Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 03-06-2002, 05:55 PM

I come across this again and again: creationists, primarily YEC's, claim there are no transitional fossils. None. They then go to great pains to show why such things as Archaeopteryx, accepted by evolutionary biologists as pretty darn good transitional forms, are no such thing. Further questioning usually reveals that the YEC's do not believe such things are transitional forms because, denying evolution, they do not believe such things can possibly have existed in the first place. In other words, there is no evidence of any kind that they would accept as a transition from one "kind" of organism to another.

So here's my challenge to the creationists: prove I've just created a straw man, and knock him down for me. Define "transitional form" and tell precisely what you would expect from a transitional form or fossil, if one group really had evolved from another, such as birds evolving from dinosaurs, tetrapods (r-legged land animals) evolving from fish, or mammals evolving from reptiles.

randman · 03-06-2002, 06:00 PM

OK, let's play fill in the blanks. "Archaeopteryx" is supposedly a transitional form.
So please state the 5 preceding species and the 5 subsequent species in the transition.
Please also state the when and where these transitions took place.
Also, there should be some type of estimates for the number of mutations needed between each species. In other words, what are the differences between each step and what genetic mutations could cause those differences.
Maybe lay it out like this.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.Archaeopteryx
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Just fill in the blanks, please.

Late_Cretaceous · 03-06-2002, 06:36 PM

MrDarwin, I hope that you are not holding your breath waiting for a genuine response. In fact, you could post this question on just about every discussion board you can find and you won't get a serious answer.

randman · 03-06-2002, 06:38 PM

My response is genuine. Just fill in the blanks, or at least explain if it is possible, and if not, why.

tgamble · 03-06-2002, 06:39 PM

Archaeopteryx:

Bird or reptile? Simple question isn't it? If it's not a transitional fossil that should be easy to answer.

Yet creationists can't agree! "it was a bird, it had feathers (and obviously other bird features"!

"No, it was a reptile, the feathers are fakes! It has reptilian features." [they weren't faked BTW]

Based on this we can conclude (correctly) that the fossil has both avian and reptilian features. So why isn't that a transitional form?

If you insist that it isn't, what would be? Something with covered half with scales and half feathers perhaps?

randman · 03-06-2002, 06:47 PM

Guys, this is the deal. I am an artist, among other things. Don't want to imply I am supported by art sales because I am not.
My paintings look similar for the most part, except some works are totally different, and some aren't even paintings at all, things like sculpture.
Some paintings are part of series where they "evolve" into another.
But the thing is they don't actually evolve. I paint them, and they look similar based on the time I did them, and the theme involved and such.
Now, ya'll say a species is transitional, but you have no hard data to prove that. If you did, you would fill in the blanks like I asked, and I would have to go back to rethinking whether evolutionary theory is true.
Hope that answers you.
If you don't fill in the blanks (in a screechy English voice), how can you have any pudding?

Valentine Pontifex · 03-06-2002, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
OK, let's play fill in the blanks. "Archaeopteryx" is supposedly a transitional form.
So please state the 5 preceding species and the 5 subsequent species in the transition.
Please also state the when and where these transitions took place.
Also, there should be some type of estimates for the number of mutations needed between each species. In other words, what are the differences between each step and what genetic mutations could cause those differences.
Maybe lay it out like this.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.Archaeopteryx
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Just fill in the blanks, please.

Ignoring that Randman is falsely assuming that evolution procedes in a linear fashion...

When evolutionists find a Transitional, T,
between A and B, one of their favorite tactics is to ask what is the transitional between A and T and B and T. Of course if we find some, they will ask for links on both sides of it as well. In short the more transitional fossils are found the more "missing links" the creationists want. This is a movable goal post type argument.

Of course Randman is of course ignoring the
evidence of dinosaurs with feathers. If that is not transitional, I don't know what is. And the "full" birds, the ones in the Cretaceous were not the birds we know today. There are eight known subclasses of Aves: only one survived the extinction of the dinosaurs.

Kosh · 03-06-2002, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

Now, ya'll say a species is transitional, but you have no hard data to prove that.

Hmmm... is that a good ol' soutern fundie accent
slipping out?......

Quote:

If you did, you would fill in the blanks like I asked, and I would have to go back to rethinking whether evolutionary theory is true.
Hope that answers you.
If you don't fill in the blanks (in a screechy English voice), how can you have any pudding?

Tell ya what, while you're waiting, why don't you
fill in the blanks on the list I gave you in the
other thread?

randman · 03-06-2002, 07:12 PM

I am not ignoring squat and you don't have to showw all the branched, just a little hard data to back up your claims of transitions here.
Think about it for a moment. There is a straight line in the sense that a living individual can pick a straight line in his geneology if he wants to. Just because evolution is said to be a bush does not mean there was theoritically not a specific species, not a bush, that preceded one species and so on and so on.
Right?
Look, my beef with evolutionists have to do with not admitting the truth. Let's face it. It isn't all that important for anyone to beleive in evolution. It won't save your soul, and it isn't even as crucial as beleiving mundane things like believing eating 10 e-balls and drinking a gallon of whiskey is not good for you, or that being nice to girls is very important for finding a wife, or that eating corn-dogs and chips isn't too healthy.
Evolution is about science, and science is about a certain way of thinking. It should about one approach to truth, or at least facts.
But one sign of a that type of thinker should be someone who can admit to weaknesses.
The proper response from an evolutionists should be we can't fill in the blanks. You are right about that. Now, let me tell you why, and why we beleive what we do.
But that never seems to happen, and the fact it doesn't and the history of overstatements and even hoaxes in presenting evolutionary theory has convinced me that it is more a propoganda show than anything.

