Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

transitional species

janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 8:54:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 11:41:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

No, there shouldnt be. First off, fossilization is rare. Secondly, organisms undergo long periods of stability because environments and competition arent always so harsh or changing so often, and therefore the need to evolve doesnt exist for vast stretches of time. Thirdly, where you say there isnt enough transitional fossils, i say theres plenty. Kinda subjective as to what someone considers as plenty or not enough.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 1:54:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

Would it help if I told you that there are sixteen different bipedal primates found in the fossil record? They have all died out, we are the only ones that survived.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 2:20:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 11:41:25 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

No, there shouldnt be. First off, fossilization is rare. Secondly, organisms undergo long periods of stability because environments and competition arent always so harsh or changing so often, and therefore the need to evolve doesnt exist for vast stretches of time. Thirdly, where you say there isnt enough transitional fossils, i say theres plenty. Kinda subjective as to what someone considers as plenty or not enough.

There are only a few thousand transitional fossils out of a billions. And only a tiny handful of fossils for each type of transition.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 2:37:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 1:54:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

Would it help if I told you that there are sixteen different bipedal primates found in the fossil record? They have all died out, we are the only ones that survived.

That makes sense. The record of primate evolution is fantastic. It makes sense because it is recent evolution, so less time for fossils to get destroyed through geological processes.

The fossil record shows long periods of stasis, then rapid shifts in morphology(in a short period of time. No long slow process of steady evolution. Big changes are rapid in the fossil record. There must be a reason. Punctuated equilibrium addressed the problem, but doesn't explain why.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 3:18:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 2:20:31 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/6/2015 11:41:25 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

No, there shouldnt be. First off, fossilization is rare. Secondly, organisms undergo long periods of stability because environments and competition arent always so harsh or changing so often, and therefore the need to evolve doesnt exist for vast stretches of time. Thirdly, where you say there isnt enough transitional fossils, i say theres plenty. Kinda subjective as to what someone considers as plenty or not enough.

There are only a few thousand transitional fossils out of a billions. And only a tiny handful of fossils for each type of transition.

Those "billions" of fossils largely consists of fragments, most of which have not been catalogued or identified. Just because we have billions of fossils, doesnt mean they consist of even 10% of the entire bone structure of the organism, nor does it mean we have even begun to identify which species they belong to. After all, how do you know if a fossil is a transitional form, if you only have the skull?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 3:34:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record?

That's a myth propagated by creationists, Jane, as I hope the following quote will support:

There isn't a nice way of saying this: anyone making this claim is either appallingly ignorant or an outright liar. In fact, there are far too many fossils with intermediate features to count [http://www.newscientist.com...] - trillions if you include microfossils. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] These fossils show the transitions between major groups, from fish to amphibians [http://www.newscientist.com...], for instance, as well as from one species to another. New discoveries are continually made, from the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik [ibid] to an early giraffe with a shorter neck than modern animals. [ibid]
-- Le Page, Michael, Evolution Myths: Yet more misconceptions, New Scientist, 16 Apr 2008 [http://www.newscientist.com...]

I hope that may help.
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 5:45:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 3:34:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record?

That's a myth propagated by creationists, Jane, as I hope the following quote will support:

There isn't a nice way of saying this: anyone making this claim is either appallingly ignorant or an outright liar. In fact, there are far too many fossils with intermediate features to count [http://www.newscientist.com...] - trillions if you include microfossils. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] These fossils show the transitions between major groups, from fish to amphibians [http://www.newscientist.com...], for instance, as well as from one species to another. New discoveries are continually made, from the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik [ibid] to an early giraffe with a shorter neck than modern animals. [ibid]
-- Le Page, Michael, Evolution Myths: Yet more misconceptions, New Scientist, 16 Apr 2008 [http://www.newscientist.com...]

I hope that may help.

"Still, if evolution is gradual, there should be a fossilized record of small, incremental changes on the way to a new species. But in many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record was lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete.

That is certainly true in many cases, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are small. But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation, which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind. "

http://www.pbs.org...
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 6:00:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:45:15 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/6/2015 3:34:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record?

That's a myth propagated by creationists, Jane, as I hope the following quote will support:

There isn't a nice way of saying this: anyone making this claim is either appallingly ignorant or an outright liar. In fact, there are far too many fossils with intermediate features to count [http://www.newscientist.com...] - trillions if you include microfossils. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] These fossils show the transitions between major groups, from fish to amphibians [http://www.newscientist.com...], for instance, as well as from one species to another. New discoveries are continually made, from the half-fish, half-amphibian Tiktaalik [ibid] to an early giraffe with a shorter neck than modern animals. [ibid]
-- Le Page, Michael, Evolution Myths: Yet more misconceptions, New Scientist, 16 Apr 2008 [http://www.newscientist.com...]

I hope that may help.

"Still, if evolution is gradual, there should be a fossilized record of small, incremental changes on the way to a new species. But in many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record was lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete.

That is certainly true in many cases, because the chances of each of those critical changing forms having been preserved as fossils are small. But in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation, which they called "punctuated equilibrium." That is, species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is "punctuated" by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind. "

http://www.pbs.org...

Based on the number of speciation events and the nucleotide differences between species in each tree, the researchers used a statistical test to measure the amount of nucleotide divergence likely due to gradual evolution and the amount likely due to rapid changes around the time of speciation. They found statistically significant evidence of punctuated evolution in 30% to 35% of the phylogenetic trees they examined

http://www.the-scientist.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 6:36:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 5:45:15 PM, janesix wrote:
"Still, if evolution is gradual, there should be a fossilized record of small, incremental changes on the way to a new species. But in many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record was lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete.

