|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
 Posted - 06/19/2004 : 00:09:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
NARRATOR: Per Ahlberg may have found a vital piece of evidence in a 360 million year old detective story: the mystery of how our earliest ancestors first crawled out of the water and onto the land.
I read this as I was looking for Mudskippers...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/missinglink_transcript.shtml
quote:
NARRATOR: Of all the tales of life on Earth there is one more fabulous than all the others - the story of how we got our legs. Scientists believe that long ago a fish came onto the land, grew legs and started to walk. It is one of the most crucial events in the history of life because that animal is our ancestor, but how and why that fish grew legs is one of the biggest mysteries in evolution. It baffled the finest minds in science for over a century. All they had to guide them were the theories of Charles Darwin, evolution's founding father. Darwin said the answer would lie out there in the rocks. Somewhere there would be fossils that would explain everything. Palaeontologists would go scurrying all over the world trying to find them, but such early fossils are rare.
I almost spit up my dinner, this put a smile on my chinney chin chin!!! Don't forget this 'super fish' devoloped every single leg you see of every single mamammal on 'earth'. Welcome gentlemen to the frankestien works of Charles Darwin and the master debater (evolution only) Lenny Flankinator as he sits in his shack in Florida!!!! So let me get this straight, 450 million years ago fossills appear, fully intact mind you, in the rocks of the earth. So we have fully 10% of the earths history fossilized according to you. So every entity came from fish, and learned how to produce life on earth completly different from the fish. Elephants, dinosaurs, humans, monkeys, lions and sheep!!! Hmmmm but we cannot observe this happening 450 million years later, because it stops!!! But look apperently it happens very easily, as we look and see the earth teaming with life! Teaming with life, without any super fish? A transpecies accident!!!
quote:
NARRATOR: But the more scientists looked the more they realised one crucial fossil was missing. This would become a challenge to the whole Theory of Evolution and the story of how we got our legs would become the quest for the ultimate missing link. The whole quest began 150 years ago with one simple observation. A vast array of animals are, in fact, related. They all have four legs, they are tetrapods.
yes indeedey!!!
quote:
NARRATOR: Scientists became bewitched by the fact that under the skin all tetrapods are basically the same. They all had spines kept firm by special interlocking spurs. It is as true of us as it was of the dinosaurs. All tetrapods had a pelvis attached to the backbone to support their weight. They all had a ribcage to protect their heart and lungs and they all breathed air through nostrils. Their limbs invariably consisted of one single bone at the top. A pair of bones underneath leading to feet or hands which scientists noted never seemed to have more than five fingers or toes. It was true of dinosaurs, human beings and even whales, for under their flippers they have five fingers. This similarity convinced scientists all tetrapods must come from just one type of creature, a single common ancestor. To prove it they thought they needed just two fossils. They needed the first tetrapod, the very first land walking creature with four legs with five toes and they needed the fish from which it came, a fish that could grow legs. Find these two fossils, compare them and in the differences between them we would learn the reason why a fish had developed legs. They had one huge clue to set them off: they knew this evolution must have happened 400 million years ago, in the Devonian era. The Devonian is so long ago that barely any rock can now be found from it, let alone fossils, but academics knew that before it nothing walked and after it everything did, so the evolution of legs must have happened then and they thought they knew something else. Textbooks said it was a time of blistering heat when almost nothing could live on the land, not even plants.
The Devonian era happened so mysteriously long ago that no rocks or fossils exist from that era....But why did it happen 400 million years ago, stop and never happen again....Sounds like the invisible million dollar question!!!! Don't question it boys, just accept it as fact!!!
quote:
Some could then have evolved on land.
So now we go from one super fish to many super fishes!!!
quote:
NARRATOR: It fell to Jarvik to analyse and describe the new discovery. This meant years of digging the fossilised bones out of the rock and then trying to reconstruct the anatomy of this strange creature. Jarvik was a brilliant anatomist, but he was also painstaking. He started in 1948, but did not finish until 1996. In those 48 years no one else was able to analyse the fossil.
