Fossil Fish Sheds Light on Transition

[Donald45]

AquinaSavio:

It wasn’t a personal attack on Tim or evolutionists. Sorry, but many evolutionists, Christian or not, tend to be arrogant and condescending. (If you want proof, I have it) That is not needed in intelligent conversations.

When a person presumes to pronounce upon a particular subject (in this case, evolution), and then proceeds to distort and misrepresent the very issue under discussion, it is neither arrogant nor condescending to point out a clear need for further, and more accurate, information. “Arrogance” and “condescension” are subjective motivations that refer to one’s inner attitude or disposition. This is simply something you ought not claim to discern, and to attack someone’s inner motives, disposition or character is a logical fallacy known as ad hominum argumentation. It is this which should be left out of intelligent conversation.

Truly,
Don

 

[mike182d]

So, where’s the link between the Tiktaalik and the amphibians preceeding it or are we to assume that it just grew an arm during its lifetime?

 

[Donald45]

mike182d:

So, where’s the link between the Tiktaalik and the amphibians preceeding it or are we to assume that it just grew an arm during its lifetime?

Is this question addressed to me? If so, see my Post #11 above.

Don

 

[Digger71]

mike182d:

So, where’s the link between the Tiktaalik and the amphibians preceeding it or are we to assume that it just grew an arm during its lifetime?

Every time an transitional fossil is found it creates two more gaps…what preceded it and what came after.

 

[Orogeny]

mike182d:

So, where’s the link between the Tiktaalik and the amphibians preceeding it or are we to assume that it just grew an arm during its lifetime?

Which amphibians are you referring to? My research doesn’t find any amphibians prior to 375 million years ago.

Peace

Tim

 

[2shelbys]

Orogeny:

So, since you are so much smarter than me, I’ll ask again and know that you won’t have any problem with humoring me. Please name one scientific theory that has been proven. Just one. For someone with your amazing intellect, that should be child’s play.

Peace

Tim

You must be getting upset. I am not the one who has ever claimed or acted as though I am any “smarter” than anyone else, that would be you.

 

[Orogeny]

2shelbys:

You must be getting upset. I am not the one who has ever claimed or acted as though I am any “smarter” than anyone else, that would be you.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not getting upset. I’m used to it. I was just replying to your post where you said:

We were not speaking merely of “theories”, we were speaking of science in general, and if you actually think that science has proven nothing your arrogance and conviction as to how much better educated than everyone else you are (so common among evolutionists) is very unjustified.

(emphasis added by me)
If my supposed conviction as to how much better educated I am than everyone else is unjustified, you must mean that you are better educated than me. I just assumed that you meant what you wrote.

By the way, since you made the claim, could you please provide a link to one of my posts where I claim that I am smarter than anyone else? As far as “acted like” goes, that is your impression and not one I intended. But I would like that link. Thanks.

Peace

Tim

 

[TheRaiders]

Digger71:

Well, there’s an interesting bit of history to the aerchiopterix, when first discovered Fred Hoyle insisted that it was so much like a theropod that the feathers had to be forgeries. Of course it wasnt. So because feathers were considered exclusive to birds it automatically was placed in the avian family. However, calling it an bird in no way makes the boney tail, snout, unfused spine disappear. The 17 reptilian features are still there.

When creationists get in to a flap saying ‘it’s a bird, a BIRD’ they need to explain those 17 features away. They never manage this, instead they gloss over these features.

Feathers and feather-like structures are now known to have been on many dinosaurs which were clearly not birds.

Some examples:
Dilong paradoxus
Cryptovolans pauli
Protarchaeopteryx robusta (this one is interesting because it has the same fine fibres as found on Sinosauropteryx prima over much of it’s body and quilled feathers on it’s arms and tail, supporting Sinosauropteryx primainclusion in the feathered dinosaurs)

Anyway. I’m digressing.

