-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
Those have all been debunked. For instance, your precious Tiktaalik was debunked in the stuff I presented on transitional fossils. Tiktaalik is not a link for sea creatures evolving legs on going on land because they found footprints that are older than Tiktaalik.
Archaeopteryx also shares a similar problem. It's not a transition between reptiles and birds because there are bird fossils that are older than Archaeopteryx.
The fact is, there is not one "transitional fossil" that has gone undisputed or hasn't already been debunked.
Archaeopteryx also shares a similar problem. It's not a transition between reptiles and birds because there are bird fossils that are older than Archaeopteryx.
The fact is, there is not one "transitional fossil" that has gone undisputed or hasn't already been debunked.
Something can be considered a transitional when not being on the direct line from one thing to another. The transitional can also be something that has a closer common ancestor with the group that came later than it does with the group you are trying to show it evolved from. Besides that, it is possible that multiple subgroups of elpistostegalia evolved to be land dwellers and some of these could have developed before Tiktaalik.
Archaeopteryx is an interesting case as it is. The avian clade of dinosaurs had already appeared before archeopteryx in the fossil record and many researchers today do not even consider archaeopteryx to belong to that clade due to some properties of its bone development. Either way, Archaeopteryx is usually used as an example between birds and dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are not often, if ever, referred to as reptiles, rather they are their own grouping.
Whether or not the fossils are on the direct line are highly disputed, most of them probably aren't but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be considered to be transitional.
Archaeopteryx is an interesting case as it is. The avian clade of dinosaurs had already appeared before archeopteryx in the fossil record and many researchers today do not even consider archaeopteryx to belong to that clade due to some properties of its bone development. Either way, Archaeopteryx is usually used as an example between birds and dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are not often, if ever, referred to as reptiles, rather they are their own grouping.
Whether or not the fossils are on the direct line are highly disputed, most of them probably aren't but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be considered to be transitional.
M
You can consider it to be transitional all you want, that doesn't mean it actually is.
Oh look, more conjecture and story telling, no scientific evidence. Speaking of scientific evidence, once again the evolutionists have abandonded and avoided the topic I was talking about, probably because they all know there's zero scientific evidence for the transition between purely asexual and purely sexual reproducing organisms. But hey, if they weren't evading and desperate to change/avoid the topic, they wouldn't really be evolutionists.
So all a person has to do is consider and imagine something to be transitional, and therefore it is? Well, then, I'm going to do this too, and if you tell me I'm wrong, then it's just another typical dishonest evolutionary double standard to add to the pile. If I consider something to not be transitional, then therefore it isn't.
Oh look, more conjecture and story telling, no scientific evidence. Speaking of scientific evidence, once again the evolutionists have abandonded and avoided the topic I was talking about, probably because they all know there's zero scientific evidence for the transition between purely asexual and purely sexual reproducing organisms. But hey, if they weren't evading and desperate to change/avoid the topic, they wouldn't really be evolutionists.
So all a person has to do is consider and imagine something to be transitional, and therefore it is? Well, then, I'm going to do this too, and if you tell me I'm wrong, then it's just another typical dishonest evolutionary double standard to add to the pile. If I consider something to not be transitional, then therefore it isn't.
I am not surprised you did not provide me with an answer. The truth is there is no visual way to distinguish a rabbit that evolved from one created by God. Whether a living creature evolved, or whether it was created by God as a ‘discrete’ kind cannot be determined by appearance alone; and if you think it can then please explain how. The Bible does not say there should be intermediate forms and so Creationists deny they exist. Nor does the Bible explain why people should sometimes be born with functioning tails. Evolution explains this, but not the Bible; but I digress.
Creationists deny intermediate fossils exist, but if I could provide evidence of a creature that you were not capable of explaining away would you still assert it was only an example of a separate discrete creation, or would you acknowledge that it appeared to fit the criterion for evolution?
Creationists deny intermediate fossils exist, but if I could provide evidence of a creature that you were not capable of explaining away would you still assert it was only an example of a separate discrete creation, or would you acknowledge that it appeared to fit the criterion for evolution?
Debunked only in the minds of Creationist. Read Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters. He debunks the debunkers. 