So this one, seemingly half human / monkey jaw bone fossil. Mysteriously disappears into the night!!!
quote:
NARRATOR: But Jarvik did produce two preliminary papers. These did confirm that existing theory. Ichthyostega was an Identikit land walking tetrapod with five fingers and toes. The mystery of how we got our legs was solved. After eusthenopteron the fish had struggled on its fins onto land. It had evolved into ichthyostega, the first tetrapod with legs. It was just as science had predicted. But then the doubts crept in. Only Jarvik had ever analysed the ichthyostega fossil and you just had to take his word for it, but worse, mutterings began that there was a gaping hole in the story. Eusthenopteron could not be the immediate ancestor of ichthyostega. The difference between them was too vast. Ichthyostega was a fully formed tetrapod with a ribcage, pelvis attached to the backbone, a spine with interlocking spurs and limbs with fingers and toes. The fish was still a fish, despite its primitive leg bones. It showed little sign of evolving any of these other tetrapod features. To prove one had become the other they needed more evidence.
Studying something for 50 years that might be fake. Then writing a paper about it, and having the world cozy up to it, c'mon men....
quote:
NARRATOR: For a start somewhere out there should be other species of Devonia |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
| Edited by - verlch on 06/19/2004 00:11:56 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 03:03:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
So what...Fish stop evolving into other species because the magic mother nature clock waved its magic wand? So the truth is after 5 billion years fish lose the capacity to evolve into other creaturs...
What's with you and numbers?
How many times haven't we already told you multicellular life haven't existed for more than 0,8 to 1 billion years. Your cluelessness about evolution is staggering, yet you feel confident you can refute it. I'm smart enough to realise that I should not try debating the maximum stress you can put to a two-by-four wooden beam, because I know I'm not competent enough. I know the mathematics, but I don't know the properties of the wood. But you happily keep trying to bash evolution without realising that your hacking away at an imaginary monster.
The way you keep messing up the numbers makes me believe that you can not be a general contractor. 5 billion years of evolving fish... With your inability to keep the numbers straight, you'd probably build a football stadium a mile long.
quote:
He he, and I'm a lost cause!!!
You are starting to convince me that you are, though I have tried not to believe so for a long time. I've always though that one should have the chance to redeem oneself.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 06/19/2004 04:29:49 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 03:27:10 [Permalink]
|
Not a bad article, for the popular press. But then, the BBC is a high cut above our American blatherskites. Dr. Per Alberg is a colleague and protégée of Dr. Jenny Clack, who in turn is a world respected authority on these Devonian creatures. As is Dr. Alberg.
But, it was not a fish that came ashore. It was a creature similar to Acanthostega or an early form of Ichthyostega, as described by Dr. Clack.
quote:
Enter Acanthostega
Perhaps the most important findings to alter our understanding of tetrapods evolution followed the discovery and analysis of Acanthostega in the late 1980s and early 1990s. A skull roof of this tetrapod was first discovered by Gunar Save-Soederberg and Erik Jarvik in 1933, but the significance of this animal was not realized until after additional material was recovered by Jenny Clack in 1987. Together with Michael Coates, Clack realized that this animal was clearly a tetrapod, but that it was a poor excuse for a land animal. Its legs were ill suited to support its weight and the wrists were absent. Yet, it sported well developed digits (fingers and toes). Surprisingly, the forelimbs possessed eight digits rather than the anticipated five digits, while the hindlimbs possessed seven.
http://www.mdgekko.com/devonian/Order/new-order.html
Think of it as a sort of salamander. Later, terrestrial species still had to return to the water to breed and lay eggs, as amphibians still do today.
A little more:
quote:
The Origin of Tetrapods and Temnospondyls
It has been suggested (Romer, 1957) that the sarcopterygian ancestors of tetrapods had acquired limbs to move from pond to pond in the dry season. At the time, paleontologists thought that tetrapods had appeared in a period in which severe seasonal droughts were common and widespread. This theory was based on an interpretation of the redbeds of Texas as representing a dry, oxidizing environment. However tetrapods appeared in the Devonian, almost 100 my earlier, and there is no evidence that the climate in the Upper Devonian was especially dry. Recent studies suggest that even the redbeds may not have formed in a dry environment. Another problem with this theory is that recent functional studies suggest that the fleshy limbs of sarcopterygians evolved to allow locomotion on the substrate but under water. This is how modern fishes with fins resembling limbs use them. It is also probable that the fins of sarcopterygians would have been too weak to be used to walk. At best, they could have gripped the substrate while the body was undulating and allowed them to crawl slowly. Therefore, the limbs probably did not appear for life on land, but they were a preadaptation for terrestrial life, to a certain extent. This observation is consistent with the apparently aquatic to semi-aquatic way of life of most Devonian and early Mississippian tetrapods. Indeed, fully terrestrial tetrapods are not known before the Late Pennsylvanian, almost100 my after the appearance of tetrapods.