I agree they thought it was a hoax, but it was not. Those feathers were so well formed and modern that it was the only thing that made any sense unless you look at it as a bird.
As far as those species you mentioned, one of them, the Protarchaeopteryx robusta is actually up to 30 million years YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx. If they are even closer to dinosaurs (according to you) than Archaeopteryx, it seems as if evolution is going from birds to dinosaurs, not the other way around. Also, there is fossil footprints dating 225 million years of birds.
All these claims that birds evolved from the Maniraptora are wishfull thinking and just flat out bad science. If I were a evolutionist, I would think that it would take many millions of years for mutations to garner the aviation history of Archaeopteryx. But the closest evidence to Archaeopteryx having ancestors in the dinosaur realm are all much younger than it, not much older.
Sinosauropteryx prima appears to have those same fibres, true, but there isn’t any way to know that they are at all related to feathers. Wishfull thinking in the past has lead people astray. Remember Mononykus? It was said to be a flightless bird, though no feathers had been found and it was drawn with feathers. It was a fraudulent claim and widely reported by the media, much like this article that started this thread. We shouldn’t support bad science, because then there will be good scientists not getting funding because they don’t make any extraordinary claims. We don’t want it to be a race to see who can make the most extraordinary claims prematurely.
Caudipteryx, a fossil found near Protarchaeopteryx robusta, had gizzard stones, and was likely just an ancient bird similar to an ostrich. But that kind of claim is not what gets funding my friends. It is funny that you use fringe examples from your side in order to pretend like you are part of the establishment and I am some uneducated pup. Even Archaeopteryx is considered a fringe example to use when describing bird evolution, let alone its supposed “ancestors”. I have much more to write, but I am only one man and it seems the whole team of darwinists have descended on me like dinosaurs jumping out of trees with elongated scales that will eventually turn into feathers. Their grasping teeth, much different than dinosaur teeth will soon be chewing me up, and then their gizzards will be digesting me. I have to go for now.
Keep up the dialogue.
Patrick

 

[2shelbys]

Orogeny:

Sorry to disappoint you, but I’m not getting upset. I’m used to it. I was just replying to your post where you said:
(emphasis added by me)
If my supposed conviction as to how much better educated I am than everyone else is unjustified, you must mean that you are better educated than me. I just assumed that you meant what you wrote.

Peace

Tim

Tim,
This is really getting childish. Implying that you are not as superior as you seem to think when you continue to suggest that others need to learn more does not make you inferior and nothing in my post in any way says that.

 

[2shelbys]

Donald45:

Just a brief reply, and I’ll leave you to your beliefs. You offer physical processes such as photosynthesis as examples of things that science has proven with certainty. Yet, is it not at least possible that new evidence could potentially come to light which would modify, or even perhaps overthrow, the picture of photosynthesis as we currently understand it?

In the abstract, I guess anything is possible. But we know for certain how these processes work.

If you read my previous posts, you’ll see as well that I in no way propose that evolution has been proven in this fashion. I also maintain that some scientific principles carry more confidence within science than do others, and that evolution ranks very near the top of the list. In this sense only (with respect to its evidential and empirical support) do I suggest that evolution has been scientifically demonstrated. It is as close to an absolute scientific “fact” as you are likely to find in science.

This is where we disagree. Many (most) scientific issues are far more certain.

Finally, your claim that evolution is merely “a guess based on incomplete information” suggests that you have mastered the relevant primary scientific material on this topic.

It suggests no such thing. It means I have looked at the available evidence (most of which has been suggested by evolution believers like you and orogeny) and find it far to gappy, uncertain, and unconvincing. One day that may change.

 

[2shelbys]

Orogeny:

I don’t care about his attack on me. I’m used to it. I always figure that once that happens, it is a signal that the person writing the insults can’t respond intelligently. Everyone has their faults!

You claim that many “evolutionists” (which, by the way, I am a geologist, not an "evolutionist) are arrogant and condescending. Yet here is a good example of just the opposite. Additionally, it seems to never fail that within a thread on this topic I will have my faith questioned at least once. I have never, not even once, questioned someone’s faith, based on their disbelief in science. Yet, there are those on these forums that feel that if I accept the science behind evolution, I cannot be a true Catholic. And it aint the “evolutionists” that do that.

I always love the fall-back argument that someone is flaunting their education. When someone continues to make the same basic errors over and over and over, it is real hard not to come across as condescending.

Peace

Tim

I do not see where anyone has insulted you or questioned your faith here. That last sentence " When someone continues to make the same basic errors over and over and over…" is exactly how we feel about those of you who keep pointing us the the same gappy, incomplete, unconvincing sources as evidence of the validity of evolution. You can amass as much uncertainty as you desire but it does not become any more convincing.

 

[Digger71]

TheRaiders:

I agree they thought it was a hoax, but it was not. Those feathers were so well formed and modern that it was the only thing that made any sense unless you look at it as a bird.

Well you are clearly mistaken. The archiopterix is perfectly explicable within evolutionary theory. It has a mosaic of features that link birds to theropods.

As far as those species you mentioned, one of them, the Protarchaeopteryx robusta is actually up to 30 million years YOUNGER than Archaeopteryx. If they are even closer to dinosaurs (according to you) than Archaeopteryx, it seems as if evolution is going from birds to dinosaurs, not the other way around. Also, there is fossil footprints dating 225 million years of birds.

The emergence of a daughter spcies does not mean the original species has died out. Protestantism comes from Roman Catholicism, but protestants did not replace us. Once diversification has occured both species may co-exist if they occupy different niches.

