Joe Meert

I am having a 'debate' on a different board and discovered something about creationists that is new to me. The poster started off by insisting that there were no precursors to the Cambrian taxa. When I mentioned possible links to Ediacara, he insisted there were no links between single-cell organisms and Ediacaran fauna. Nothing new there (replace one gap with another or two more). So finally I asked him to provide me (with details) with a description of what he would accept as a transitional fossil between single-celled organisms and multi-cellular organisms. He's trying desperately to change the topic and the question, but has not offered a description of what he might accept as transitional. So here's my question. Other than the obvious absurdities (half cow, half whale) explanations, has any creationist offered a detailed explanation of what an acceptable transitional would look like?

Cheers

Joe Meert

Dr.GH

I would like a link, if you don't mind. Live and learn.

Thanks.

faust

I've asked that question to several creationists and have never gotten a good answer. They always want a half-ape half-man and won't accept chimps, or a half-pinapple half-rhino. I've tried asking which part of evolutionary theory predicts that such a thing should exist and no dice (b/c of course, it doesn't predict that crap).

I'd love to hear about what a creationist would accept as transitional, provided it's something our side is actually proposing as a likely transitional.

For people who whine that according to us, there should be transitionals everywhere, they don't seem to stop and notice that nobody uses any theory to predict half-pineapple half-rhinos.
and kent hovind nearly has me convinced into becoming a theist, otherwise i wouldn't believe he is the devil.

Joe Meert

JM:http://forums.christiansunite.com/in...d=601;start=60

there it is.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Rhaedas

Is it too simplistic to say that any individual is a transitional organism, between its parents and its offspring?

Or more precisely, that's the smallest unit of transition you'll have, and what we find in the fossil record is the larger steps.

Joe Meert

JM: No, that's quite accurate, but it does not seem to satisfy ye-creationists. My guess is that they must have SOME idea of what is an acceptable transition between single-cell and multi-cellular organisms? If they want to be scientific, then the description of the expected features of transitionals seems to be the easiest way of disproving evolution. I've not dwelt on the topic, but it seems to me that creationists can't decide what an acceptable transition might look like (or what genetic traints such a transitional might possess).

Cheers

Joe Meert

Coragyps

I've yet to see a creationist get pinned down on what he wants for a "transitional," though I saw (somewhere??) one in the last few weeks say that multicellular life couldn't have come from unicellular, as there are no two-celled fossils. No three-celled ones either.

Rhaedas

The natural transition would have been to go from single cells, to grouped individual cells, to colonies, and then progressively dependent multiple cells. To expect a jump from single to connected cells is the same illogic as the half a wing argument.

I did a search here at IIDB because I was sure I saw recent discussion on single to multi cell evolution...but I couldn't find anything.

It's a good place for a creationist to ask for evidence, since fossil records of cellular life is quite rare, especially that far back. I'll bet few ask these days for bird transition evidence, given the number of discoveries in China as of late. They don't actually want you to answer them...

Tenek

I'd imagine multicellular organisms to take the "irreduceable complexity" point where single-celled organisms find unnecessary advantages in such groupings, evolve to suit multicellular life and then lose the ability to exist separately. (Sorta. We came from a single cell, hopefully my lack of biological knowledge isn't too apparent here. As long as the idea gets through.)

So to make a long story short - an single-celled organism which can exist either separately, or as part of a larger whole, with the latter configuration providing an advantage over the former.

(edit - this supposes a direct transition of the sort which has just been described as illogical. Yippee.)

BrianTerrel

Like these fellows then

http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~bhoward/bil150_99/amoeba.html

(thanks to whoever first posted that btw, i've forgotten which thread i bookmarked it from)