The earliest tetrapods are represented by skeletal remains of two genera in eastern Greenland: Ichthyostega and Acanthostega. Tetrapod trackways have also been reported in the Early Devonian of Australia and the Middle to Late Devonian of Brazil. The third unquestionable Devonian tetrapod represented by skeletal remains is Tulerpeton from Russia
Ichthyostega retains several primitive characters lost in most other tetrapods:
The braincase remained bipartite (there is a ventral division between the ethmoid unit and the otico-occipital unit), as in osteolepiforms. The notochord extended into the braincase to the level of pituitary fossa. The tail retained lepidot |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 04:28:10 [Permalink]
|
Not only do you feel compelled to engage in ad Hominem attacks against Lenny Flank (who isn't even here to defend himself you coward), but now you also show evidence of reading/comprehending disability:
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
NARRATOR: <snip>...The Devonian is so long ago that barely any rock can now be found from it, let alone fossils, <snip>
The Devonian era happened so mysteriously long ago that no rocks or fossils exist from that era....
Bolding-emphasis mine above. You can clearly read that the narrator states that there are Devonian rocks, however, they are rare. From this, Verlch draws the conclusion that it is non-existent. If this kind of comprehension disabilities are common to creationists, then I understand why they are the way they are.
quote:
But why did it happen 400 million years ago, stop and never happen again....
who said it stopped happening?
quote:
quote:
NARRATOR: It fell to Jarvik to analyse and describe the new discovery. This meant years of digging the fossilised bones out of the rock and then trying to reconstruct the anatomy of this strange creature. Jarvik was a brilliant anatomist, but he was also painstaking. He started in 1948, but did not finish until 1996. In those 48 years no one else was able to analyse the fossil.
So this one, seemingly half human / monkey jaw bone fossil. Mysteriously disappears into the night!!!
The subject discussed was fish evolving. Why this need to involve the Piltdown man hoax (that was exposed as a hoax by scientists as soon as it became available for study), do you have MBD, ADHD or DAMP unmedicated?
quote:
Studying something for 50 years that might be fake. Then writing a paper about it, and having the world cozy up to it, c'mon men....
If you dig it up from the rocks it couldn't be fake now could it? I can agree that the scientist's conclusion might be wrong, but the fossil itself would be real if it was dug up.
quote:
quote:
NARRATOR: But transitional forms are also the rarest of beasts. By their very nature they were few in number and lived for just a short intermediate time until a wholly new animal evolved. In fact for years there was only one accepted transitional form - the archaeopteryx which was a dinosaur with feathers that marked the transition to birds.
They lived just long enough to confuse the living demons out of us!!!!
No, they lived just long enough to confuse the living demons out of you. To us, who have at least minimal understanding of evolution, there is no confusion. We understand that transitionals are rare because they are created by huge shifts in the echo-system. Once the system stabilises again, so will the new species that evolved. An ice-age might last 50'000 years. If it happened 400 million years ago, the timespan of that ice-age is extremely short in comparison.
quote:
What fish did trees evolve from!!!
Don't be such an ass. We know you're smarter that this. Aren't you?
Even a first grade kid could figure that out! |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 07:16:08 [Permalink]
|
Verlch said:
quote:
blah blah blah
Total troll.
But his rants lead me to ask about so-called transitional fossils. (This, because the whol biology thing is just way beyond my kin.) Anyhow, I wonder what exactly is a transitional fossil. Every generation is different from its parent, right? So really each fossile is transitional. Or rather, there's no such thing as transitional.
To me, it seems that serious scholarship has fallen prey to a clever Creationist attack wherein they ask for a type of proof that cannot exist. I like the language analogy. It would be remarkably difficult to demonstrate how, say, modern English evolved from its early relatives with only a few examples (language fossils if you will) from the past. Even if I showed a copy of, say, Beowulf and then Chaucer and then Shakespeare and then Dickens and then Updike, my guess is that a person could, if she or he so desired, refuse to admit that English evolved from a Germanic language because none of my examples are transitional enough.
But this is only because we don't have a copy of, say, the London Times from every day starting at AD 500 and going to the present (were such a thing to exist!).
