Does this fool go to every message board and spam his spams to try to get people to believe in God?
talk about throwing your life away.
Printable View
Does this fool go to every message board and spam his spams to try to get people to believe in God?
talk about throwing your life away.
Yup - and he should be banned for spamming and linking to sites to promote them - 'tis agaist the rules methinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrinKyle
But he's also kinda funny, in a strange sad way as he doesn't really know what he's arguing about.
Science FTW! :jointsmile:
Utter rubbish - you want me to list the transitionals for big lulz? I could link you a website.... :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 2a
[/align]
The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its former dean, Dr. David Raup, was highly qualified to discuss the absence of transitions in the fossil record:
??Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn??t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin??s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information??what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin??s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.? David M. Raup, ??Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,? Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.
??Surely the lack of gradualism??the lack of intermediates??is a major problem.? Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.
??In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.? Stanley, p. 95.
??But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.? David S. Woodruff, ??Evolution: The Paleobiological View,? Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
He'll be a monkey's uncle!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pahu78
[align=center]
Fossil Gaps 3a
[/align]
Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson??s recent book, Evolution. In a personal letter, Patterson said:
??I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ??show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.? I will lay it on the line??there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.? Copy of letter, dated 10 April 1979, from Patterson to Sunderland.
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 23. Fossil Gaps
Funny how all of those sources are OVER 20 YEARS OLD lol...
There was almost no work done on transitionals until the mid 1970's - that's why your quotes are oh so carefully chosen ;)
C'mon you can copy-paste better than that! How about we agree that we are 'lucky' enough to have so many transitionals at all! Fossils are really rare and its amazing we have so many.
Shall we start with Archaeopteryx? This is a fossil I have actually seen with my own eyes, Archaeopteryx lithographica to be precise, a beautiful example that I was lucky enough to see on display in Belgium. I guess that's just made-up too.
Shall we perhaps look at:
# Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
# Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
# Transition from fishes to first amphibians
# Transitions among amphibians
# Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
# Transitions among reptiles
# Transition from reptiles to first mammals
# Transition from reptiles to first birds
Lots and lots of choices! Where to start though, hmmm.
Plus it is worth bearing in mind that we are all transitional forms - that's sort of the whole point :thumbsup: but I guess that buggers-up the idea of 'Kinds' doesn't it? - so that won't fly I guess (or glide from trees).
Categories are man-made and essentially artificial. Nature doesn't have to follow them - and sure enough it doesn't, these are not well-defined boundaries.
Next you'll probably tell us that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - go on, you know you want to ;)
??Observed Instances of Speciation?, after one goes to the trouble of digesting all the preliminary verbiage, all the ??speciation? examples given fall into one of two categories:Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta9 UK
??new? species that are ??new? to man, but whose ??newness? remains equivocal in light of observed genetic ??variation? vs. genetic ??change? and/or because a species of unknown age is being observed by man for the first time.
??new? species whose appearance was deliberately and artificially brought about by the efforts of intelligent human manipulation, and whose status as new ??species? remain unequivocally consequential to laboratory experiments rather than natural processes.
In neither of the above examples was the natural (i.e., unaided) generation of a new species accomplished or observed, in which an unequivocally ??new? trait was obtained (i.e., new genetic information created) and carried forward within a population of organisms. In other words, these are not examples of macro-evolutionary speciation??they are examples of human discovery and/or genetic manipulation and/or natural genetic recombination. They serve to confirm the observable nature of genetic variation, while saying absolutely nothing in support of Darwinian ??macro-evolution,? which postulates not just variations within a type of organism but the emergence of entirely new organisms.
Definitions of ??species? and (therefore) ??speciation? remain many and varied, and by most modern definitions, certain changes within organism populations do indeed qualify as ??speciation events???yet even after many decades of study, there remains no solid evidence that an increase in both quality and quantity of genetic information (as required for a macro-evolutionary speciation event) has happened or could happen.
Mark Isaak gives us this definition of a transitional fossil: ??A transitional fossil is one that looks like it??s from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage...?
In spite of such a clearly defined definition, there is much disagreement among the leaders in paleontology concerning which specimens qualify as ??transitional? and which supposed ??transitional forms? fit into which lineages, and where.
What one authority defines as a ??transitional form? between lineage A and lineage B can be (and often is) just as authoritatively declared not so when it is said to better fit between lineage X and lineage Y, or when a specimen is found in a position stratigraphically ??older? than the first occurrence of lineage A or ??younger? than B??and all of these are common occurrences.
Other experts in morphology further complicate matters when they point out differences in physical characteristics so significant that evolutionists are forced to scrap one or another theory in phylogeny (developmental history) in spite of any existing similarities.