You seem to be thinking in purely linear terms. No one claims the Protarchaeopteryx is the fore runner of the archaeopteryx, or that the archaeopteryx is the direct ancestor of modern birds. They simply and undeniably present us with a mosaic of features that link theropds to birds.

My aunt is not my direct ancestor, but looking at us we have a very strong resemblance (poor lady, I am fully bearded) and if you look at our DNA we share many markers. These are the sorts of relationships revealed.

All these claims that birds evolved from the Maniraptora are wishfull thinking and just flat out bad science.

But this is not the claim made. The claim, when not dealing with pop science and its required simplifications, is about the distribution of features. The mosaics.

Normally you will get claims like “aves evolved from a theropod-like dinosaurian ancestor”, and this is supported by a lot of evidence.

I have debated extensively with creationists before and as a rule they want an unbroken direct chain or gradual modifications of one form to another.

Sinosauropteryx prima appears to have those same fibres, true, but there isn’t any way to know that they are at all related to feathers. Wishfull thinking in the past has lead people astray.

I gave a second example and made special not that it had fully formed non-flying feathers and fibres exactly resembling Sino. Far from being ‘wishful’ thinking we have an example of the fibre-feather mix we can hope to draw conclusions from.

Caudipteryx, a fossil found near Protarchaeopteryx robusta, had gizzard stones, and was likely just an ancient bird similar to an ostrich. But that kind of claim is not what gets funding my friends.

Feduccia et al, argue that birds evolved from Archosaurs and branched off before true dinosaurian evolution. The argument is a minority view, but what is not argued is that they did not evolve.

I alos not the creeping in of the conspiracy theory version of evolution.

It is funny that you use fringe examples from your side in order to pretend like you are part of the establishment and I am some uneducated pup.

I see you have noticed that you need a meta-level argument.

Once again, what ever my motive for providing evidence, it does not make the evidence go away…just like the Archaeopteryx snout and bony tail. They remain despite your flapping.

Even Archaeopteryx is considered a fringe example to use when describing bird evolution, let alone its supposed “ancestors”.

It is a magnificent example of a mosaic of features. Your bluster does not make them vanish either.

 

[AquinaSavio]

Donald45:

When a person presumes to pronounce upon a particular subject (in this case, evolution), and then proceeds to distort and misrepresent the very issue under discussion, it is neither arrogant nor condescending to point out a clear need for further, and more accurate, information. “Arrogance” and “condescension” are subjective motivations that refer to one’s inner attitude or disposition. This is simply something you ought not claim to discern, and to attack someone’s inner motives, disposition or character is a logical fallacy known as ad hominum argumentation. It is this which should be left out of intelligent conversation.

Don, you are just trying to find a problem with everything. I still have proof of Tim’s degrading comments as well as other evolutionists’. He is a smart guy and I don’t think anyone needs to argue that way.

 

[Donald45]

2shelbys:

In the abstract, I guess anything is possible. But we know for certain how these processes work… Many (most) scientific issues are far more certain.

You’ve contradicted yourself. If, as you admit, “anything is possible,” it follows that we don’t “know for* certain* how these processes work.” And this is precisely the point being made.

It may be the case that “many scientific issues are far more certain [than evolution]” to you (subjectively speaking), but to the vast majority of professional scientists working in these areas (experts who are intimately familiar with the particulars, and many of whom are committed Christians), organic evolution carries an extremely high level of scientific confidence, as much as (or more than) that of most other aspects of the scientific enterprise.

Don

 

[rossum]

ScottH (post #35):

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.

This is an interesting point. Where something suits its function, for example an eye, how can we tell if it was designed or evolved? Both design and evolution predict that eyes will function correctly as eyes.

We can resolve the question by looking at things that do not function correctly. Here evolution and design predict different things. Evolution allows the existence of non-working parts providing they are non-essential. Non working parts are much more difficult to explain from a design point of view. If they are non-essential then why are they there in the first place? If you are going to have them anyway then why don’t they work?

Almost every animal can make its own vitamin C. Two exceptions are primates (including us) and Guinea Pigs. Humans like other primates can get scurvy if they do not eat enough vitamin C. Since the normal primate diet contains plenty of fresh food this is not usually a problem. The broken vitamin C production system is an example of a non-working non-essential system.

When we started sequencing genes, we found that the DNA errors that broke the vitamin C system are shared between all the primates. Our DNA has what was once a functioning gene but it does not work because of errors. This pseudo-gene matches a functioning gene in non-primates that can still make vitamin C. Identical errors are present in all primates, including humans. Guinea Pigs have a different set of errors. For evolution the obvious explanation is that as primates evolved from their common ancestor the same error was passed on to all descendants, including ourselves. There was one initial error which was passed on. Guinea Pigs have a different error because they are descended from a different ancestor which had a different initial error.