These links you use carry no weight with anyone who accepts evolution because everything in them is quote mined, pulled from context and placed into the Creationist context, and often times misquoted and further distorted. I followed one of your links yesterday and found a misquote that badly twisted what Gould was saying. There are sites you can visit that explain in great detail the problem with quote mining. This one
< Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes >
goes into great detail showing the original quotes, alongside the Creationist versions, and clearly outlines where the distortions are taking place. If you look at it you should clearly see you can’t trust the site you are quoting. If you don’t trust the talkorigins information then you can go to the original documents (the sources are provided in talkorigins) and check the accuracy of the information yourself. I’ve actually done this in the past as I have quite a lot of my own material on Stephen Gould (who your link quotes out of context – it also attributes a quote to Gould that was written by Darwin). The thing is I have read Gould so extensively that when I see links such as you quoted I know immediately when he is misrepresented and he is misrepresented in the link you provide. It’s dishonest. I doubt very much though that you would even be aware of this. It may be, however, that your faith is so great you wouldn’t even want to investigate my claim yourself. You may not want to face the possibility that what I am saying is true.
These links you use carry no weight with anyone who accepts evolution because everything in them is quote mined, pulled from context and placed into the Creationist context, and often times misquoted and further distorted. I followed one of your links yesterday and found a misquote that badly twisted what Gould was saying. There are sites you can visit that explain in great detail the problem with quote mining. This one
< Quote Mine Project: Gould, Eldredge and Punctuated Equilibria Quotes >
goes into great detail showing the original quotes, alongside the Creationist versions, and clearly outlines where the distortions are taking place. If you look at it you should clearly see you can’t trust the site you are quoting. If you don’t trust the talkorigins information then you can go to the original documents (the sources are provided in talkorigins) and check the accuracy of the information yourself. I’ve actually done this in the past as I have quite a lot of my own material on Stephen Gould (who your link quotes out of context – it also attributes a quote to Gould that was written by Darwin). The thing is I have read Gould so extensively that when I see links such as you quoted I know immediately when he is misrepresented and he is misrepresented in the link you provide. It’s dishonest. I doubt very much though that you would even be aware of this. It may be, however, that your faith is so great you wouldn’t even want to investigate my claim yourself. You may not want to face the possibility that what I am saying is true.
M
I didn't say anything about a fossil having to leave direct descendants in order to be transitional. What I'm talking about is that just because someone assumes X is a transitional fossil doesn't mean that it actually is a transitional fossil.
And it's only not debunked in the minds of evolutionists.
"The links carry no weight with anyone who accepts evolution." Wow, what a powerful statement. Here, allow me to make the equal, yet opposite claim. Your pro-evolution links carry no weight with anyone who doesn't accept evolution. If your statement is valid, then so is mine.
That's not it at all. It's becaue I have already investigated evolution vs. creation enough to satisfy myself, and I've already made a decision as to what I'm going to believe. Of course, my decision is never popular with the evolutionists, and they can never seem to tolerate anyone who has a different view other than evolution and is so threatened by other views they feel the need to force evolution down people's throats.
Seriously evolutionists, give it up. You're not going to change any of our minds about evolution, especially not when you consistently fail to provide the specific scientific evidence I asked for.
And it's only not debunked in the minds of evolutionists.
"The links carry no weight with anyone who accepts evolution." Wow, what a powerful statement. Here, allow me to make the equal, yet opposite claim. Your pro-evolution links carry no weight with anyone who doesn't accept evolution. If your statement is valid, then so is mine.
That's not it at all. It's becaue I have already investigated evolution vs. creation enough to satisfy myself, and I've already made a decision as to what I'm going to believe. Of course, my decision is never popular with the evolutionists, and they can never seem to tolerate anyone who has a different view other than evolution and is so threatened by other views they feel the need to force evolution down people's throats.
Seriously evolutionists, give it up. You're not going to change any of our minds about evolution, especially not when you consistently fail to provide the specific scientific evidence I asked for.
Yup, and I get that, but that's not what Kringled was saying. Have a look again. You just misunderstood him.
The thing is the Creationist quote mining is mostly not done by biologists. I'd have to have a look at your link, but I am pretty sure you won't find an author, so you will have no idea what the qualifications of the person (or people) who assembled the quotes is. The person who wrote it may have only a meager understanding of the subject. I have read some of these in the past and I can tell you that all the heavy hitting data that confirms the scientific claims have been left out.
I suppose the proper thing to do is take one piece of information that's contested, that there is already a lot of scientific data on, and make a thread for it so we can concentrate on just one thing.
Again, the problem is, is that the quote mined material is heavily flawed, for frequently it is put together in such a way that the evolutionary biologists quoted are made to look as though they are saying things against evolution when in the context of the original quotes it is clear they don't mean that at all. This is done a lot with Gould, who I am very familiar with. You don't have to believe in evolution, but for heaven's sake at least get the information correct. Don't twist what the biologists are saying to make it look like they are saying something they are not.