I think it's useful to get the right context here so as not to misinterpret...

Enough transitional forms have been found between major classifications to show that species do mutate slowly from (say) fish to amphibian or reptile to bird. So the major evolutionary claim of common species origin is well-substantiated now, both paleontologically and (more recently) genetically. Moreover, paleontology is now a century and a half older than when Darwin knew it, so a lot more fossils have been found -- including tiny ones that would have been hard to observe and classify in his time.

However, that doesn't mean gradual change is the only kind of evolutionary change, and there's now plenty of evidence to show that it's not. This discovery doesn't blow a hole in evolutionary theory as some Creationists would like to claim, so much as extending it with yet more knowledge about the story of life.

An example of circumstance that can make species change blindingly fast is the Founder Effect -- in which a small number of breeding individuals become isolated from the main population. Every individual typically has some atypical genes, so a small breeding population can create statistical anomalies as they reproduce, some of which are beneficial. If the population survives at all, it may quickly become a new species.

Such an example appeared with an experiment conducted four decades ago, with the lizard Podarcis sicula. Five breeding pairs were introduced to a new island where their usual food source was absent. A mere thirty-six years later, they had evolved new stomachs, changed their heads and jaws, and had essentially become vegetarian:

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource
Anthony Herrel et al, PNAS, 24 Mar 2008
Although rapid adaptive changes in morphology on ecological time scales are now well documented in natural populations, the effects of such changes on whole-organism performance capacity and the consequences on ecological dynamics at the population level are often unclear. Here we show how lizards have rapidly evolved differences in head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract structure after experimental introduction into a novel environment. Despite the short time scale (W76;36 years) since this introduction, these changes in morphology and performance parallel those typically documented among species and even families of lizards in both the type and extent of their specialization. Moreover, these changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure, providing a compelling example of how the invasion of a novel habitat can evolutionarily drive multiple aspects of the phenotype.
http://www.pnas.org...
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 7:10:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 6:36:26 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/6/2015 5:45:15 PM, janesix wrote:
"Still, if evolution is gradual, there should be a fossilized record of small, incremental changes on the way to a new species. But in many cases, scientists have been unable to find most of these intermediate forms. Darwin himself was shaken by their absence. His conclusion was that the fossil record was lacked these transitional stages, because it was so incomplete.

I think it's useful to get the right context here so as not to misinterpret...

Enough transitional forms have been found between major classifications to show that species do mutate slowly from (say) fish to amphibian or reptile to bird. So the major evolutionary claim of common species origin is well-substantiated now, both paleontologically and (more recently) genetically. Moreover, paleontology is now a century and a half older than when Darwin knew it, so a lot more fossils have been found -- including tiny ones that would have been hard to observe and classify in his time.

However, that doesn't mean gradual change is the only kind of evolutionary change, and there's now plenty of evidence to show that it's not. This discovery doesn't blow a hole in evolutionary theory as some Creationists would like to claim, so much as extending it with yet more knowledge about the story of life.

An example of circumstance that can make species change blindingly fast is the Founder Effect -- in which a small number of breeding individuals become isolated from the main population. Every individual typically has some atypical genes, so a small breeding population can create statistical anomalies as they reproduce, some of which are beneficial. If the population survives at all, it may quickly become a new species.

Such an example appeared with an experiment conducted four decades ago, with the lizard Podarcis sicula. Five breeding pairs were introduced to a new island where their usual food source was absent. A mere thirty-six years later, they had evolved new stomachs, changed their heads and jaws, and had essentially become vegetarian:

Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource
Anthony Herrel et al, PNAS, 24 Mar 2008
Although rapid adaptive changes in morphology on ecological time scales are now well documented in natural populations, the effects of such changes on whole-organism performance capacity and the consequences on ecological dynamics at the population level are often unclear. Here we show how lizards have rapidly evolved differences in head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract structure after experimental introduction into a novel environment. Despite the short time scale (W76;36 years) since this introduction, these changes in morphology and performance parallel those typically documented among species and even families of lizards in both the type and extent of their specialization. Moreover, these changes have occurred side-by-side with dramatic changes in population density and social structure, providing a compelling example of how the invasion of a novel habitat can evolutionarily drive multiple aspects of the phenotype.
http://www.pnas.org...

"So the major evolutionary claim of common species origin is well-substantiated now"

Not disputing that.

I am also not a creationist, I don't even believe in a creator.

I am talking about mutational rate changes, and how they are sometimes faster. I am thinking that is why there aren't as many transitional fossils as I think there should be.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 7:31:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 7:10:19 PM, janesix wrote:
I am talking about mutational rate changes, and how they are sometimes faster. I am thinking that is why there aren't as many transitional fossils as I think there should be.

I'm not sure how many there should be, but it's confirmed that species change is sometimes very fast.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 10:10:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 2:37:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:54:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

Would it help if I told you that there are sixteen different bipedal primates found in the fossil record? They have all died out, we are the only ones that survived.

That makes sense. The record of primate evolution is fantastic. It makes sense because it is recent evolution, so less time for fossils to get destroyed through geological processes.

The fossil record shows long periods of stasis, then rapid shifts in morphology(in a short period of time. No long slow process of steady evolution. Big changes are rapid in the fossil record. There must be a reason. Punctuated equilibrium addressed the problem, but doesn't explain why.

The "gap in the fossil record" is nowhere near as large as it was twenty years ago due to new finds happening all the time and I suspect this trend will continue into the future.