Where's the transition from Old English to Middle English? Can anyone point to a sample text and say "this is a transitional language"? Of course not. The very notion of Old English and Middle English are modern linguistic conventions, right? We make such distinctions because it's easier then to talk about language, but the realisty is that they are artificial.
To strain the anology even more, we could imagine things from the Creationist perspective: is it realistic to posit a world in which we assume that because there are no transitional languages, people just woke up one day in AD 1400 and stopped speaking Chaucer-ian English and started speaking Shakespeare-ian?
Of course not, and yet this is the argument.
No matter that fossil a scientist can produce, will not the Creationist simply say that it's not "transitional" enough? |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 08:55:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No matter that fossil a scientist can produce, will not the Creationist simply say that it's not "transitional" enough?
BINGO!
C'mon up to the table and collect your multi-jackpot prize!
You have neatly put in a single sentence a topic that thousands of words have been squandered upon, including a couple o' grand o' my own.
quote:
"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think."
Forgot who said that.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 10:43:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No, they lived just long enough to confuse the living demons out of you. To us, who have at least minimal understanding of evolution, there is no confusion. We understand that transitionals are rare because they are created by huge shifts in the echo-system. Once the system stabilises again, so will the new species that evolved. An ice-age might last 50'000 years. If it happened 400 million years ago, the timespan of that ice-age is extremely short in comparison.
A minimal understanding of something you cannot observe!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 10:45:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
NARRATOR: It fell to Jarvik to analyse and describe the new discovery. This meant years of digging the fossilised bones out of the rock and then trying to reconstruct the anatomy of this strange creature. Jarvik was a brilliant anatomist, but he was also painstaking. He started in 1948, but did not finish until 1996. In those 48 years no one else was able to analyse the fossil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So this one, seemingly half human / monkey jaw bone fossil. Mysteriously disappears into the night!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject discussed was fish evolving. Why this need to involve the Piltdown man hoax (that was exposed as a hoax by scientists as soon as it became available for study), do you have MBD, ADHD or DAMP unmedicated?
No why can't somebody else see his work he spent 50 years on!!! Why do you have so much faith in this fella that it wasn't a hoax!!! |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Maglev
Skeptic Friend
Canada
65 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 10:55:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
No matter that fossil a scientist can produce, will not the Creationist simply say that it's not "transitional" enough?
Bam! Et voila! Really good post here Cune. In a way, ALL fossils and living beings are transitional.
Verlch, I have a humble suggestion to make; I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins' excellent The Blind Watchmaker, a well written book about evolution. It will really help you better understand our position (and yours). You can buy it used over at Amazon. It will set you back by about 10$.
Think about it Verlch... God gave you a brain, the most amazing organ of all of creation. Use it!! I got mine from evolution mind you, but hey, a brain is a brain. |
Maglev
"The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
--Douglas Adams, on evolutionary biology. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 11:53:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
quote:
No, they lived just long enough to confuse the living demons out of you. To us, who have at least minimal understanding of evolution, there is no confusion. We understand that transitionals are rare because they are created by huge shifts in the echo-system. Once the system stabilises again, so will the new species that evolved. An ice-age might last 50'000 years. If it happened 400 million years ago, the timespan of that ice-age is extremely short in comparison.
A minimal understanding of something you cannot observe!!!
Ah, more hand-waving and blather from he who so clumsily quote-mined a popular press article. Ok...
Here's something from your maligned Lenny Flank:
quote:
ICHTYOSTEGA AS A TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL
by Lenny Flank
(c) 1995
The creationists are fond of stating that there are "no transitionals in the fossil record". One of the best fossil transitionals, however, is that of Icthyostega, which combines the traits of both fishes and amphibians, and represents the transition between aquatic and terrestrial vertebrate life.
Terrestrial vertebrates are a decendent of a class of ancient fishes called "lobe-finned fish", or Crossopterygians. In particular, the freshwater family of Crossopterygians known as the Rhipidistians have a number of unique traits in common with terrestrial vertebrates. The freshwater Rhipidistians appear to have been the direct ancestors of the earliest land vertebrates, while the other Crossopterygians went on to become specialized as deep-sea marine fishes. (Because deep-sea animals are rarely fossilized, there is not a trace of the Crossopterygians in the fossil record after the end of the Cretaceous period, about 65 million years ago. Nevertheless, we know that the Crossopterygians became more and more specialized for a deep-sea life because in 1939 a living Crossopterygian, the ceolacanth Lattimeria, was dredged up from a deep sea trench off the coast of Africa.)