Yeah, but I've got the feeling you are concentrating on Creationist websites for your information. That's like learning about Jews by reading anti-Semitic materials. When I want to learn about Christianity I don't turn to Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great, I read books by trained theologians and biblical scholars. Reading Creationist literature is great if your intention is to reinforce what you already believe, but if you want to learn about evolution you should exclusively read materials written by evolutionary biologists. What I see over and over again is that Creationist members completely misunderstand the details of evolutionary theory. It's obvious to me where they've been getting their misinformation.
Are you referring to the question you raised about a-sexual organisms evolving into sexual ones? As far as I know there is not as yet any theory about how this happened. Certainly there is no fossil evidence, as far as I know (single celled organism don't fossilize). I don't even know of any hypotheses being kicked around; there is certainly no consensus. For me there is nothing here to discus. Most biologists who are examining this very early period are, I think, most interested in determining how the first self-replicating organisms evolved. I suppose some are examining the issue you raised, but unless I am wrong -- and I may be -- this is only a small side issue today. Other areas of study simply have greater sex appeal. Correct me it I am wrong -- and I may be wrong about this.
The thing is the Creationist quote mining is mostly not done by biologists. I'd have to have a look at your link, but I am pretty sure you won't find an author, so you will have no idea what the qualifications of the person (or people) who assembled the quotes is. The person who wrote it may have only a meager understanding of the subject. I have read some of these in the past and I can tell you that all the heavy hitting data that confirms the scientific claims have been left out.
I suppose the proper thing to do is take one piece of information that's contested, that there is already a lot of scientific data on, and make a thread for it so we can concentrate on just one thing.
Again, the problem is, is that the quote mined material is heavily flawed, for frequently it is put together in such a way that the evolutionary biologists quoted are made to look as though they are saying things against evolution when in the context of the original quotes it is clear they don't mean that at all. This is done a lot with Gould, who I am very familiar with. You don't have to believe in evolution, but for heaven's sake at least get the information correct. Don't twist what the biologists are saying to make it look like they are saying something they are not.
Yeah, but I've got the feeling you are concentrating on Creationist websites for your information. That's like learning about Jews by reading anti-Semitic materials. When I want to learn about Christianity I don't turn to Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great, I read books by trained theologians and biblical scholars. Reading Creationist literature is great if your intention is to reinforce what you already believe, but if you want to learn about evolution you should exclusively read materials written by evolutionary biologists. What I see over and over again is that Creationist members completely misunderstand the details of evolutionary theory. It's obvious to me where they've been getting their misinformation.
Are you referring to the question you raised about a-sexual organisms evolving into sexual ones? As far as I know there is not as yet any theory about how this happened. Certainly there is no fossil evidence, as far as I know (single celled organism don't fossilize). I don't even know of any hypotheses being kicked around; there is certainly no consensus. For me there is nothing here to discus. Most biologists who are examining this very early period are, I think, most interested in determining how the first self-replicating organisms evolved. I suppose some are examining the issue you raised, but unless I am wrong -- and I may be -- this is only a small side issue today. Other areas of study simply have greater sex appeal.
Correct me it I am wrong -- and I may be wrong about this.Hi Rickee, I would change the word atheists to secularists. There are many Christian secularists who examine evidence the same way as atheists, who also typically consider themselves secularists; but really, what other kind of reasoning is there? It was human reasoning that put men on the Moon, landers on Mars, and first carried out organ transplants. Absolutely everything you see in the world around you arose from human reasoning: every medical treatment, every electronic device, and every stone age and space age convenience. You name it; it originated with human reasoning. Everything we have, everything we believe, came from human reasoning – as I see it.
M
In other words, if they don't accept the religious claims from evolutionists about "what definetly happened billions of years ago," then they're wrong.
Concentrating on just one thing sounds nice in theory, but in my experience, it just doesn't happen. Heck, I've been trying to concentrate on on just one thing, but everyone seems to want to avoid that.
No, they weren't being quoted to make it look like they were saying things against evolution. The quotes were to show that even those top evolutionists admit that there are problems, flaws, and gaps in the evolution story.