Changes in the environment largely drive evolutionary change so there are going to be rapid changes during rapid changes in the environment.

Dinosaurs were on earth for about one hundred and thirty five million years and during that period of time the climate on earth was exceptionally stable compared to what we regard as normal today, would you call that stasis?
janesix
Posts: 3,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2015 10:33:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 10:10:04 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/6/2015 2:37:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:54:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

Would it help if I told you that there are sixteen different bipedal primates found in the fossil record? They have all died out, we are the only ones that survived.

That makes sense. The record of primate evolution is fantastic. It makes sense because it is recent evolution, so less time for fossils to get destroyed through geological processes.

The fossil record shows long periods of stasis, then rapid shifts in morphology(in a short period of time. No long slow process of steady evolution. Big changes are rapid in the fossil record. There must be a reason. Punctuated equilibrium addressed the problem, but doesn't explain why.

The "gap in the fossil record" is nowhere near as large as it was twenty years ago due to new finds happening all the time and I suspect this trend will continue into the future.

Changes in the environment largely drive evolutionary change so there are going to be rapid changes during rapid changes in the environment.

Dinosaurs were on earth for about one hundred and thirty five million years and during that period of time the climate on earth was exceptionally stable compared to what we regard as normal today, would you call that stasis?

"Changes in the environment largely drive evolutionary change so there are going to be rapid changes during rapid changes in the environment."

But WHY? And why does rapid environmental change increase the rate of mutations?If mutations are truly random, wouldn't the rate of change be about the same no matter what?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 12:13:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 10:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
"Changes in the environment largely drive evolutionary change so there are going to be rapid changes during rapid changes in the environment."
But WHY? And why does rapid environmental change increase the rate of mutations?

It doesn't have to, Jane. Rapid environmental change allows some atypical members of the species to survive better than they used to. These members pass their characteristics on to further generations, and thus the species traits get skewed.

So even if the rate of mutation did not increase in response to environmental change, the rate of mutation inheritance may.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 5:04:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 10:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/6/2015 10:10:04 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/6/2015 2:37:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:54:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

Would it help if I told you that there are sixteen different bipedal primates found in the fossil record? They have all died out, we are the only ones that survived.

That makes sense. The record of primate evolution is fantastic. It makes sense because it is recent evolution, so less time for fossils to get destroyed through geological processes.

The fossil record shows long periods of stasis, then rapid shifts in morphology(in a short period of time. No long slow process of steady evolution. Big changes are rapid in the fossil record. There must be a reason. Punctuated equilibrium addressed the problem, but doesn't explain why.

The "gap in the fossil record" is nowhere near as large as it was twenty years ago due to new finds happening all the time and I suspect this trend will continue into the future.

Changes in the environment largely drive evolutionary change so there are going to be rapid changes during rapid changes in the environment.

Dinosaurs were on earth for about one hundred and thirty five million years and during that period of time the climate on earth was exceptionally stable compared to what we regard as normal today, would you call that stasis?

"Changes in the environment largely drive evolutionary change so there are going to be rapid changes during rapid changes in the environment."

But WHY? And why does rapid environmental change increase the rate of mutations?If mutations are truly random, wouldn't the rate of change be about the same no matter what?

If the rate of mutations were a steady state a rapid environmental change rearranging the rules of what can or can't work gives some mutations a niche that they didn"t have before and this may end up looking like an increase in the rate of mutations. After that the offspring of the successful mutations giving birth to more mutations could add to that appearance as well.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 11:47:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 10:33:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/6/2015 10:10:04 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/6/2015 2:37:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:54:38 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

Would it help if I told you that there are sixteen different bipedal primates found in the fossil record? They have all died out, we are the only ones that survived.

That makes sense. The record of primate evolution is fantastic. It makes sense because it is recent evolution, so less time for fossils to get destroyed through geological processes.

The fossil record shows long periods of stasis, then rapid shifts in morphology(in a short period of time. No long slow process of steady evolution. Big changes are rapid in the fossil record. There must be a reason. Punctuated equilibrium addressed the problem, but doesn't explain why.

The "gap in the fossil record" is nowhere near as large as it was twenty years ago due to new finds happening all the time and I suspect this trend will continue into the future.

Changes in the environment largely drive evolutionary change so there are going to be rapid changes during rapid changes in the environment.

Dinosaurs were on earth for about one hundred and thirty five million years and during that period of time the climate on earth was exceptionally stable compared to what we regard as normal today, would you call that stasis?

"Changes in the environment largely drive evolutionary change so there are going to be rapid changes during rapid changes in the environment."

But WHY?

Because rapid changes in the environment applies pressure to a species. Competition becomes more harsh, as each individual within the species tries to thrive, and therefore there is more of a rush to propagate and produce offspring.

Its kinda like what we see in human societies as well. 200, 300 years ago, when food was scarce, and the average lifespan of a human was only about 40-50 years, people were having more children, and marrying/giving birth at younger ages. Today, in most first world countries, we have fewer amounts of children per family, and the parents are having children at a much much later age.

And why does rapid environmental change increase the rate of mutations? If mutations are truly random, wouldn't the rate of change be about the same no matter what?

When theres greater competition and harsher, stricter selection guidelines, the rate of change naturally increases.

Its like picking a basketball team from random strangers. If your selection guidelines are lax, you will have a random slush of players of all different heights. But if your guidelines become stricter, you will naturally have more taller players as you dismiss more people who do not make the cut.

