b) all but the few thousand 'kinds' which made onto the ark died in the flood and
c) after the flood receded, the 'kinds' immediately spawned all the species back into existence so the period when the millions of species were collapsed into the thousands of 'kinds' is being missed by the paleontologists.
or
3) Just call it magic.

[Mister Agenda]

Hold on just one cotton pickin' minute! You guys are putting me in a no win situation here.

1. I present an argument and it is ok for everyone to quote any source they want. I use AIG and I get lambasted.

And it's okay for anyone to criticize your source. Using reliable sources known for integrity is a good way to reduce this.

2. I put down a link with info to address an issue and I get a warning.

That's between you and the Mods.

3. I use quotes from Darwin and other scientists and I'm quote mining and called a liar.

I don't think the Darwin quote about eyes counts as a quote mine because you included his comments about why their evolution isn't a problem for the theory. Someone may have jumped to conclusions on that one because it's so frequently used for quote mines by leaving that last part out to make it seem like Darwin thought eyes reaslly were a problem for evolution. You didn't do that well with the other scientists though. Do you understand why quote-mining is a form of lying? Do you understand that we're saying that part of a quote was taken out of context to make it seem the person meant something that it's clear wasn't what he was really saying when you read the full quote?

4. I share my beliefs and I'm called a nut and a ignoramus

You might want to ignore those posts. There are a lot of people posting here and not all of them are going to be kind or patient.

5. I make a slight joke and I get raked over the coals

A good way to soften up this audience is to demonstrate that you're participating in the discussion in good faith. Any comic will tell you that you need to know the room. There are Christians here who are well-received. They treat us differently than you have. Do you think that all you have to do to be courteous is not use 'bad' words?

6. One of your atheist buddies tears me down and they get kudos and high fives

I happen to know you've gotten kudoes on this thread yourself. If you want kudoes, be smart, funny, or wise; or put into words what other posters are already thinking. Or just exceed expectations. Theists often get kudoes for posts that wouldn't rate a kudo for an atheist just for making a post that's not as bad as we thought it would be, although if you make a habit of it we will adjust our expectations accordingly.

what gives?

You're not dealing in good faith, and you're being treated in the fashion discourse in bad faith earns. Whining about it won't change anything. Changing your approach, will.

For instance, You've been accused of quote-mining. Your good faith options are as follows:

1) Apologize for the quote mine and retract it, perhaps citing that you did not know your source only had part of the original quote and that when read in it's entirety, it's clear that the person quoted actually believes something very different than what you quoted suggests.

2) Defend the quote mine by showing that it really is an accurate reflection of the original speaker's intent. You should only attempt this if you are confident it is actually the case.

What reason would someone who values honesty when attempting reasoned discourse have for respecting any other courses but those?

---

God is all knowing and powerful, I am a servant in training. hock:

If there is a God, there's no sign it has any servants who can demonstrate that any of their claims about what they say they are following are actually true. If there is a God, it would be trivial for it to provide its servants with what they need to show they are following something real. The only possible conclusions one can come to is that what they think they are following doesn't exist in reality, or it doesn't want them to be able to show it exists. Why then, try to show something which, if God exists, it doesn't want you to be able to show?

Perhaps you're going about this wrong. Maybe the only tool you really have is how you conduct yourself. Is trying to convince people of creationism really going to get you anywhere?

---

I believe it because God said so.

How do you know that?

Jesus said He is coming back and every eye will see Him.

How do you know that? What I expect to happen if I continue to ask these question is that we will reach a point where the only thing you have to cite isn't a reasonable basis for claiming to know something, you will know that is the case, an at that point, if you haven't already, you will start being evasive. I would love to be disappointed on that count

No one has proven to me that "molecule to man evolution happened" a lot of smoke and mirrors though.

Then surely you can cite one of these posts composed of 'smoke and mirrors' we've offered instead of evidence for evolution, right?