I was taught evolution in school just like most everyone else. When I actually researched and found there was a perspective other than "evolutionary events of billions of years ago is absolute fact," I found evolution doesn't stand up to questioning, hence there are so many unanswered questions, questions that, if evolution were as concrete a fact as evolutionists like to shove down our throats, there should be evidence to answer those questions. Instead, all I get is magical story telling about how millions of years magically made the great evolutionary imagination tree a reality. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.
In yet my 10th or so atempt to take about that one topic, here's what I'm saying. If the claims of evolutionists are true, then the first living cell, which reproduced purely asexually, would have to evolve and become an organism that reproducing purely sexually. So where's the scientific evidence that demonstrates that this transition is possible? Do you have any idea how impossible such an evolution would be? You're talking about having 2 seperate organisms having to develope entire sexual reproductive organs, which are useless when they're not fully developed. Furthermore, the organisms that were evolving seperately would have to come together and be sexually compatible, meaning the sexual organs that supposedly evolved in seperate entities would have to somehow recognize each other. This part might not seem like a huge deal, but it is when the driving force for these evolutionary transitions is nothing more than unguided happenstance.
And fossils are not valid evidence of what I'm asking either. A fossil is just a fossil. Saying, "This is a fossil, therefore it's a fossil of one animal transitioning into another," is not scientific evidence. It's nothing more than pure conjecture, and assuming the conclusion. That isn't following the scientific method, and it's not how science is done. Well, that is how bad science is done. I wouldn't have a problem with you not following the scientific method on this if you weren't trying to pass off these claims as scientific.
If you can't show the evidence for what I'm asking, this isn't some tiny problem you can just ignore. This problem rips holes in the entire foundation of the evolutionary tree/story. If the evolutionary tree were true, and evolution did happen how they claim it happened billions of years ago, then that would mean a PURELY ASEXUAL organism evolved and transitioned into PURELY SEXUAL REPRODUCING organisms. If you don't have scientific evidence to support this, then there is no reason to conclude that this transition is even possible. And if it's not possible, there goes the whole evolutionary tree. That's just one of the many problems evolution faces when they have the base of their tree as a single living cell.
Concentrating on just one thing sounds nice in theory, but in my experience, it just doesn't happen. Heck, I've been trying to concentrate on on just one thing, but everyone seems to want to avoid that.
No, they weren't being quoted to make it look like they were saying things against evolution. The quotes were to show that even those top evolutionists admit that there are problems, flaws, and gaps in the evolution story.
I was taught evolution in school just like most everyone else. When I actually researched and found there was a perspective other than "evolutionary events of billions of years ago is absolute fact," I found evolution doesn't stand up to questioning, hence there are so many unanswered questions, questions that, if evolution were as concrete a fact as evolutionists like to shove down our throats, there should be evidence to answer those questions. Instead, all I get is magical story telling about how millions of years magically made the great evolutionary imagination tree a reality. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it for me.
Are you referring to the question you raised about a-sexual organisms evolving into sexual ones? As far as I know there is not as yet any theory about how this happened. Certainly there is no fossil evidence, as far as I know (single celled organism don't fossilize). I don't even know of any hypotheses being kicked around; there is certainly no consensus. For me there is nothing here to discus. Most biologists who are examining this very early period are, I think, most interested in determining how the first self-replicating organisms evolved. I suppose some are examining the issue you raised, but unless I am wrong -- and I may be -- this is only a small side issue today. Other areas of study simply have greater sex appeal. Correct me it I am wrong -- and I may be wrong about this.
Correct me it I am wrong -- and I may be wrong about this.
And fossils are not valid evidence of what I'm asking either. A fossil is just a fossil. Saying, "This is a fossil, therefore it's a fossil of one animal transitioning into another," is not scientific evidence. It's nothing more than pure conjecture, and assuming the conclusion. That isn't following the scientific method, and it's not how science is done. Well, that is how bad science is done. I wouldn't have a problem with you not following the scientific method on this if you weren't trying to pass off these claims as scientific.
If you can't show the evidence for what I'm asking, this isn't some tiny problem you can just ignore. This problem rips holes in the entire foundation of the evolutionary tree/story. If the evolutionary tree were true, and evolution did happen how they claim it happened billions of years ago, then that would mean a PURELY ASEXUAL organism evolved and transitioned into PURELY SEXUAL REPRODUCING organisms. If you don't have scientific evidence to support this, then there is no reason to conclude that this transition is even possible. And if it's not possible, there goes the whole evolutionary tree. That's just one of the many problems evolution faces when they have the base of their tree as a single living cell.
On the idea that nobody ever changes their minds - I did.