This "Cut", this selection guideline, is stricter when an environment rapidlly changes, because those that existed below this "Cut", were able to survive before the environment changed, but can no longer survive after the change.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 10:15:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

The more important question is, is there even such a thing as a transitional fossil?? It's quite possible that fish have always produced fish-like organisms, and that's why we see so many fish fossils. Those who believe in macro-evolution see similarities between fish fossils and fossils from other organisms, and believe that one descended from the other. That may not be the case.

Fish only produce more fish, and fish only descend from fish today. Why would we think that biological organisms operated any differently in the past, than they do today??
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 12:31:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 10:15:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

The more important question is, is there even such a thing as a transitional fossil?? It's quite possible that fish have always produced fish-like organisms, and that's why we see so many fish fossils. Those who believe in macro-evolution see similarities between fish fossils and fossils from other organisms, and believe that one descended from the other. That may not be the case.

Transitional fossils are defined as a fossil with the traits from two exclusive species. With that definition, Archeopteryx has already fit the bill, so yes, there are such things as transitional fossils.

Fish only produce more fish, and fish only descend from fish today. Why would we think that biological organisms operated any differently in the past, than they do today??

Black people only produce babies that are black, except when the child has a genetic disorder. So why would we think that humans operated differently in the past, and that black people and white people share a common ancestor?

Clearly black people had their own ancestors, and white people had theirs. They do not share a common human ancestor.

This is the logic you are proposing.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 1:29:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 12:31:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/8/2015 10:15:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

The more important question is, is there even such a thing as a transitional fossil?? It's quite possible that fish have always produced fish-like organisms, and that's why we see so many fish fossils. Those who believe in macro-evolution see similarities between fish fossils and fossils from other organisms, and believe that one descended from the other. That may not be the case.

Transitional fossils are defined as a fossil with the traits from two exclusive species. With that definition, Archeopteryx has already fit the bill, so yes, there are such things as transitional fossils.

Which two exclusive species?? How can that happen anyway?? I mean reproductive isolation is how you distinguish between two different species, right?? And how can it be transitional when birds existed prior to archaeopteryx, in evo-years??

Fish only produce more fish, and fish only descend from fish today. Why would we think that biological organisms operated any differently in the past, than they do today??

Black people only produce babies that are black, except when the child has a genetic disorder. So why would we think that humans operated differently in the past, and that black people and white people share a common ancestor?

Clearly black people had their own ancestors, and white people had theirs. They do not share a common human ancestor.

This is the logic you are proposing.

Is it possible that a white human knocked sandals with a black human somewhere along the line?? "Human" being the keyword there, since evolutionists don't seem to want to sort humans into different "species", the way they do animals. I doubt that would go over very well.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 3:03:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:31:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/8/2015 10:15:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

The more important question is, is there even such a thing as a transitional fossil?? It's quite possible that fish have always produced fish-like organisms, and that's why we see so many fish fossils. Those who believe in macro-evolution see similarities between fish fossils and fossils from other organisms, and believe that one descended from the other. That may not be the case.

Transitional fossils are defined as a fossil with the traits from two exclusive species. With that definition, Archeopteryx has already fit the bill, so yes, there are such things as transitional fossils.

Which two exclusive species??

Reptiles and birds.

How can that happen anyway??

Evolution.

I mean reproductive isolation is how you distinguish between two different species, right??

Sure.

And how can it be transitional when birds existed prior to archaeopteryx, in evo-years??

Because not all the Archeopteryx evolved into birds. You can have species that split, where one group keeps evolving into different species, while the other does not.

Fish only produce more fish, and fish only descend from fish today. Why would we think that biological organisms operated any differently in the past, than they do today??

Black people only produce babies that are black, except when the child has a genetic disorder. So why would we think that humans operated differently in the past, and that black people and white people share a common ancestor?

Clearly black people had their own ancestors, and white people had theirs. They do not share a common human ancestor.

This is the logic you are proposing.

Is it possible that a white human knocked sandals with a black human somewhere along the line??

Dunno, you tell me, im just following your line of reasoning here.

"Human" being the keyword there, since evolutionists don't seem to want to sort humans into different "species", the way they do animals. I doubt that would go over very well.

Humans are a species. We are species Homo Sapiens
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2015 9:47:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 3:03:12 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:31:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/8/2015 10:15:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

The more important question is, is there even such a thing as a transitional fossil?? It's quite possible that fish have always produced fish-like organisms, and that's why we see so many fish fossils. Those who believe in macro-evolution see similarities between fish fossils and fossils from other organisms, and believe that one descended from the other. That may not be the case.

Transitional fossils are defined as a fossil with the traits from two exclusive species. With that definition, Archeopteryx has already fit the bill, so yes, there are such things as transitional fossils.

Which two exclusive species??

Reptiles and birds.

You need to clarify here...Are you telling me that a reptile mated with a bird, resulting in Archeopteryx, which is a transitional form, on its way to becoming a fully formed bird, even thought its mother was already a bird?? Sounds more like Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster, than anything plausible, but I'll wait for your clarification.

How can that happen anyway??

Evolution.

Sounds more like imagilution.

I mean reproductive isolation is how you distinguish between two different species, right??

Sure.

Well then two different "species" shouldn't be able to inter-breed and produce such an organism.

And how can it be transitional when birds existed prior to archaeopteryx, in evo-years??

Because not all the Archeopteryx evolved into birds. You can have species that split, where one group keeps evolving into different species, while the other does not.

You're missing the point. Birds already existed millions of years before Archeopteryx showed up, again in evo-years, so it isn't "transitional" to birds, since they already existed. So what is it "transitional" to, if not a bird??

