Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

  • Thread starter Thread starter NSmith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
o_mlly said:
40.png
rossum:
The scientific definition has remained unchanged: new species …
Click to expand...
Uhh, at last count, the evos have about 26 different definitions of “species”.
Click to expand...
Did you finally come up with a length of time between those two geological ages?
 
rossum said:
To give you a little bit of history. Originally, after Darwin conservative Christianity denied the possibility of evolution. Species were fixed by God and did not change. Hence the Tennessee law against teaching evolution, as in the Scopes Trial.

Eventually the evidence that species changed grew too much to deny, and the conservative Christian position changed. They latched onto the marcoevolution/microevolution difference and allowed that microevolution might happen, but not macroevolution. At that time, the definition was that micro- was within a species and macro- was a new species or higher clade. Hence creationists denied that new species could evolve, equating biological species to Biblical kind.

Since then evidence has been found for the evolution of species, so conservative creationists switched to Biblical kinds, which can now contain more than one species: horses and donkeys for example or dogs and wolves. Some use “kind” in this sense; others use macroevolution to mean evolution between kinds, which is not the scientific definition. The scientific definition has remained unchanged: new species or higher clade.

Macroevolution (scientific definition) has been observed many times. Macroevolution (YEC definition) has never been observed because there is no agreed objective definition for the boundaries between kinds.

The paper I referred to gave three changes, one change altered the camouflage pattern, so the mutant was more suited to a different environment. The other two changes altered the breeding season, which reduced the chance of crossbreeds, which were not well camouflaged in either environment. All three mutations were beneficial, enabling colonisation of a new environment.
Click to expand...
@rossum, thank you for the gift of a “little bit of history”. I appreciate the effort and the history.

So, I asked myself. How many species of dog are there? I found answers at this link: What are the different species of dogs? - Quora

The answer was that there is one species that includes dogs and wolves but hundreds of breeds. If dogs are one species, then wouldn’t finches of the Galapogos Islands be one species and wouldn’t peppered moths be one species? How does one define species anyway? Dogs certainly seem to vary more than these finches or moths.
 
Complexity as a prelude to the diversity of life

For roughly the first half of the history of life on Earth, the only forms of life were the relatively simple cells of bacteria. “Eukaryotic cells are larger, contain more DNA and are made up of compartments, each with their own task,” explains first author Julian Vosseberg. “In that sense, you could compare bacterial cells with a tent, while eukaryotic cells are more like houses with several rooms.”

How and when organisms traded the tent for a house is still a mystery, as there are no intermediate forms. One important moment in evolution was the origin of mitochondria, a component of eukaryotic cells that function as their 'power plants." Mitochondria were once free-living bacteria, but during evolution, they were absorbed by the ancestors of today’s eukaryotic cells. As gene duplication probably drove the increase in cell complexity, the researchers attempted to reconstruct the evolutionary events based on these genetic changes.

 
Last edited:
rossum said:
No it does not. Science is well aware that it does not have complete information, and has methods to adjust when new information is discovered.
Click to expand...
Gould considered the fossil record to be an “embarrassment” to Darwin’s theory - the recent discovery of four vertebrates in the Lower Cambrian makes it even more embarrassing. I would say that evidence that becomes increasingly embarrassing for a theory adds up to a problem for that theory.

However, I must give credit when credit is due - Darwinists are exceedingly adept at sticking their heads in the sand when confrontied with inconvenient facts.
So you have no evidence that Loki-Trickster is not trying to fool us by creating things just to make it look as if they evolved. Or do you have ironclad evidence that it was Hanuman, not Loki-Trickster
Click to expand...
First I would have to provide evidence that those entities existed, before I provided evidence that they created anything.

No hypothesis or theory that attempts to explain the process responsible for the history of life on earth can be put tp the test - therefore all such musings - including Darwinian evolution - lay outside the realm of science.

Rusted-on Darwinists like yourself try to pass it off as science, but it ain’t. The “science” label is pure propaganda, designed to deceive the gullible masses (which includes scientists and other professionals) into swallowing Darwinist folklore as truth.
 