randman · 03-06-2002, 07:15 PM

You first, and the southern expression is intentional. It doesn't slip out. I make sure it doesn't fade.
Seriously, one of my concerns right now is that my kids, considering where we live (south but not south if you get the meaning), will grow up sounding like Yankees.
God forbid, please!

03-06-2002, 05:55 PM	#1
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Why creationists deny the reality of transitional forms I come across this again and again: creationists, primarily YEC's, claim there are no transitional fossils. None. They then go to great pains to show why such things as Archaeopteryx, accepted by evolutionary biologists as pretty darn good transitional forms, are no such thing. Further questioning usually reveals that the YEC's do not believe such things are transitional forms because, denying evolution, they do not believe such things can possibly have existed in the first place. In other words, there is no evidence of any kind that they would accept as a transition from one "kind" of organism to another. So here's my challenge to the creationists: prove I've just created a straw man, and knock him down for me. Define "transitional form" and tell precisely what you would expect from a transitional form or fossil, if one group really had evolved from another, such as birds evolving from dinosaurs, tetrapods (r-legged land animals) evolving from fish, or mammals evolving from reptiles.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2002, 06:00 PM	#2
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	OK, let's play fill in the blanks. "Archaeopteryx" is supposedly a transitional form. So please state the 5 preceding species and the 5 subsequent species in the transition. Please also state the when and where these transitions took place. Also, there should be some type of estimates for the number of mutations needed between each species. In other words, what are the differences between each step and what genetic mutations could cause those differences. Maybe lay it out like this. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.Archaeopteryx 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Just fill in the blanks, please.

03-06-2002, 06:36 PM	#3
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	MrDarwin, I hope that you are not holding your breath waiting for a genuine response. In fact, you could post this question on just about every discussion board you can find and you won't get a serious answer.

03-06-2002, 06:38 PM	#4
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	My response is genuine. Just fill in the blanks, or at least explain if it is possible, and if not, why.

03-06-2002, 06:39 PM	#5
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	Archaeopteryx: Bird or reptile? Simple question isn't it? If it's not a transitional fossil that should be easy to answer. Yet creationists can't agree! "it was a bird, it had feathers (and obviously other bird features"! "No, it was a reptile, the feathers are fakes! It has reptilian features." [they weren't faked BTW] Based on this we can conclude (correctly) that the fossil has both avian and reptilian features. So why isn't that a transitional form? If you insist that it isn't, what would be? Something with covered half with scales and half feathers perhaps?

03-06-2002, 06:47 PM	#6
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Guys, this is the deal. I am an artist, among other things. Don't want to imply I am supported by art sales because I am not. My paintings look similar for the most part, except some works are totally different, and some aren't even paintings at all, things like sculpture. Some paintings are part of series where they "evolve" into another. But the thing is they don't actually evolve. I paint them, and they look similar based on the time I did them, and the theme involved and such. Now, ya'll say a species is transitional, but you have no hard data to prove that. If you did, you would fill in the blanks like I asked, and I would have to go back to rethinking whether evolutionary theory is true. Hope that answers you. If you don't fill in the blanks (in a screechy English voice), how can you have any pudding?

03-06-2002, 07:12 PM	#9
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	I am not ignoring squat and you don't have to showw all the branched, just a little hard data to back up your claims of transitions here. Think about it for a moment. There is a straight line in the sense that a living individual can pick a straight line in his geneology if he wants to. Just because evolution is said to be a bush does not mean there was theoritically not a specific species, not a bush, that preceded one species and so on and so on. Right? Look, my beef with evolutionists have to do with not admitting the truth. Let's face it. It isn't all that important for anyone to beleive in evolution. It won't save your soul, and it isn't even as crucial as beleiving mundane things like believing eating 10 e-balls and drinking a gallon of whiskey is not good for you, or that being nice to girls is very important for finding a wife, or that eating corn-dogs and chips isn't too healthy. Evolution is about science, and science is about a certain way of thinking. It should about one approach to truth, or at least facts. But one sign of a that type of thinker should be someone who can admit to weaknesses. The proper response from an evolutionists should be we can't fill in the blanks. You are right about that. Now, let me tell you why, and why we beleive what we do. But that never seems to happen, and the fact it doesn't and the history of overstatements and even hoaxes in presenting evolutionary theory has convinced me that it is more a propoganda show than anything.

03-06-2002, 07:15 PM	#10
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	You first, and the southern expression is intentional. It doesn't slip out. I make sure it doesn't fade. Seriously, one of my concerns right now is that my kids, considering where we live (south but not south if you get the meaning), will grow up sounding like Yankees. God forbid, please!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.