Add to that the fact that the most well-known paleo-ornithologist, an evolutionist, says that Archeopteryx is a perching bird. Unless you have some hidden info, the only logical conclusion I can reach is that Archeopteryx is a bird fossil, and not a transitional fossil.

Fish only produce more fish, and fish only descend from fish today. Why would we think that biological organisms operated any differently in the past, than they do today??

Black people only produce babies that are black, except when the child has a genetic disorder. So why would we think that humans operated differently in the past, and that black people and white people share a common ancestor?

Clearly black people had their own ancestors, and white people had theirs. They do not share a common human ancestor.

This is the logic you are proposing.

Is it possible that a white human knocked sandals with a black human somewhere along the line??

Dunno, you tell me, im just following your line of reasoning here.

I don't recall mentioning the skin color of fish being an issue in the discussion of macro-evolutionary change, so that isn't my reasoning. You're the one who thinks that fish breeding with fish will eventually produce something other than fish, so it's YOUR reasoning that we're discussing here.

"Human" being the keyword there, since evolutionists don't seem to want to sort humans into different "species", the way they do animals. I doubt that would go over very well.

Humans are a species. We are species Homo Sapiens

I know the spiel...So how is your question relevant to UCA and macro-evolution, since a black person and a white person CAN share a common ancestor??
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 4:04:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 9:47:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 3:03:12 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:31:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/8/2015 10:15:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

The more important question is, is there even such a thing as a transitional fossil?? It's quite possible that fish have always produced fish-like organisms, and that's why we see so many fish fossils. Those who believe in macro-evolution see similarities between fish fossils and fossils from other organisms, and believe that one descended from the other. That may not be the case.

Transitional fossils are defined as a fossil with the traits from two exclusive species. With that definition, Archeopteryx has already fit the bill, so yes, there are such things as transitional fossils.

Which two exclusive species??

Reptiles and birds.

You need to clarify here...Are you telling me that a reptile mated with a bird, resulting in Archeopteryx, which is a transitional form, on its way to becoming a fully formed bird, even thought its mother was already a bird?? Sounds more like Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster, than anything plausible, but I'll wait for your clarification.

No. The archeopteryx contains two distinct features within its bone structure that are exclusive to birds and reptiles, which is why it fits the very definition of what a transitional fossil, is.

How can that happen anyway??

Evolution.

Sounds more like imagilution.

To the uneducated and ignorant, the existance of an airplane sounds like imagilution too.

I mean reproductive isolation is how you distinguish between two different species, right??

Sure.

Well then two different "species" shouldn't be able to inter-breed and produce such an organism.

No one is saying they did.

And how can it be transitional when birds existed prior to archaeopteryx, in evo-years??

Because not all the Archeopteryx evolved into birds. You can have species that split, where one group keeps evolving into different species, while the other does not.

You're missing the point. Birds already existed millions of years before Archeopteryx showed up, again in evo-years, so it isn't "transitional" to birds, since they already existed. So what is it "transitional" to, if not a bird??

Archeotperyx lived around the same time that other fossils we categorize as birds began to show up, which is the late jurassic period, so birds didnt show up "Millions of years before" the archeopteryx. Infact, the Archeopteryx is considered one of the most oldest fossil of a bird.

Add to that the fact that the most well-known paleo-ornithologist, an evolutionist, says that Archeopteryx is a perching bird. Unless you have some hidden info, the only logical conclusion I can reach is that Archeopteryx is a bird fossil, and not a transitional fossil.

So why does it contain traits exclusively found to reptiles and do not exist in modern birds.

Its like pointing to a mermaid that is half man, half fish and saying "Yup, its still a human being".

Fish only produce more fish, and fish only descend from fish today. Why would we think that biological organisms operated any differently in the past, than they do today??

Black people only produce babies that are black, except when the child has a genetic disorder. So why would we think that humans operated differently in the past, and that black people and white people share a common ancestor?

Clearly black people had their own ancestors, and white people had theirs. They do not share a common human ancestor.

This is the logic you are proposing.

Is it possible that a white human knocked sandals with a black human somewhere along the line??

Dunno, you tell me, im just following your line of reasoning here.

I don't recall mentioning the skin color of fish being an issue in the discussion of macro-evolutionary change, so that isn't my reasoning. You're the one who thinks that fish breeding with fish will eventually produce something other than fish, so it's YOUR reasoning that we're discussing here.

Your line of reasoning was the claim that fish only produce more fish, and therefore its unreasonable to think they were different in the past.

Thats the same line of reasoning as saying blacks only produce blacks, and that its unreasonable to think that they were different in the past.

If you dont understand what "Line of reasoning" means, dont be shy, just ask. But yes, that was your line of reasoning.

"Human" being the keyword there, since evolutionists don't seem to want to sort humans into different "species", the way they do animals. I doubt that would go over very well.

Humans are a species. We are species Homo Sapiens

I know the spiel...So how is your question relevant to UCA and macro-evolution, since a black person and a white person CAN share a common ancestor??

Not by your line of reasoning, no.

Are you saying that two black parents can produce a caucasian baby, with golden hair and blue eyes? Or two white parents can produce a black baby, with black hair and brown eyes?
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2015 5:46:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:31:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/8/2015 10:15:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

The more important question is, is there even such a thing as a transitional fossil?? It's quite possible that fish have always produced fish-like organisms, and that's why we see so many fish fossils. Those who believe in macro-evolution see similarities between fish fossils and fossils from other organisms, and believe that one descended from the other. That may not be the case.

