Another transitional species found (myths, Christianity, God, Christian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone ever considered this to be a case of involution, not evolution? Or, we can think only one way? (told by others).
Quote:
involution
1.
PHYSIOLOGY
the shrinkage of an organ in old age or when inactive, e.g. of the womb after childbirth.
2.
MATHEMATICS
a function, transformation, or operator that is equal to its inverse, i.e. which gives the identity when applied to itself.
Anyone ever considered this to be a case of involution, not evolution? Or, we can think only one way? (told by others).
Dear god. If you agree with the following, which are all well-substantiated, evolution is by far the most likely scenario:
1. The fossil timeline gives us a reasonably accurate picture of when various organisms existed.
2. The fossil timeline paints a picture of progressive features; successive species share some traits with both their ancestors and future organisms.
3. There are no cases of fossils belonging to "late" organisms that can reliably be dated to early time periods. In other words, there are no human fossils or remains that are 500 million years old.
4. Organisms sometimes exhibit vestigial structures, such as the human coccyx, that serve no purpose but are clear ties to previous organisms.
If you accept those points, evolution is by far the best explanation. Save the "Oh, we're only allowed to think one way?" bit for issues that actually have some prospect of alternative scenarios being correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
What makes you believe that this was evolved from another species?
The claim is not that this fish evolved from other species (which it did, but that's not why this post exists). The claim is that this fish clearly has features that place it as an intermediary between water-bound fish and land-based walking organisms.
cupper3 didn't say it did. It's a fish that has evolved a pelvis and can walk on all fours.
How do you know that, though? It's certainly possible that it was created that way. The presence of a pelvis does not prove evolution. It proves a designer that likes to use a common design.
The claim is not that this fish evolved from other species (which it did, but that's not why this post exists). The claim is that this fish clearly has features that place it as an intermediary between water-bound fish and land-based walking organisms.
By that same standard an El Camino is some kind of strange intermediary species between a Chevy half-ton truck and a Chevelle.
But we all know that cars don't evolve. They're designed. I personally love El Caminos. Someday I hope to have a 67 El Camino all restored. But I don't think it's proof that it evolved from a Chevelle.
By that same standard an El Camino is some kind of strange intermediary species between a Chevy half-ton truck and a Chevelle.
But we all know that cars don't evolve. They're designed. I personally love El Caminos. Someday I hope to have a 67 El Camino all restored. But I don't think it's proof that it evolved from a Chevelle.
We don't have mounting evidence that cars are the product of evolution. We do have mounting evidence that organisms are the product of evolution. Why is there not a single human remain or fossil from the cretaceous period? Of all the dinosaur fossils we have, why are none of them from the devonian period? There are billions of fossils in existence. Why is not a single one of these from a time period earlier than the period in which evolution would place them?
cupper3 didn't say it did. It's a fish that has evolved a pelvis and can walk on all fours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
How do you know that, though? It's certainly possible that it was created that way. The presence of a pelvis does not prove evolution. It proves a designer that likes to use a common design.
You may have noticed that no other fish have a pelvis. So the common design designer doesn't hold up in this case.
But to your question, we know that creatures were not created in the sense that you are meaning because there are fossils that tell us otherwise. There is genetics that tell us otherwise too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
By that same standard an El Camino is some kind of strange intermediary species between a Chevy half-ton truck and a Chevelle.
But we all know that cars don't evolve. They're designed. I personally love El Caminos. Someday I hope to have a 67 El Camino all restored. But I don't think it's proof that it evolved from a Chevelle.
No, it does not mean it evolved from a Chevelle or is some strange kind of intermediary. What it does mean is that a 76 El Camino evolved from a 67 El Camino. You have the fossil record in your hands. Intermediary fossils would be the 68, 69, thought to 76 models.
Let's look at the model T ford. See how it evolved year after year until what we have today. A very different machine bearing no resemblance to its early predecessor. Yet the semblance between a 2015 ford and a 2016 Ford is quite apparent. They even use many of the same parts. In fact, the model T is so different that one has to look at the equivalent of it's DNA record - the Ford company's own records.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,920,960 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
We don't have mounting evidence that cars are the product of evolution. We do have mounting evidence that organisms are the product of evolution. Why is there not a single human remain or fossil from the cretaceous period? Of all the dinosaur fossils we have, why are none of them from the devonian period? There are billions of fossils in existence. Why is not a single one of these from a time period earlier than the period in which evolution would place them?
Nature is amazing, and science helps us understand nature. Another transitional species has been found, and in this case it is not a fossil. It is a real live fish, which has fins and a pelvis to help it walk up waterfalls.
For those of you who may not know it, fish do not have a pelvis normally.
Nature is amazing, and science helps us understand nature. Another transitional species has been found, and in this case it is not a fossil. It is a real live fish, which has fins and a pelvis to help it walk up waterfalls.
For those of you who may not know it, fish do not have a pelvis normally.
...but to a scientifically ignorant fundie, THAT is not a transitional species. To a scientifically ignorant fundi THIS is what they look for as a transitional species....
So here we have a duck transitioning into a crocodile.
They asked for proof before their very eyes and there is the proof! No more arguments please!
I wonder what sort of 'quack' it makes?
Last edited by 303Guy; 03-25-2016 at 01:37 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
