Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[ScottH]

Tim,
Sometimes a “devout lack of religion” becomes a religion unto itself, and can be just as prejudicial as the other extreme.

 

[Orogeny]

ScottH:

Tim,
Sometimes a “devout lack of religion” becomes a religion unto itself, and can be just as prejudicial as the other extreme.

While that may be true, it doesn’t affect the validity of the data. Right?

Peace

Tim

 

[ScottH]

The data in question is, at best, a snapshot. There’s no motion, no context. In reality, you have a dead creature fossilized because of immense pressure related to a cataclysmic event involving sediment and huge amounts of water pressure.

There’s the valid data right there.

The “data” beyond that is supposition, and the assumed context of that “snapshot” is often scrutinized by peer review by other “peers” that are generally of the same mindset and have an agenda.

The products of peer review are often like a house of cards. It builds its own momentum, and NOBODY wants to go back and pull out the card added towards the bottom that might have been faulty- nobody wants to jeapardize the work done since that based itself on the finds of those other peers.

So a “scientific snowball effect” ensues.

 

[ScottH]

Take archaeoptrix, for example…

You have a creature with birdlike and lizardlike traits.

Agreed.

Does that mean that, genetically speaking, the creature was “on its way” to becoming one of the two classes, or was it its own category of creature, now extinct?

Conversely, do we assume that the platypus will eventually have to “make up its mind” genetically about eventually becoming full fledged egg laying “bird”? Or are we to assume that- since it produces milk, it will eventually someday “Genetically Decide” to produce live young and be more in line with full-fledged mammals?

Or… is it its own creature, really not “heading” anywhere genetically, and just “is” the way it “is”?

Such declarations would be speculative at best, and could never be considered “valid data”.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

ScottH:

Yet certain mammals don’t have duckbills either.

Except for one.

Lets say the platypus was extinct before our time, and we found the fossil of it in 2006… could we correctly assume we found the missing link between duck and mammal?

Would the evolutionists not have taken THAT nugget and ran?

I believe that the Platypus is considered to be a marsupial - in that it has fur, is warm blooded like a mammal, but lays eggs and produces ‘milk’ from specialized sweat glands on it’s belly rather than the totally specialized glands from which the ‘mammal’ gets it’s name.
The platypus is considered a transitional species on that basis.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

ScottH:

Take archaeoptrix, for example…

You have a creature with birdlike and lizardlike traits.

Agreed.

Does that mean that, genetically speaking, the creature was “on its way” to becoming one of the two classes, or was it its own category of creature, now extinct?

Conversely, do we assume that the platypus will eventually have to “make up its mind” genetically about eventually becoming full fledged egg laying “bird”? Or are we to assume that- since it produces milk, it will eventually someday “Genetically Decide” to produce live young and be more in line with full-fledged mammals?

Or… is it its own creature, really not “heading” anywhere genetically, and just “is” the way it “is”?

Such declarations would be speculative at best, and could never be considered “valid data”.

Excuse me, Scott, but I don’t think you understand the concept of evolution, based on the above quoted post.
I once had to refute my father-in-law who claimed that evolution was false because he thought that evolution meant that monkeys (or apes) were turning into human beings - during their life-time. Once I explained it to him he had no problem with the idea.
The platypus itself is ‘going nowhere’ but it’s existence as a transitional species is obvious.
The vast amounts of time involved, and the linear direction of their developmental progress in transition from one form to another is undeniable proof of evolution. Based on the fossil evidence, over time, one species will develop small ‘improvements’ in it’s structure that it’s ancestors did not have. Each ‘improvement’ is evidence of evolution.
God continues to manage creation through time from the earliest form to later forms without individually creating from nothing each form.

 

[ScottH]

Joe Gloor:

I believe that the Platypus is considered to be a marsupial - in that it has fur, is warm blooded like a mammal, but lays eggs and produces ‘milk’ from specialized sweat glands on it’s belly rather than the totally specialized glands from which the ‘mammal’ gets it’s name.
The platypus is considered a transitional species on that basis.

But does that mean it necessarily has to change to one or the other down the road? Can we say that for sure, or is that merely an assumption?

Could you imagine if the platypus was not a creature of our time and was already extinct, but found in the fossil record.

Would science not have assumed that the creature was the missing link between marsupial, bird, and mammal… just from its structure?