I was a young earth creationist for many years, and like so many I felt I had more than enough information on the subject - all of it from creationist books and sources.
Finally, I accepted the challenge to read about the evidence from an actual scientific source; to read books and articles from evolutionary biologists. And when I finally let myself evaluate the facts openly, there was no question where they led.
I am still a Christian, but having recognized the dishonesty and ignorance that underlie evolution denialism, I am not longer a creationist.
I was a young earth creationist for many years, and like so many I felt I had more than enough information on the subject - all of it from creationist books and sources.
Finally, I accepted the challenge to read about the evidence from an actual scientific source; to read books and articles from evolutionary biologists. And when I finally let myself evaluate the facts openly, there was no question where they led.
I am still a Christian, but having recognized the dishonesty and ignorance that underlie evolution denialism, I am not longer a creationist.
I wasn't even saying it was scientifically supported. I am just saying it is a possibility. I don't know much about the transitional water to land tetrapods.
I haven't gone back and read all of your posts so I never saw the question. The dawn of sex actually started in single celled organisms so being able to recognize transitional would be very difficult from the fossil record. The origin of sexual organisms was simply the dawn of cell fusion, recombination (or possibly just repair) and separation through a process similar to meiosis. Now, one might wonder if these things had to all develop at the same time because it seems irreducibly complex. But no, there is a large amount of evidence that meiosis evolved first. There are two different reasons for what pressures would lead it to evolve. One of them is that DNA will sometimes repair itself using its sister chromatids during other forms of replication when it doesn’t divide. The other reason is there are times when eukaryotic organisms benefit from being diploid and other times benefit from being haploid. Going from haploid to diploid is easy, but going from diploid to haploid requires meiosis [1]. Now the evolution of meiosis isn’t that complex when you consider that all the genes that are used in meiosis they are all very similar to genes used in mitosis, gene mutation repair (intermixing of genetic material; crossovers), and chromosome condensation (for DNA packing). The genes for those three groups would have been around long before meiosis, which emphases that the evolutionary process will make use of preexisting genes.
Cell fusion, another important component, was a consequence of the evolution of prokaryotes to eukaryotes. It was the changes in the bacterial plasma membrane that allows the formation organelles also made it possible for touching cells to fuse occasionally, mainly due to the internal cytoskeleton. The formation of a cytoskeleton is based on a new usage of actin polymers which is still seen in some bacteria [2]. This means at first cell fusion could have just been random occurrences that meiosis could correct, but that event has a profound consequence; sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction has a lot of benefits for life, so after it developed it was selected for and allowed for healthy differentiation in fewer generations [3]. We can still see some forms of this early kind of sex be utilized under stressful conditions by some usually asexual algae [4].
1) Kondrashov, “The asexual ploidy cycle and the origin of sex”, Nature 1994
2) Salje, Zuber, Löwe, "Electron cryomicroscopy of E. coli reveals filament bundles involved in plasmid DNA segregation." Science 2009
3) Butterfield, “Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes”, The Paleontological Society 2000
4) Nedelcu, “Sex as a response to oxidative stress: stress genes co-opted for sex” The Royal Society of Biological Sciences 2005
I'm glad this overlapped with one of my classes.
It isn't about just considering or imagining anything. There is a definition for transitionals and criteria that they have to have to be considered as a transitional fossil/organism when looking at one group to another. They have to have traits that are between the ancestral group and the descendants they are being compared to. A good, simple example of this would be to look at the nostril position on Pakicetus, a likely candidate for the precursor of all cetaceans, which were on the front of the face like most land mammals at that time and compare it to the nostril position of a whale today which has it's nostrils near the top of the skull. So what would we need to see in something that is transitional? First the transitional must have the major characteristics that shared between both groups and would need to have the nostril position between the ancestral position and the position of the nostrils in its modern descendants. This has been found in Aetiocetus which has the nostril placed on the middle of the skull. This is an example a transitional that fits into the correct time period. However other transitionals would include other lines of cetaceans that continued to have more basil traits after this point. Lets say that a new type of cetacean was discovered today that had its nostril position similar to that of Aetiocetus, that animal could still be considered a transitional, or missing link, between the ancestral Pakicetus and whales like the blue whale. The new hypothetical animal obviously isn't an ancestor of the blue whale since it is alive today, but it is more basal in this particular feature and shows off that part of the evolutionary history that we were considering so it would still be labeled as a transitional in that scenario.