Transitional fossils are defined as a fossil with the traits from two exclusive species. With that definition, Archeopteryx has already fit the bill, so yes, there are such things as transitional fossils.

Which two exclusive species?? How can that happen anyway?? I mean reproductive isolation is how you distinguish between two different species, right?? And how can it be transitional when birds existed prior to archaeopteryx, in evo-years??

Fish only produce more fish, and fish only descend from fish today. Why would we think that biological organisms operated any differently in the past, than they do today??

Black people only produce babies that are black, except when the child has a genetic disorder. So why would we think that humans operated differently in the past, and that black people and white people share a common ancestor?

Clearly black people had their own ancestors, and white people had theirs. They do not share a common human ancestor.

This is the logic you are proposing.

Is it possible that a white human knocked sandals with a black human somewhere along the line?? "Human" being the keyword there, since evolutionists don't seem to want to sort humans into different "species", the way they do animals. I doubt that would go over very well.

That's like saying that a Great Dane should be a different species from a Chihuahua.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 11:54:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 4:04:36 PM, tkubok wrote:

Which two exclusive species??

Reptiles and birds.

You need to clarify here...Are you telling me that a reptile mated with a bird, resulting in Archeopteryx, which is a transitional form, on its way to becoming a fully formed bird, even thought its mother was already a bird?? Sounds more like Goldschmidt's Hopeful Monster, than anything plausible, but I'll wait for your clarification.

No. The archeopteryx contains two distinct features within its bone structure that are exclusive to birds and reptiles, which is why it fits the very definition of what a transitional fossil, is.

First, both dinos and birds already existed, according to your own dating methods, so Archeopteryx cannot be transitional to birds. That means that all you can show empirically is that it shows similarities to other known organisms, which no one would disagree with.

Secondly, that it fits your chosen definition is irrelevant to whether it shares ancestry. If your hypothesis is wrong then your definition is useless. So you're basically arguing in a circle here.

Thirdly, universal common ancestry is not the only way to explain similarities between organisms. Yet all you have to do is find two organisms that share similar traits, and to you it's a "transitional" fossil. Obviously differences between the organisms won't falsify it, as transitional, in your mind. I've also brought up the fact that birds existed for millions of years prior to Archeopteryx, which also doesn't falsify it, as transitional, in your mind. So, if UCA is false, what reasonable method would one use to falsify Archeopteryx, as a transitional fossil, in your mind??

I mean reproductive isolation is how you distinguish between two different species, right??

Sure.

Well then two different "species" shouldn't be able to inter-breed and produce such an organism.

No one is saying they did.

Then we're back at square one and all you have is an organism that exhibits similarities to other already existing organisms.

And how can it be transitional when birds existed prior to archaeopteryx, in evo-years??

Because not all the Archeopteryx evolved into birds. You can have species that split, where one group keeps evolving into different species, while the other does not.

You're missing the point. Birds already existed millions of years before Archeopteryx showed up, again in evo-years, so it isn't "transitional" to birds, since they already existed. So what is it "transitional" to, if not a bird??

Archeotperyx lived around the same time that other fossils we categorize as birds began to show up, which is the late jurassic period, so birds didnt show up "Millions of years before" the archeopteryx. Infact, the Archeopteryx is considered one of the most oldest fossil of a bird.

It's a bird fossil, very similar to the Hoatzin of South America. Other bird fossils have been found that pre-date Archeopteryx by millions of years. Evolutionists can "consider" it to be whatever they want, but the evidence against it being transitional stands unrefuted. A fossil is not transitional, in the way that we mean the word in this discussion, when the organism that it is said to be evolving into is clearly shown to already have existed, prior to the alleged transition. You cannot be your own grandpa.

Add to that the fact that the most well-known paleo-ornithologist, an evolutionist, says that Archeopteryx is a perching bird. Unless you have some hidden info, the only logical conclusion I can reach is that Archeopteryx is a bird fossil, and not a transitional fossil.

So why does it contain traits exclusively found to reptiles and do not exist in modern birds.

Which specific traits are you saying are "exclusive" to reptiles??

I don't recall mentioning the skin color of fish being an issue in the discussion of macro-evolutionary change, so that isn't my reasoning. You're the one who thinks that fish breeding with fish will eventually produce something other than fish, so it's YOUR reasoning that we're discussing here.

Your line of reasoning was the claim that fish only produce more fish, and therefore its unreasonable to think they were different in the past.

Thats the same line of reasoning as saying blacks only produce blacks, and that its unreasonable to think that they were different in the past.

Melanin levels determine skin and eye color in humans, and a black human can breed with a white human, and produce offspring that are always going to be human. My line of reasoning was that when fish breed, they are always and forever going to produce another fish. There may be some variability in the gene pool, allowing for different varieties of fish, but the offspring of two fish can never produce anything other than a fish. Your claim of UCA requires that a fish change into another organism, which has nothing to do with varying levels of melanin in humans.

Are you saying that two black parents can produce a caucasian baby, with golden hair and blue eyes? Or two white parents can produce a black baby, with black hair and brown eyes?

Under normal conditions, no. However, if we were to tinker with the melanin levels early on in the pregnancy, you could probably get whatever skin, hair, and eye color you want. Remove melanin altogether and you get albinism. It's all about the melanin, and no matter what the melanin level is, they are always going to be human and produce only more humans.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 2:31:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/9/2015 5:46:02 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:31:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/8/2015 10:15:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

The more important question is, is there even such a thing as a transitional fossil?? It's quite possible that fish have always produced fish-like organisms, and that's why we see so many fish fossils. Those who believe in macro-evolution see similarities between fish fossils and fossils from other organisms, and believe that one descended from the other. That may not be the case.

