Argument #1: Transitional Fossils

[Chas]

Thank you for helping me with my English. Yes, I am proud to be a sheep.

Then your fate is to be repeatedly shorn and then slaughtered.

[Ryantology]

I feel bad that a mere one totally hopeless bible head, who deem his time to be of no value unless it is to serve his fantasy, could have so easily and trivially wasted so much of so many wiser and more knowledgeable people's time.

And he is by no means the only such time waster on this forum.

The only other time-wasting bibleheads we have are almost all of the rest of them.

[Chas]

I doubt your conclusion is correct, but if you feel you can defend it, then come to the debate area, and put it to the test against me. To be clear, neither of us are scientists, so we're on an even playing field. If your ideas stand up to scrutiny, you should have no problems with this arrangement.

I am sorry, I would like to move to Argument #2. I said I would post 7 and would like to move ahead.

No. You're not done here.

[orogenicman]

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

What does this mean (wholesale transitions)?

- primitive forms evolving into complex forms
- gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms

There is no rule or general principle in biology that requires organisms to evolve from something less complex to something more complex. That said, there are many instances where this has occurred. A perfect example is the crinoids. Early examples are much simpler in their skeletal structure than are later species. The most complex species of crinoids we see, in fact, are found at the climax of their evolution in the Mississippian period. But this is not a function of some overriding principle requiring increased complexity over time. It is a function of the rapid adaptive radiation that occurred within the class as new niches opened up for them.



Cambrian crinoid



Mississippian crinoid

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

If you believe that, then you don't know much about the fossil record. You certainly haven't proven it to be the case here.

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.

There are many examples of species seemingly "suddenly" appearing in the fossil record. But there are easily demonstrated reasons for this. The first is the nature of fossilization. Fossilization is the exception, not the rule. Relatively few organisms become fossilized. The vast majority are recycled back into the ecosystems from which they lived. Only under specific circumstances do they get fossilized. But when fossilization does occur, often, nearly entire ecosystems are preserved.

The second reason is erosion. Many deposited strata that may contain fossils become eroded over time. For this reason, we do not have a complete set, anywhere on the planet, of all the strata that have ever been deposited. Here is a classic example:



In the correlated strata above, many beds fall away while others suddenly appear as measured across the eastern U.S. Examination of the formations in these locations show evidence for erosional features between beds while at other places, the formations are more complete.

A third reason is tectonic. Collisions of two continents, such as we see in the Himalayas, creates large regions of massive uplift, turning regions of former sea beds into mountain ranges, and taking with them the fossils that were previous deposited in those ancient seas. But as the mountain ranges rise, the rocks are eroded and wash away, and so the fossil beds are almost never complete. Conversely, sea beds are also destroyed at subduction zones, as the ocean floor becomes subducted beneath an impinging continental mass, and gets recycled back into the earth. So nowhere on the planet is the fossil record going to be complete.

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.

The fact remains that thousands of transitional fossils have been recovered from the fossil record, and your intelligent design cannot explain why other than to resort to the non-scientific slogan "undefined creator did it".

---

Sorry about the large images I posted in my previous post. If the moderators know how to reduce them, that would be appreciated. So rev, at you prepared for your second round (this should be interesting)?

[Esquilax]

I am sorry, I would like to move to Argument #2. I said I would post 7 and would like to move ahead.

No. You're not done here.

This is actually true, Rev: though you're attempting to cut and run, the fact is that you have presented demonstrably untrue claims and largely dishonest and inaccurate quote attributions in an attempt to bolster your argument, and at no point have you ever owned up to posting creationist quote mines and fallacies, nor have you so much as admitted that your claims thus far have been wrong.

You've just tap danced around taking responsibility for anything that you've done here, and now you're intending to just sweep that under the rug and move on, presumably to do exactly the same thing.

I'm not against you making new threads, but I will point out that you've started out with some absolutely terrible behavior, even disregarding the paucity of factual arguments, and if you're intending to continue in a spirit of dishonesty and willful ignorance without so much as admitting your objective fault here, then you aren't exactly giving us a reason to engage with you in future.

I'd encourage you not to respond to this with yet another single sentence answer about wishing to bring people to Christ or whatever, and instead to really reflect on your actions here; you have been demonstrably wrong on several points, and at best the victim of someone else's lies on others.

Why won't you even admit that?

[Revelation777]

Thank you for helping me with my English. Yes, I am proud to be a sheep.

Then your fate is to be repeatedly shorn and then slaughtered.

Well, at least I hope you benefit from my wool and tender chops.

---

No. You're not done here.

This is actually true, Rev: though you're attempting to cut and run, the fact is that you have presented demonstrably untrue claims and largely dishonest and inaccurate quote attributions in an attempt to bolster your argument, and at no point have you ever owned up to posting creationist quote mines and fallacies, nor have you so much as admitted that your claims thus far have been wrong.