…and would they have been right?

Supposition leads to huge errors. Evolution is the one area of “science” whereby the scientific method is completely ignored.

 

[ScottH]

Joe Gloor:

Excuse me, Scott, but I don’t think you understand the concept of evolution, based on the above quoted post.
I once had to refute my father-in-law who claimed that evolution was false because he thought that evolution meant that monkeys (or apes) were turning into human beings - during their life-time. Once I explained it to him he had no problem with the idea.
The platypus itself is ‘going nowhere’ but it’s existence as a transitional species is obvious.
The vast amounts of time involved, and the linear direction of their developmental progress in transition from one form to another is undeniable proof of evolution. Based on the fossil evidence, over time, one species will develop small ‘improvements’ in it’s structure that it’s ancestors did not have. Each ‘improvement’ is evidence of evolution.
God continues to manage creation through time from the earliest form to later forms without individually creating from nothing each form.

I’m completely aware that “millions of years” are thrown into the mix, the assumption being that somehow that makes the wild speculation easier to swallow.

And for some, it does make it easier to swallow.

Would you like milk with that?

 

[Orogeny]

ScottH:

The data in question is, at best, a snapshot. There’s no motion, no context. In reality, you have a dead creature fossilized because of immense pressure related to a cataclysmic event involving sediment and huge amounts of water pressure.

There’s the valid data right there.

Yes it is a snapshot, but, like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. If this fossil discovery turns out to be as described, it is very difficult to come to a different conclusion.

The “data” beyond that is supposition, and the assumed context of that “snapshot” is often scrutinized by peer review by other “peers” that are generally of the same mindset and have an agenda.

The products of peer review are often like a house of cards. It builds its own momentum, and NOBODY wants to go back and pull out the card added towards the bottom that might have been faulty- nobody wants to jeapardize the work done since that based itself on the finds of those other peers.

So a “scientific snowball effect” ensues

You can write that off if you like, but if you do, you are demonstrating that you don’t really understand the concept of peer review in science. If you think that peer review is simply a wink and a nod from a good ole evolutionist club, you are wrong. Peer review is a pretty intense thing. Every bit of what you are reporting is scrutinized for errors. Only after all identified errors are reconciled does the article get published.

If you really believe that scientists don’t want to, as you claim, collapse the house of cards, you really don’t know scientists. That is what gets funding and awards.

Peace

Tim

 

[Donald45]

gelsbern:

lol, linking to talk origins as support that evolution is true is like linking to pepsi.com to support pepsi being the best cola.

Exactly right. If one is going to presume to pronounce upon the subject of evolution, one ought to at least be properly educated in primary sources, rather than in secondary, anti-evolution sources. Where there is a clear lack of comprehension (in this case, of the scientific issues involved in the theory of evolution), it seems prudent to go to “the horse’s mouth,” so to speak. Going to AnswersInGenesis for a balanced perspective on evolution is like asking Fidel Castro for an explanation of free market capitalism.

God bless,
Don

 

[ScottH]

Orogeny:

Yes it is a snapshot, but, like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. If this fossil discovery turns out to be as described, it is very difficult to come to a different conclusion.You can write that off if you like, but if you do, you are demonstrating that you don’t really understand the concept of peer review in science. If you think that peer review is simply a wink and a nod from a good ole evolutionist club, you are wrong. Peer review is a pretty intense thing. Every bit of what you are reporting is scrutinized for errors. Only after all identified errors are reconciled does the article get published.

If you really believe that scientists don’t want to, as you claim, collapse the house of cards, you really don’t know scientists. That is what gets funding and awards.

Peace

Tim

And how many, might I ask, scientists who see “specialized creation” in the fossil record are even allowed in this elite “peer-review” club?

So…um… what you have is a group of men and women who all believe the same thing and will agree to generally the same thing… coming to generally the same “conclusions”.

 

[Orogeny]

ScottH:

Take archaeoptrix, for example…

You have a creature with birdlike and lizardlike traits.

You are already mistaken. Archaeopteryx has features that are only found in birds. It also has features that are only found in dinosaurs. Dinosaurs and lizards are different.

Does that mean that, genetically speaking, the creature was “on its way” to becoming one of the two classes, or was it its own category of creature, now extinct?

It means that you have an animal that has the characteristics of two groups - birds and dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is not considered a direct ancestor of modern birds, but it was a part of a group in transition, possessing intermediate features.