I haven't gone back and read all of your posts so I never saw the question. The dawn of sex actually started in single celled organisms so being able to recognize transitional would be very difficult from the fossil record. The origin of sexual organisms was simply the dawn of cell fusion, recombination (or possibly just repair) and separation through a process similar to meiosis. Now, one might wonder if these things had to all develop at the same time because it seems irreducibly complex. But no, there is a large amount of evidence that meiosis evolved first. There are two different reasons for what pressures would lead it to evolve. One of them is that DNA will sometimes repair itself using its sister chromatids during other forms of replication when it doesn’t divide. The other reason is there are times when eukaryotic organisms benefit from being diploid and other times benefit from being haploid. Going from haploid to diploid is easy, but going from diploid to haploid requires meiosis [1]. Now the evolution of meiosis isn’t that complex when you consider that all the genes that are used in meiosis they are all very similar to genes used in mitosis, gene mutation repair (intermixing of genetic material; crossovers), and chromosome condensation (for DNA packing). The genes for those three groups would have been around long before meiosis, which emphases that the evolutionary process will make use of preexisting genes.
Cell fusion, another important component, was a consequence of the evolution of prokaryotes to eukaryotes. It was the changes in the bacterial plasma membrane that allows the formation organelles also made it possible for touching cells to fuse occasionally, mainly due to the internal cytoskeleton. The formation of a cytoskeleton is based on a new usage of actin polymers which is still seen in some bacteria [2]. This means at first cell fusion could have just been random occurrences that meiosis could correct, but that event has a profound consequence; sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction has a lot of benefits for life, so after it developed it was selected for and allowed for healthy differentiation in fewer generations [3]. We can still see some forms of this early kind of sex be utilized under stressful conditions by some usually asexual algae [4].
1) Kondrashov, “The asexual ploidy cycle and the origin of sex”, Nature 1994
2) Salje, Zuber, Löwe, "Electron cryomicroscopy of E. coli reveals filament bundles involved in plasmid DNA segregation." Science 2009
3) Butterfield, “Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes”, The Paleontological Society 2000
4) Nedelcu, “Sex as a response to oxidative stress: stress genes co-opted for sex” The Royal Society of Biological Sciences 2005
I'm glad this overlapped with one of my classes.
It isn't about just considering or imagining anything. There is a definition for transitionals and criteria that they have to have to be considered as a transitional fossil/organism when looking at one group to another. They have to have traits that are between the ancestral group and the descendants they are being compared to. A good, simple example of this would be to look at the nostril position on Pakicetus, a likely candidate for the precursor of all cetaceans, which were on the front of the face like most land mammals at that time and compare it to the nostril position of a whale today which has it's nostrils near the top of the skull. So what would we need to see in something that is transitional? First the transitional must have the major characteristics that shared between both groups and would need to have the nostril position between the ancestral position and the position of the nostrils in its modern descendants. This has been found in Aetiocetus which has the nostril placed on the middle of the skull. This is an example a transitional that fits into the correct time period. However other transitionals would include other lines of cetaceans that continued to have more basil traits after this point. Lets say that a new type of cetacean was discovered today that had its nostril position similar to that of Aetiocetus, that animal could still be considered a transitional, or missing link, between the ancestral Pakicetus and whales like the blue whale. The new hypothetical animal obviously isn't an ancestor of the blue whale since it is alive today, but it is more basal in this particular feature and shows off that part of the evolutionary history that we were considering so it would still be labeled as a transitional in that scenario.
Hi
I had a Muslim friend she was the best friend I ever had in my life. We have lost touch.
She did not wear the gear. If I stood on her prayer mat (I did not realise) thought it was a mat. She did not mind.
Never tried to push her faith down my throat.
She was a nice lady where she is now I do not know. And did not want to kill anybody.
Hootowl
I had a Muslim friend she was the best friend I ever had in my life. We have lost touch.
She did not wear the gear. If I stood on her prayer mat (I did not realise) thought it was a mat. She did not mind.
Never tried to push her faith down my throat.
She was a nice lady where she is now I do not know. And did not want to kill anybody.
Hootowl
M
And apparently you never challeneged, questioned, or looked at another perspective.
You can't be a Christian and not be a creationist. The Christian God, the God of the Bible, is the Creator. Throughout the whole Bible, it says God created earth and life. So I'm not sure what god you believe in, but if you're not a creationist, then we certainly don't believe in the same God.
Saying "it's a possibility" is not scientific evidence, nor does it follow the scientific method.