Transitional fossils are defined as a fossil with the traits from two exclusive species. With that definition, Archeopteryx has already fit the bill, so yes, there are such things as transitional fossils.

Which two exclusive species?? How can that happen anyway?? I mean reproductive isolation is how you distinguish between two different species, right?? And how can it be transitional when birds existed prior to archaeopteryx, in evo-years??

Fish only produce more fish, and fish only descend from fish today. Why would we think that biological organisms operated any differently in the past, than they do today??

Black people only produce babies that are black, except when the child has a genetic disorder. So why would we think that humans operated differently in the past, and that black people and white people share a common ancestor?

Clearly black people had their own ancestors, and white people had theirs. They do not share a common human ancestor.

This is the logic you are proposing.

Is it possible that a white human knocked sandals with a black human somewhere along the line?? "Human" being the keyword there, since evolutionists don't seem to want to sort humans into different "species", the way they do animals. I doubt that would go over very well.

That's like saying that a Great Dane should be a different species from a Chihuahua.

I agree, but evolutionists tend to split organisms into many different "species" when we find fossils, or animals that are nothing more than a variety of known organisms.

There are humans that are perfectly fertile, yet when they try to get pregnant together, they have trouble conceiving and some just simply can't conceive with that partner. My ex-wife and I are a perfect example. The fertility experts said that it is just a fact that some people are chemically incompatible, even though there is nothing wrong with either of them. We have both gone on to produce families with other people, without problems. There are many others who are in the same position, so for all intents and purposes, there are groups of humans who are reproductively isolated from the other group. By the evolutionist's definition, this should be considered a case of "speciation". Yet you'll find no one who is anxious to make that claim about humans. Why not??

I find it curious that we are never likely to see current or future humans classified as different "species", simply because of the social backlash that would occur. It may seem like a fun and easy metaphysical research project, but the rules that are said to apply to the project, are not going to be applied in the same way to the human race because social and political pressures would likely cause the popularity and tolerance of evolutionism, to decline quite rapidly.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,165
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 6:44:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 2:31:58 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/9/2015 5:46:02 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:31:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/8/2015 10:15:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

The more important question is, is there even such a thing as a transitional fossil?? It's quite possible that fish have always produced fish-like organisms, and that's why we see so many fish fossils. Those who believe in macro-evolution see similarities between fish fossils and fossils from other organisms, and believe that one descended from the other. That may not be the case.

Transitional fossils are defined as a fossil with the traits from two exclusive species. With that definition, Archeopteryx has already fit the bill, so yes, there are such things as transitional fossils.

Which two exclusive species?? How can that happen anyway?? I mean reproductive isolation is how you distinguish between two different species, right?? And how can it be transitional when birds existed prior to archaeopteryx, in evo-years??

Fish only produce more fish, and fish only descend from fish today. Why would we think that biological organisms operated any differently in the past, than they do today??

Black people only produce babies that are black, except when the child has a genetic disorder. So why would we think that humans operated differently in the past, and that black people and white people share a common ancestor?

Clearly black people had their own ancestors, and white people had theirs. They do not share a common human ancestor.

This is the logic you are proposing.

Is it possible that a white human knocked sandals with a black human somewhere along the line?? "Human" being the keyword there, since evolutionists don't seem to want to sort humans into different "species", the way they do animals. I doubt that would go over very well.

That's like saying that a Great Dane should be a different species from a Chihuahua.

I agree, but evolutionists tend to split organisms into many different "species" when we find fossils, or animals that are nothing more than a variety of known organisms.

There are humans that are perfectly fertile, yet when they try to get pregnant together, they have trouble conceiving and some just simply can't conceive with that partner. My ex-wife and I are a perfect example. The fertility experts said that it is just a fact that some people are chemically incompatible, even though there is nothing wrong with either of them. We have both gone on to produce families with other people, without problems. There are many others who are in the same position, so for all intents and purposes, there are groups of humans who are reproductively isolated from the other group. By the evolutionist's definition, this should be considered a case of "speciation". Yet you'll find no one who is anxious to make that claim about humans. Why not??

I find it curious that we are never likely to see current or future humans classified as different "species", simply because of the social backlash that would occur. It may seem like a fun and easy metaphysical research project, but the rules that are said to apply to the project, are not going to be applied in the same way to the human race because social and political pressures would likely cause the popularity and tolerance of evolutionism, to decline quite rapidly.

How do you propose we divide humans into different species?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2015 7:43:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 6:44:49 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/11/2015 2:31:58 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/9/2015 5:46:02 PM, Accipiter wrote:
At 4/8/2015 1:29:41 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/8/2015 12:31:46 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 4/8/2015 10:15:21 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/6/2015 1:48:00 AM, janesix wrote:
Why aren't there more transitional species found in the fossil record? There should be a lot more than there are it would seem. Yet we find only a few examples of things like fish with legs forming.

It would have to happen very fast, in a relatively small population, with one change occurring right after the other apparently.

What are other possibilities?

The more important question is, is there even such a thing as a transitional fossil?? It's quite possible that fish have always produced fish-like organisms, and that's why we see so many fish fossils. Those who believe in macro-evolution see similarities between fish fossils and fossils from other organisms, and believe that one descended from the other. That may not be the case.

Transitional fossils are defined as a fossil with the traits from two exclusive species. With that definition, Archeopteryx has already fit the bill, so yes, there are such things as transitional fossils.