Last edited:
Buzzard3 said:
Gould considered the fossil record to be an “embarrassment” to Darwin’s theory
Click to expand...
I too can quote Gould:
Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether though design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

– S J Gould “Evolution as Fact and Theory” Discover Magazine May 1981.
Click to expand...
Buzzard3 said:
the recent discovery of four vertebrates in the Lower Cambrian makes it even more embarrassing.
Click to expand...
It is an interesting new discovery, no more embarrassing than the discovery of Coelacanths or Wollemi pine. We do not have every fossil and we already know we do not have every fossil. Sometimes we find a fossil from earlier than any fossil previously found. Science adjusts the dates in the textbooks and carries on.
 
Techno2000 said:
Yes, Darwin used that extrapolation to come up with the idea of the Theory of Evolution.
Click to expand...
Such an extrapolation was pure genius! Darwin bred pigeons to test his theory - alas, no success. All he had to do was demonstrate grubs evolving into butterflies …
 
Eric_Hyom said:
However life evolved, it could not happen without God.
Click to expand...
But such a claim is “unscientific” - which just goes to show how limited and divorced from reality science can be.

Before the mad tsunami of atheism ushered in by the so-called Enlightenment, theology was known as “the queen of the sciences”.
 
Last edited:
Science likes to claim it has the facts on its side. Good physical science will stick to the facts of physical science and let philosophy be philosophy and let religion be religion.

However, as in false religion where people invent their own gods and their own doctrines, false science will invent its own “facts” and its own “doctrines”.

Among these is “recaptituation” theory which gained the status of biogenetic law and will still make its way into high school textbooks and other popular presentations of “science”. Haeckel’s embryos have been one of the most effective fictions / fantasies / falsehoods that have promoted the false assumptions of false science. See this widely-used 19th century fictionalized drawing that was faked to make vertebrate embryos look more similar than they are. According to Jonathan Wells in his book, Icons of Evolution (200), Darwin was not an embryologist but considered embryology “by far the strongest class of facts in favor of” his theory.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The theory of recapitulation, also called the biogenetic law or embryological parallelism—often expressed using Ernst Haeckel’s phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”—is a historical hypothesis that the development of the embryo of an animal, from fertilization to gestation or hatching (ontogeny), goes through stages resembling or representing successive adult stages in the evolution of the animal’s remote ancestors (phylogeny).

Since embryos also evolve in different ways, the shortcomings of the theory had been recognized by the early 20th century, and it had been relegated to “biological mythology” by the mid-20th century.

Source: Recapitulation theory - Wikipedia
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Theodosius Dobzhansky is revered by the Darwinist faithful as a saint of science and one of the greatest evolutionary biologist ever in the whole universe … ever. In his famous essay, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, he claimed that human embryos have “gills”, which he no doubt believed was powerful evidence that the evolutionary ancestors of humans were fish.

It turns out that the human '“gills” are nothing more folds of skin … hilarious. Evolutionary “science” provides more entertainment than all the other sciences put together.
 
Last edited:
Buzzard3 said:
Theodosius Dobzhansky …
Click to expand...
Your sources are lying to you again. and you were foolish enough to believe those lying sources without checking what Dobzhansky actually said. Here is what you should have checked:
The presence of gill slits in human embryos and in embryos of other terrestrial vertebrates is another famous example. Of course, at no stage of its development is a human embryo a fish, nor does it ever have functioning gills. But why should it have unmistakable gill slits unless its remote ancestors did respire with the aid of gills? It is the Creator again playing practical jokes?

Source: Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.
Click to expand...
He was talking about gill slits not gills. Gill slits are also known as pharyngeal arches, and are not gills. In fish they develop into the adult’s gills; in tetrapods they do not. Your lying source was relying on its audience’s ignorance of biology to make its point.

As I have told you repeatedly, your sources lie to you. There is no factual support for a young earth, so all YEC science has to rely on is lies and misinformation.
 
stoplooklisten said:
Ernst Haeckel’s phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”
Click to expand...
If Haeckel’s phrase were true, you would think that we would have some photographs or other better evidence than a set of 19th century drawings. This deception has deceived large multitudes. Bring on the facts.
 
fictions / fantasies / falsehoods / fables / fibs/ lies / deceptions…Yes, we should want truth and facts.
 
stoplooklisten said:
If Haeckel’s phrase were true, you would think that we would have some photographs or other better evidence than a set of 19th century drawings. This deception has deceived large multitudes. Bring on the facts.
Click to expand...
Haeckel was wrong. The developing embryo does not recapitulate phylogeny. A quick web search gave me this page, which explains Haeckel’s error, and includes some photographs that cover a similar area to Haeckel’s drawings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top