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/icthyo.htm
Ya see V, when I research something I do it in depth. Debunk it if you can.
quote:
THE THERAPSID--MAMMAL TRANSITIONAL SERIES
by Lenny Flank
(c) 1995
Although Archaeopteryx is by far the best-known of the transitional fossils, it is not the only one, or even the best. The fossil transition from reptile to mammal is one of the most extensive and well-studied of all the transitions, and detailed series of fossils demonstrate how this transition was accomplished. It is not, therefore, surprising that the creationists do not talk much about the reptile-mammal series, and when they do, most of what they say is demonstrably untrue.
The mammals are believed to have evolved from a class of Permian and Triassic reptiles known as therapsids. Taxonomically, mammals are distinguished by a number of features, the most obvious of which are hair (even such aquatic mammals as whales and dolphins still retain bristly hairs in their skin), and the presence of mammary glands which secrete milk, used to nourish the young. Neither of these structures is preserved in the fossil record, but fortunately, mammals can also be distinguished by a number of skeletal characteristics (particularly in the skull and teeth). In particular, mammals are |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 13:05:15 [Permalink]
|
No I have to be nice....Or I get the whole Troll routine...
I find it very effective that the possibility of fossils of transitional animals doesn't happen because it simply can't.
There are pleanty of other animals that need transitions....try all the species on earth. From birds to insects to zebras and elephants. There are plenty of fish fossilised also, they should be showing examples of transforming....Lenny Flankinator and all, that guy makes me cringe..... |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 13:38:29 [Permalink]
|
z quote:
Originally posted by verlch
No I have to be nice....Or I get the whole Troll routine...
I find it very effective that the possibility of fossils of transitional animals doesn't happen because it simply can't.
There are pleanty of other animals that need transitions....try all the species on earth. From birds to insects to zebras and elephants. There are plenty of fish fossilised also, they should be showing examples of transforming....Lenny Flankinator and all, that guy makes me cringe.....
More unsupported statements. My point is made. Again. :rolleyes:
Why does Flank make you cringe? He seems perfectly harmless, merely doing and publishing research. Me, I'd like to crack a couple of brews with him and talk transitional fossils, and like that.
Apologies for the 'Chicken' crack. My only excuse is that sometimes you piss me off.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 13:51:27 [Permalink]
|
Verlch said:
quote:
I find it very effective that the possibility of fossils of transitional animals doesn't happen because it simply can't.
Huh?
Verlch went on to say:
quote:
There are pleanty of other animals that need transitions....try all the species on earth. From birds to insects to zebras and elephants. There are plenty of fish fossilised also, they should be showing examples of transforming....
You missed the point. And even though I'm 99.9% sure that you aren't going to get it even after I explain a second time, I'm going to do so.
If I understand you, the question you're asking is "where are transitional fossils?"
But I'm wondering if that's the right question. Say that you have, in one case, a homo habilis and, in the other case, a homo sapien. What is a transitional fossil going to look like?
(I should state now-- I have no real training in any of this, so if I get something wrong, someone should correct me!)
If the h. habilis had a brain size of ca. 650 cc (that's cubis centimeters to you and me), and modern humans have brain size of ca. 1350 cc, then a transitional form should have something in between, right? But if I were to then introduce some h. erecus fossils in to show an example of transition, how would you react? Would you say that it is a transitional fossil? Or would do dismiss it as simply a h. erectus fossil and ask for a transition?
I could use the same example for a thousand different things. Type "horse evolution" into Google and look at the Talk Origins link it gives you. There are lots of transitions!!
But here's my guess. You aren't going to even bother looking at the Talk Origins site I suggested. Instead, you'll throw out some new looney question, or whine about something, and then change the topic again. And that, sir, would make you a troll. So which is it? Troll, or no troll. Prove me wrong. |
| Edited by - Cuneiformist on 06/19/2004 15:02:01 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 06/19/2004 : 14:28:55 [Permalink]
|
verlch asks for evidence of transitional fossils...
filthy provides several examples....
verlch claims that transitional fossils can't happen?
quote:
I find it very effective that the possibility of fossils of transitional animals doesn't happen because it simply can't.
I percieve no point entertaining verlch's huge list of gratuitous assertions at this point.
I doubt he even reads any of the info provided for him. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