Which two exclusive species?? How can that happen anyway?? I mean reproductive isolation is how you distinguish between two different species, right?? And how can it be transitional when birds existed prior to archaeopteryx, in evo-years??

Fish only produce more fish, and fish only descend from fish today. Why would we think that biological organisms operated any differently in the past, than they do today??

Black people only produce babies that are black, except when the child has a genetic disorder. So why would we think that humans operated differently in the past, and that black people and white people share a common ancestor?

Clearly black people had their own ancestors, and white people had theirs. They do not share a common human ancestor.

This is the logic you are proposing.

Is it possible that a white human knocked sandals with a black human somewhere along the line?? "Human" being the keyword there, since evolutionists don't seem to want to sort humans into different "species", the way they do animals. I doubt that would go over very well.

That's like saying that a Great Dane should be a different species from a Chihuahua.

I agree, but evolutionists tend to split organisms into many different "species" when we find fossils, or animals that are nothing more than a variety of known organisms.

There are humans that are perfectly fertile, yet when they try to get pregnant together, they have trouble conceiving and some just simply can't conceive with that partner. My ex-wife and I are a perfect example. The fertility experts said that it is just a fact that some people are chemically incompatible, even though there is nothing wrong with either of them. We have both gone on to produce families with other people, without problems. There are many others who are in the same position, so for all intents and purposes, there are groups of humans who are reproductively isolated from the other group. By the evolutionist's definition, this should be considered a case of "speciation". Yet you'll find no one who is anxious to make that claim about humans. Why not??

I find it curious that we are never likely to see current or future humans classified as different "species", simply because of the social backlash that would occur. It may seem like a fun and easy metaphysical research project, but the rules that are said to apply to the project, are not going to be applied in the same way to the human race because social and political pressures would likely cause the popularity and tolerance of evolutionism, to decline quite rapidly.

How do you propose we divide humans into different species?

I don't think it would make sense to do that, but if evolutionists were consistent with classification, it should be happening. I just find it curious that it isn't happening with humans. I think it's because scientists don't really believe Darwinian evolution to the extent that many of the popularizers of the theory pretend. Many may indeed believe in the theory, but not to the extent that they are willing to face the backlash that would result from saying that some living humans are more "evolved", than others.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2015 10:38:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 11:54:22 AM, medic0506 wrote:
First, both dinos and birds already existed, according to your own dating methods, so Archeopteryx cannot be transitional to birds. That means that all you can show empirically is that it shows similarities to other known organisms, which no one would disagree with.

Americans descended from Europeans in the past. But Americans and Europeans both exist today, at the same time. By your logic, therefore Americans cannot be descended from Europeans if they both exist at the same time.

Clearly your logic is wrong.

Secondly, that it fits your chosen definition is irrelevant to whether it shares ancestry. If your hypothesis is wrong then your definition is useless. So you're basically arguing in a circle here.

Which is why there are other evidences, like genetics, that confirm evolution. Thats why its no longer a "Hypothesis".

Thirdly, universal common ancestry is not the only way to explain similarities between organisms. Yet all you have to do is find two organisms that share similar traits, and to you it's a "transitional" fossil. Obviously differences between the organisms won't falsify it, as transitional, in your mind. I've also brought up the fact that birds existed for millions of years prior to Archeopteryx, which also doesn't falsify it, as transitional, in your mind. So, if UCA is false, what reasonable method would one use to falsify Archeopteryx, as a transitional fossil, in your mind??

No, all I have to do is find ONE organism that share similar traits from TWO DIFFERENT organisms that are separated. I think we can both agree that Reptiles and Birds do not exist within the same "Kind", as creationists like to call it.

But the question you are asking is along the lines of "If genetics is wrong, what reasonable method would one use to falsify Paternity tests?" If we assume that Genetics is wrong, then we cant falsify paternity tests, because paternity tests confirm that genetics is right, and not the other way around. Transitional fossils confirm that UCA is right, and not the other way around.

Then we're back at square one and all you have is an organism that exhibits similarities to other already existing organisms.

Sure. And the best explanation that fits this evidence is UCA. See, thats how science works. Transitional fossils provide evidence that UCA is correct.

It's a bird fossil, very similar to the Hoatzin of South America. Other bird fossils have been found that pre-date Archeopteryx by millions of years. Evolutionists can "consider" it to be whatever they want, but the evidence against it being transitional stands unrefuted. A fossil is not transitional, in the way that we mean the word in this discussion, when the organism that it is said to be evolving into is clearly shown to already have existed, prior to the alleged transition. You cannot be your own grandpa.

Yes, and the Europeans cannot be ancestors to Americans, since Europeans still exist today. Oh wait, but they are. How does that work again?

Which specific traits are you saying are "exclusive" to reptiles??

The presence of Gastralia, fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the legs, everything about the skull and the brain, teeth, no bill, the sacrum occupying 6 vertebra, wrist joint flexibility, etc etc....

Under normal conditions, no. However, if we were to tinker with the melanin levels early on in the pregnancy, you could probably get whatever skin, hair, and eye color you want. Remove melanin altogether and you get albinism. It's all about the melanin, and no matter what the melanin level is, they are always going to be human and produce only more humans.

Sure. And if you can tinker with the genetics of a fish, you could probably tinker it enough to produce a human. I think were talking about normal conditions here, though, as neither both you nor I would consider humans tinkering with fish, as natural selection and evolution.

So, under normal conditions, it is impossible for two black humans to produce a Caucasian child. By your logic, this proves that black people and Caucasians do not share common ancestry, does it not?