You've just tap danced around taking responsibility for anything that you've done here, and now you're intending to just sweep that under the rug and move on, presumably to do exactly the same thing.

I'm not against you making new threads, but I will point out that you've started out with some absolutely terrible behavior, even disregarding the paucity of factual arguments, and if you're intending to continue in a spirit of dishonesty and willful ignorance without so much as admitting your objective fault here, then you aren't exactly giving us a reason to engage with you in future.

I'd encourage you not to respond to this with yet another single sentence answer about wishing to bring people to Christ or whatever, and instead to really reflect on your actions here; you have been demonstrably wrong on several points, and at best the victim of someone else's lies on others.

Why won't you even admit that?

I respectfully disagree. When I presented my side instead of addressing the issue you attack the source. I shared that at this point in this thread where I am at. Like I said I want to post A#2 so we can move on with this. We can stay on this thread for years. Perhaps, in the future we can revisit this. As for now I am not claiming victory nor do I look at this as some sort of game. I currently am concluding in this thread that the "so-called" transitional forms presented and arguments for that case are far from convincing as proof for macroevolution. My mind right now is on A#2, please be patient as I am struggling on how to word things. Thanks.

---

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

What does this mean (wholesale transitions)?

- primitive forms evolving into complex forms
- gradual derivation of new organisms produced transitional forms

There is no rule or general principle in biology that requires organisms to evolve from something less complex to something more complex. That said, there are many instances where this has occurred. A perfect example is the crinoids. Early examples are much simpler in their skeletal structure than are later species. The most complex species of crinoids we see, in fact, are found at the climax of their evolution in the Mississippian period. But this is not a function of some overriding principle requiring increased complexity over time. It is a function of the rapid adaptive radiation that occurred within the class as new niches opened up for them.



Cambrian crinoid



Mississippian crinoid

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

If you believe that, then you don't know much about the fossil record. You certainly haven't proven it to be the case here.

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.

There are many examples of species seemingly "suddenly" appearing in the fossil record. But there are easily demonstrated reasons for this. The first is the nature of fossilization. Fossilization is the exception, not the rule. Relatively few organisms become fossilized. The vast majority are recycled back into the ecosystems from which they lived. Only under specific circumstances do they get fossilized. But when fossilization does occur, often, nearly entire ecosystems are preserved.

The second reason is erosion. Many deposited strata that may contain fossils become eroded over time. For this reason, we do not have a complete set, anywhere on the planet, of all the strata that have ever been deposited. Here is a classic example:



In the correlated strata above, many beds fall away while others suddenly appear as measured across the eastern U.S. Examination of the formations in these locations show evidence for erosional features between beds while at other places, the formations are more complete.

A third reason is tectonic. Collisions of two continents, such as we see in the Himalayas, creates large regions of massive uplift, turning regions of former sea beds into mountain ranges, and taking with them the fossils that were previous deposited in those ancient seas. But as the mountain ranges rise, the rocks are eroded and wash away, and so the fossil beds are almost never complete. Conversely, sea beds are also destroyed at subduction zones, as the ocean floor becomes subducted beneath an impinging continental mass, and gets recycled back into the earth. So nowhere on the planet is the fossil record going to be complete.

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.

The fact remains that thousands of transitional fossils have been recovered from the fossil record, and your intelligent design cannot explain why other than to resort to the non-scientific slogan "undefined creator did it".

---

Sorry about the large images I posted in my previous post. If the moderators know how to reduce them, that would be appreciated. So rev, at you prepared for your second round (this should be interesting)?

Please see prior postings for rebuttal. I am on to A#2. Thanks for your post and hope to see you on the next thread.

[orogenicman]

Then your fate is to be repeatedly shorn and then slaughtered.

Well, at least I hope you benefit from my wool and tender chops.

---

This is actually true, Rev: though you're attempting to cut and run, the fact is that you have presented demonstrably untrue claims and largely dishonest and inaccurate quote attributions in an attempt to bolster your argument, and at no point have you ever owned up to posting creationist quote mines and fallacies, nor have you so much as admitted that your claims thus far have been wrong.

You've just tap danced around taking responsibility for anything that you've done here, and now you're intending to just sweep that under the rug and move on, presumably to do exactly the same thing.

I'm not against you making new threads, but I will point out that you've started out with some absolutely terrible behavior, even disregarding the paucity of factual arguments, and if you're intending to continue in a spirit of dishonesty and willful ignorance without so much as admitting your objective fault here, then you aren't exactly giving us a reason to engage with you in future.

I'd encourage you not to respond to this with yet another single sentence answer about wishing to bring people to Christ or whatever, and instead to really reflect on your actions here; you have been demonstrably wrong on several points, and at best the victim of someone else's lies on others.

Why won't you even admit that?