A very serious indictment of evolutionary ??spokespersons? (such as Isaak) thus arises, as under the guise of a ??united front? they declare the matter of transitional fossils to be no problem, while in reality the hands-on practitioners of science continue to disagree with one another on matters both great and small as they attempt to construct the very same phylogenies which the ??spokespersons? describe as firmly established and beyond dispute.
As if that were not enough, while evolutionary literature may be replete with ??just so? stories about how so many organisms evolved into their supposed descendants, there remains a conspicuous lack of credible accounting for empirically viable changes beyond that of bones and teeth.
Substantial differences exist between such systems as breathing, vision, circulation, locomotion, etc., both in general configuration and in the critical details. Faced with the absence of empirical evidence for transitions in these systems, few evolutionists bother to speculate on how these systems could have successfully ??transitioned? from one to the other, or how an intermediate version could possibly provide the needed functionality for either the ??original? or the ??descendant? system during the alleged transition.
What do the Experts Say?
In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one??s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one??s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:
??Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.? [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), ??Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.? Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record??where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):
??Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
If that weren??t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:
??The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.? [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.? [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:
??Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn??t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.? [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:
??Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.? [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:
??At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the ??official? position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).? [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]
??The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ??fully formed.??? [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
[It seems a bit ironic that Isaak also quotes Gould alluding in 1994 to ??several? superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences????more than enough? (according to Gould) to convince any fair-minded skeptic. Are we to understand that it was during the 17 years between 1977 and 1994 these ??superb examples? were discovered (and if so, one wonders exactly which ones they were)? Or sometime during that period did Gould simply change his mind, deciding to dispute the findings of West, Stanley, Kitts, Leach and others (including himself!)? The only remaining explanation??not unheard of among evolutionists??would be a mild case of schizophrenic thinking.]
In spite of the agreement among many prominent evolutionist leaders that the fossil record does little to provide evidence of evolutionary transition, the likes of Mark Isaak somehow feel justified in declaring that, ??Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils ... there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist.?
What a complete contradiction to both the above leading evolutionists?? own words, and the actual fossil record itself! If Isaak??s claims were true, why would the leading authorities of evolutionary thought so plainly disagree with this ??spokesperson??
Isaak even goes so far as to claim that, ??notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.? Yet these same alleged ??transitional sequences? remain no less equivocal and transitory (i.e., subject to continual dispute and re-evaluation among the ??experts?) than any other. Isaak declares them ??notable examples,? apparently based on his personal confidence more than on any tangible, empirical data.
One well-documented treatment of this subject (replacing evolutionary dogma with objective, critical evaluation) may be found in Dr. Duane Gish??s recently updated book:
- Gish, D. Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No. Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, CA. 1995. ISBN 0-89051-112-8
Isaak, on the other hand, directs us to the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive for ??proof? of transitional fossils. A careful perusal of this source is well worthwhile, as it exemplifies the methods used by evolutionary ??spokespersons? to defend their beliefs by blurring the line between dogma and science, touting so much theoretical speculation as if it were unequivocal, empirical data, so as to convince any willing disciple that they can??t possibly be wrong.
The ??Transitional Fossil? FAQ
The above-mentioned FAQ, written by Kathleen Hunt, is in fact titled ??Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ? (and does not even attempt to address the less conveniently ??explained? absence of transitional specimens among invertebrates, or between invertebrates and vertebrates). It is comprised of hundreds of references to various species and genera, citing various organisms as related and/or ancestral, based on the work of several evolutionist paleontological authorities.
To the willing disciple of evolutionary doctrine, Hunt??s publication may seem overwhelmingly persuasive and encouraging. But an objective, critical look at the contents reveals that Hunt really does little more than perpetuate the myth of fossil transitions plainly denied by the evolutionist authorities quoted above. She seeks to accomplish this with a combination of many assertively made statements and (wherever possible) references to specific physiological similarities between certain species or genera, as suggested over the years by various phylogenic theorists.
What is missing from Hunt??s document is any honest acknowledgment that among the phylogenies she describes, few??if any??are universally accepted among paleontological authorities, and many remain tentative and subject to change, if not hotly disputed among authorities with differing viewpoints.
The reader is encouraged to remember that, given the abundant variety of vertebrate organisms in both the present and the fossil worlds, coercing a selection of them into a passable phylogenic arrangement to suit evolutionary preconceptions is no difficult task. Given enough time and material, and a willingness to ??overlook? any ??unsuitable? facts, the desired scenario could easily be constructed, using similarities wherever they help, and ignoring them wherever they don??t.
- Five Major Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta9 UK
For a realistic treatment of Archaeopteryx go to:
- On the Alleged Dinosaurian Ancestry of Birds -