Conversely, do we assume that the platypus will eventually have to “make up its mind” genetically about eventually becoming full fledged egg laying “bird”? Or are we to assume that- since it produces milk, it will eventually someday “Genetically Decide” to produce live young and be more in line with full-fledged mammals?

Or… is it its own creature, really not “heading” anywhere genetically, and just “is” the way it “is”?

It won’t evolve if there is not pressure to do so. If there is an advantage to change, it will likely change at some point.

Such declarations would be speculative at best, and could never be considered “valid data”.

No one would claim that the potential change to a platypus is data. The data is the existing examples of Archeopteryx, Acanthostega, Proterogyrinus, Procynosuchus, Cynognathus, Mesohippus, Basilosaurus. And many others.

Peace

Tim

 

[Joe_Gloor]

ScottH:

I’m completely aware that “millions of years” are thrown into the mix, the assumption being that somehow that makes the wild speculation easier to swallow.

And for some, it does make it easier to swallow.

Would you like milk with that?

What then, are your suppositions on the matter?
How did all of these apparently transitional forms become layered into rocks over the course of millions of years?
No milk, please - a martini would be nice…

 

[Orogeny]

ScottH:

And how many, might I ask, scientists who see “specialized creation” in the fossil record are even allowed in this elite “peer-review” club?

Demonstrate that trait and you will get published. Claim that you see “specialized creation” without being able to have someone without faith see the same thing will get you no where.

So…um… what you have is a group of men and women who all believe the same thing and will agree to generally the same thing… coming to generally the same “conclusions”.

That group of men and women require evidence gathered in a proper way, proper documenation and reasonable conclusions based on that properly collected evidence. Any break in the evidence chain and you won’t get published.

You seem to be under the misimpression that all scientists are athiests or agnostic. You would be wrong. Many Christian scientists accept evolution based on the evidence and are part of the peer review process.

Peace

Tim

 

[ScottH]

Orogeny:

You are already mistaken. Archaeopteryx has features that are only found in birds. It also has features that are only found in dinosaurs. Dinosaurs and lizards are different.It means that you have an animal that has the characteristics of two groups - birds and dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is not considered a direct ancestor of modern birds, but it was a part of a group in transition, possessing intermediate features.It won’t evolve if there is not pressure to do so. If there is an advantage to change, it will likely change at some point.No one would claim that the potential change to a platypus is data. The data is the existing examples of Archeopteryx, Acanthostega, Proterogyrinus, Procynosuchus, Cynognathus, Mesohippus, Basilosaurus. And many others.

Peace

Tim

The core question,
Does the similarity in traits characteristics show “transition”…

…or does it show the trademarks of one common designer?

The answer is that neither you nor I know for sure.

 

[Orogeny]

ScottH:

The core question,
Does the similarity in traits characteristics show “transition”…

Yes

…or does it show the trademarks of one common designer?

Yes.

The answer is that neither you nor I know for sure.

Nope. The answer is both.

Peace

Tim

 

[ScottH]

Tim,
But God willing, you and I will someday know the answer.

But we’ll probably be too busy rejoicing about other things at that time.

God Bless,
Scott.

 

[Orogeny]

ScottH:

Tim,
But God willing, you and I will someday know the answer.

But we’ll probably be too busy rejoicing about other things at that time.

God Bless,
Scott.

Agreed!

Peace

Tim

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Scott - do you have time to respond to my questions in post #33?

 

[ScottH]

Joe Gloor:

What then, are your suppositions on the matter?
How did all of these apparently transitional forms become layered into rocks over the course of millions of years?
No milk, please - a martini would be nice…

1. My suppositions are that we don’t know, and that at best- we can guess. I think that both specialized creation and evolution should be two theories presented in the classroom with equal vigor.
2. I don’t see rock strata equating to time- I see them more relevant as sedimentary deposits layed at generally the same time having more to do with specific gravity and sedimentary physics than they do with depth = time. You’ll note that generally no erosion appears between the layers- straight lines accross. If they were “time based” there would be erosion, and it would appear so “straight”. To me its more akin to a viniagrette bottle’s contents layed while wet… or during an unimagineable flood. (The kind of flood that could bury a 25 foot tall Tyrannosaur.)
3. As for the martini, count me in.