I respectfully disagree. When I presented my side instead of addressing the issue you attack the source. I shared that at this point in this thread where I am at. Like I said I want to post A#2 so we can move on with this. We can stay on this thread for years. Perhaps, in the future we can revisit this. As for now I am not claiming victory nor do I look at this as some sort of game. I currently am concluding in this thread that the "so-called" transitional forms presented and arguments for that case are far from convincing as proof for macroevolution. My mind right now is on A#2, please be patient as I am struggling on how to word things. Thanks.

---

What does this mean (wholesale transitions)?


There is no rule or general principle in biology that requires organisms to evolve from something less complex to something more complex. That said, there are many instances where this has occurred. A perfect example is the crinoids. Early examples are much simpler in their skeletal structure than are later species. The most complex species of crinoids we see, in fact, are found at the climax of their evolution in the Mississippian period. But this is not a function of some overriding principle requiring increased complexity over time. It is a function of the rapid adaptive radiation that occurred within the class as new niches opened up for them.



Cambrian crinoid



Mississippian crinoid


If you believe that, then you don't know much about the fossil record. You certainly haven't proven it to be the case here.


There are many examples of species seemingly "suddenly" appearing in the fossil record. But there are easily demonstrated reasons for this. The first is the nature of fossilization. Fossilization is the exception, not the rule. Relatively few organisms become fossilized. The vast majority are recycled back into the ecosystems from which they lived. Only under specific circumstances do they get fossilized. But when fossilization does occur, often, nearly entire ecosystems are preserved.

The second reason is erosion. Many deposited strata that may contain fossils become eroded over time. For this reason, we do not have a complete set, anywhere on the planet, of all the strata that have ever been deposited. Here is a classic example:



In the correlated strata above, many beds fall away while others suddenly appear as measured across the eastern U.S. Examination of the formations in these locations show evidence for erosional features between beds while at other places, the formations are more complete.

A third reason is tectonic. Collisions of two continents, such as we see in the Himalayas, creates large regions of massive uplift, turning regions of former sea beds into mountain ranges, and taking with them the fossils that were previous deposited in those ancient seas. But as the mountain ranges rise, the rocks are eroded and wash away, and so the fossil beds are almost never complete. Conversely, sea beds are also destroyed at subduction zones, as the ocean floor becomes subducted beneath an impinging continental mass, and gets recycled back into the earth. So nowhere on the planet is the fossil record going to be complete.


The fact remains that thousands of transitional fossils have been recovered from the fossil record, and your intelligent design cannot explain why other than to resort to the non-scientific slogan "undefined creator did it".

---

Sorry about the large images I posted in my previous post. If the moderators know how to reduce them, that would be appreciated. So rev, at you prepared for your second round (this should be interesting)?

Please see prior postings for rebuttal. I am on to A#2. Thanks for your post and hope to see you on the next thread.

I have seen your rebuttals, and they do not address anything I've posted above. If you can't provide an adequate response to my rebuttal, then what's the point of pretending that you want to have a debate?

[truthBtold]

Lets goooo with #2 already... ur making my milk spoil......my keyboard has cobwebs. ..

[Bad Wolf]

Rev, macroevolution is a term invented by creationists, not scientists. There is only evolution.

[Sejanus]

I currently am concluding in this thread that the "so-called" transitional forms presented and arguments for that case are far from convincing as proof for macroevolution.

Evolution by natural selection is a gradual process, all evolution is 'microevolution' and non-directional. So called 'macroevolution' was probably thought up by xtian apologist scumbags like Ray Cumfart in an attempt to discredit evolution by natural selection. So your conclusion, as well as your arguments in this thread are fatally flawed. I can't say I'm surprised, coming from someone with the username 'Revelation777'.

---

Rev, macroevolution is a term invented by creationists, not scientists. There is only evolution.

Damn you, you ninja'd me.

---

---

Well, at least I hope you benefit from my wool and tender chops. :)

---

I respectfully disagree. When I presented my side instead of addressing the issue you attack the source. I shared that at this point in this thread where I am at. Like I said I want to post A#2 so we can move on with this. We can stay on this thread for years. Perhaps, in the future we can revisit this. As for now I am not claiming victory nor do I look at this as some sort of game. I currently am concluding in this thread that the "so-called" transitional forms presented and arguments for that case are far from convincing as proof for macroevolution. My mind right now is on A#2, please be patient as I am struggling on how to word things. Thanks.

---

Please see prior postings for rebuttal. I am on to A#2. Thanks for your post and hope to see you on the next thread.

---

I have seen your rebuttals, and they do not address anything I've posted above. If you can't provide an adequate response to my rebuttal, then what's the point of pretending that you want to have a debate?

He probably would've spouted some such drivel as "Those fossils were put there by the devil to trick us! Hey skeeter! go get me another root beer while I bang my sister" etc