Doesn't matter because I'm not asking for fossil evidence. You don't even need to use fossils at all for the evidence I've been asking for.
It doesn't matter if there's benefits or not. What matters is if it actually happened. The fact that there's benefitis has no bearance on wheter it actually happened. You can't say, "There's benefits, therefore evolution selected to continue on this path," because such an arguement completely contradicts evolution being an unguided, pure happenstance, process. So which is it?
So to sum up this whole thing, it's really just the basic "there's benefits to sexual reproduction, therefore assume evolution happened." Sorry, but once again, this is not the evidence I asked for. This doesn't follow the scientific method at all, this is just pure conjecture. Where's the scientific expirement that DEMONSTRATES that evolution from PURELY asexual organisms to PURELY SEXUAL REPRODUCING organisms is even possible? Once again, you just assumed that it happened, and you assumed the conclusion with your whole "after it developed it was selected..." Where's the scientific experiment that shows it can develope?
Look, it doesn't matter what fossils you have, or how you want to play around with definitions. Just because you have a fossil that looks like it has a few similar traits to another animal is not a basis to conclude that one animal evolved into another. That's not following the scientific method, that isn't a scientific experiment, it's nothing but pure conjecture and assuming the conclusion.
I however, don't assume the conclusion of evolution, because assuming evolution happened doesn't prove that it happened. I've been very clear about the evidence I'm asking for, and no one has been able to provide it.
You can't be a Christian and not be a creationist. The Christian God, the God of the Bible, is the Creator. Throughout the whole Bible, it says God created earth and life. So I'm not sure what god you believe in, but if you're not a creationist, then we certainly don't believe in the same God.
Saying "it's a possibility" is not scientific evidence, nor does it follow the scientific method.
Doesn't matter because I'm not asking for fossil evidence. You don't even need to use fossils at all for the evidence I've been asking for.
It doesn't matter if there's benefits or not. What matters is if it actually happened. The fact that there's benefitis has no bearance on wheter it actually happened. You can't say, "There's benefits, therefore evolution selected to continue on this path," because such an arguement completely contradicts evolution being an unguided, pure happenstance, process. So which is it?
So to sum up this whole thing, it's really just the basic "there's benefits to sexual reproduction, therefore assume evolution happened." Sorry, but once again, this is not the evidence I asked for. This doesn't follow the scientific method at all, this is just pure conjecture. Where's the scientific expirement that DEMONSTRATES that evolution from PURELY asexual organisms to PURELY SEXUAL REPRODUCING organisms is even possible? Once again, you just assumed that it happened, and you assumed the conclusion with your whole "after it developed it was selected..." Where's the scientific experiment that shows it can develope?
Look, it doesn't matter what fossils you have, or how you want to play around with definitions. Just because you have a fossil that looks like it has a few similar traits to another animal is not a basis to conclude that one animal evolved into another. That's not following the scientific method, that isn't a scientific experiment, it's nothing but pure conjecture and assuming the conclusion.
I however, don't assume the conclusion of evolution, because assuming evolution happened doesn't prove that it happened. I've been very clear about the evidence I'm asking for, and no one has been able to provide it.
That’s cause I wasn’t making a claim about scientific evidence there. I was simply saying that the animal could have existed and be considered transitional and not have been the first terrestrial tetrapod. There could have been more developed terrestrial tetrapods at that time. Again, I am not making a scientific claim. I am just saying that the way you tried to counter one of the reasons it wasn’t transitional, and one of the reasons you are trying to discard the model, does nothing to invalidate the claims made about it. I don’t need scientific evidence for that, because it is a question of logic while working in the claims and definitions being used.
Well what evidence are you looking for?
Are you referring to some eukaryotes being able to change from haploid to diploid? These exist in eukaryotes we see today, it is usually known as ploidy cycles. It is beneficial to the organism, and that’s why it is selected for, but it can occur (and does occur), with single celled eukaryotes when it doesn’t benefit them. It is just something that happens and we still see it happening in asexual eukaryotes today, one of the articles I cited goes over this. It is not guided by any conscious being, but the selective process is guided by the parameters that are set up by the surrounding environment. Many mutations, including ones that do this same thing, happen all the time when they are not beneficial. Sometimes the individuals that have it will be heavily selected against and be gone within a few generations or less. Other times the mutation will still exist in that population but in small amounts because it still has a decent chance of surviving despite not being optimal. When the trait becomes beneficial, due to a changing environment, the frequency in which that mutation exists within the population will rise.