Design finds it difficult to explain this. Having made an error, why did the designer copy the exact same error into all other primates, but use a different error in Guinea Pigs? Is that intelligent design?

In this case the evidence can distinguish between the actions of an intelligent designer and those of evolution.

For more details and other examples see Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics.

rossum

 

[Donald45]

AquinaSavio:

Don, you are just trying to find a problem with everything. I still have proof of Tim’s degrading comments as well as other evolutionists’. He is a smart guy and I don’t think anyone needs to argue that way.

“Don, you are just trying to find a problem with everything.” Translation: “Don, don’t cloud the issue with facts.”

Let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that “evolutionists” are rude. The fact remains that this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth or falsity of their scientific statements. The fact that Richard Dawkins is sometimes combative and insulting has absolutely no bearing on the status of his scientific conclusions. One simply needs to ignore his atheism while acknowledging his scientific work. The complaint that “evolutionists are mean” is often simply a red herring designed to avoid or ignore the manifest empirical evidence for organic evolution.

Truly,
Don

 

[Orogeny]

2shelbys:

Tim,
This is really getting childish. Implying that you are not as superior as you seem to think when you continue to suggest that others need to learn more does not make you inferior and nothing in my post in any way says that.

You keep making the assumption that I think I am superior to others. I will ask you again since you seem to have overlooked the request - please post a link to one of my replies on any thread where I claimed to be smarter than anyone else. Or superior to anyone else.

Would you have the same attitude if we were speaking about math? If someone kept claiming that 2+2=5 but I continued to suggest that that person needs to learn more, would you suggest that I am claiming to be superior to that person? Even if that same person kept making the same claim again and again and again?

Nothing in your post says that? You can read things into my posts but I can’t read things into your post? And I have an attitude of superiority?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

2shelbys:

I do not see where anyone has insulted you or questioned your faith here.

Your’e right. No insults, just arrogant and condescending (on multiple posts, I might add!).

Peace

Tim

 

[Joe_Gloor]

rossum:

This is an interesting point. Where something suits its function, for example an eye, how can we tell if it was designed or evolved? Both design and evolution predict that eyes will function correctly as eyes.

We can resolve the question by looking at things that do not function correctly. Here evolution and design predict different things. Evolution allows the existence of non-working parts providing they are non-essential. Non working parts are much more difficult to explain from a design point of view. If they are non-essential then why are they there in the first place? If you are going to have them anyway then why don’t they work?

Almost every animal can make its own vitamin C. Two exceptions are primates (including us) and Guinea Pigs. Humans like other primates can get scurvy if they do not eat enough vitamin C. Since the normal primate diet contains plenty of fresh food this is not usually a problem. The broken vitamin C production system is an example of a non-working non-essential system.

When we started sequencing genes, we found that the DNA errors that broke the vitamin C system are shared between all the primates. Our DNA has what was once a functioning gene but it does not work because of errors. This pseudo-gene matches a functioning gene in non-primates that can still make vitamin C. Identical errors are present in all primates, including humans. Guinea Pigs have a different set of errors. For evolution the obvious explanation is that as primates evolved from their common ancestor the same error was passed on to all descendants, including ourselves. There was one initial error which was passed on. Guinea Pigs have a different error because they are descended from a different ancestor which had a different initial error.

Design finds it difficult to explain this. Having made an error, why did the designer copy the exact same error into all other primates, but use a different error in Guinea Pigs? Is that intelligent design?

In this case the evidence can distinguish between the actions of an intelligent designer and those of evolution.

For more details and other examples see Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics.

rossum

This is certainly an excellent point.
The article was way over my head for the most part, but I could grasp the basis of the argument and found it extremely convincing.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

rossum:

Design finds it difficult to explain this. Having made an error, why did the designer copy the exact same error into all other primates, but use a different error in Guinea Pigs? Is that intelligent design?

In this case the evidence can distinguish between the actions of an intelligent designer and those of evolution.

For more details and other examples see Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics.

rossum

Hi

I am not a scientist, so a lot of the specifics were beyond me. However, it seems that the general flow of the question/argument there is reaching back to the ‘fundamentalist Christian’ demand for clear, unambiguous, transitional species. No (apparently) useless appendages, conflicting (observation-wise) characteristics otherwise there could be no ‘intelligent’ design involved.

I do not see these things as an impediment to Creation/design because The ‘designer’ (Who I refer to as God) could have (It seems did) simply create the ingredients for what is observable in the universe today, as well as what is left to us for observation from the past - and define the outcome of said ingredients, leaving how that happened up to natural processes with an (apparently) given set of laws within the framework of the balance of creation.

Thoughts?

Peace

John