I agree with you when you say that just because something is benefited does not mean it will occur. It is one of the most important parts of evolutions to understand and it explains why so many of the organisms we see are so awkward and suboptimal “designs”. But in this situation the evidence exists that shows the evolution of sex and I have linked articles that explain aspects of it. The genes that were duplicated to allow for this change are understood the mechanisms that allowed for it are known, and the environments that would have selected for it are known to have existed many time periods throughout earth’s history (heck, even today!). There are plenty more articles that exist on this topic and it is pretty easy to find large lists of them. Maybe if you read some of the papers that showed it. If you are looking for someone to take an asexual eukaryote that doesn’t already have all of the genes involved with sex or meiosis, which are really hard to find ( I am not even sure if they exist anymore), and then put it in an environment and expect the EXACT SAME mutations that would lead to all the specific details that define biological sex (though there are varying definitions for what that is) than you are asking for a nearly impossible feat. Eukaryotic sex as it is often defined is very specific and there is still much debate over how it originated due to how difficult it is to test, but many of the factors that were involved are known it is just what order it came in that stops experts from coming to a consensus.
The “assumption” is being derived from a wide body of evidence that are from different fields of biology. Patterns are set up as precedence based on body of evidence and often get referred to as laws. The assumptions that are being used in this context are very similar to the ones used in physics. When we look at big systems we assume a lot of things from the other experiments that have been done over the years because they have been shown to be the case over and over and over. The same goes for this scenario. If we don’t do this then it is impossible to claim to “know” anything.
What kind of experiment would you suggest be conducted to show that it is or isn’t transitional?
Well, restate it because I can’t get a clear picture of what you want from the posts I’ve read. The things I have seen you state clearly have been insane challenges that can be compared to "I want someone to repeat the writing of the bible without reference to know that it was, in fact, written!"
Well what evidence are you looking for?
Are you referring to some eukaryotes being able to change from haploid to diploid? These exist in eukaryotes we see today, it is usually known as ploidy cycles. It is beneficial to the organism, and that’s why it is selected for, but it can occur (and does occur), with single celled eukaryotes when it doesn’t benefit them. It is just something that happens and we still see it happening in asexual eukaryotes today, one of the articles I cited goes over this. It is not guided by any conscious being, but the selective process is guided by the parameters that are set up by the surrounding environment. Many mutations, including ones that do this same thing, happen all the time when they are not beneficial. Sometimes the individuals that have it will be heavily selected against and be gone within a few generations or less. Other times the mutation will still exist in that population but in small amounts because it still has a decent chance of surviving despite not being optimal. When the trait becomes beneficial, due to a changing environment, the frequency in which that mutation exists within the population will rise.
I agree with you when you say that just because something is benefited does not mean it will occur. It is one of the most important parts of evolutions to understand and it explains why so many of the organisms we see are so awkward and suboptimal “designs”. But in this situation the evidence exists that shows the evolution of sex and I have linked articles that explain aspects of it. The genes that were duplicated to allow for this change are understood the mechanisms that allowed for it are known, and the environments that would have selected for it are known to have existed many time periods throughout earth’s history (heck, even today!). There are plenty more articles that exist on this topic and it is pretty easy to find large lists of them. Maybe if you read some of the papers that showed it. If you are looking for someone to take an asexual eukaryote that doesn’t already have all of the genes involved with sex or meiosis, which are really hard to find ( I am not even sure if they exist anymore), and then put it in an environment and expect the EXACT SAME mutations that would lead to all the specific details that define biological sex (though there are varying definitions for what that is) than you are asking for a nearly impossible feat. Eukaryotic sex as it is often defined is very specific and there is still much debate over how it originated due to how difficult it is to test, but many of the factors that were involved are known it is just what order it came in that stops experts from coming to a consensus.
The “assumption” is being derived from a wide body of evidence that are from different fields of biology. Patterns are set up as precedence based on body of evidence and often get referred to as laws. The assumptions that are being used in this context are very similar to the ones used in physics. When we look at big systems we assume a lot of things from the other experiments that have been done over the years because they have been shown to be the case over and over and over. The same goes for this scenario. If we don’t do this then it is impossible to claim to “know” anything.
What kind of experiment would you suggest be conducted to show that it is or isn’t transitional?
Well, restate it because I can’t get a clear picture of what you want from the posts I’ve read. The things I have seen you state clearly have been insane challenges that can be compared to "I want someone to repeat the writing of the bible without reference to know that it was, in fact, written!"
Last edited: