You closed the discussion on transitional fossils so I will comment here . There are transitional fossils and scientific dating shows these transitional forms to be the age expected,in between the ages of their ancestors and descendants. .It is extremely rare for living things to become fossils so ther are gaps . You and I won't become fossils.Yet the fossil record is consistent with evolution.I read a few of the posts on talkorigins and the posters seem to be PhDs , MDs, scientists . I believe people who don't believe in evolution are free to post there.

There are no transitional fossils because immediate transitions are impossible to prove. There are only fossils containing a mosaic of fossils, but these are not transitional.

This is by the admission of the talk origins website itself:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002A



Dating is notoriously inaccurate and fossils are dated using circular reasoning.

This fallacy has been finally recognized by the growing skeptics of the evolution myth:

http://urlbam.com/ha/K



The "fossil record" is inconsistent with current scientific explanations and has been overturned by strata/layering discoveries.

The old explanations are wrong and are based on vast assumptions, as is most of evolution, which is why it is referred to as a religion:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002C



Possibly, but not surprisingly, the most biased people in the world because they have paid to have disinformation drilled into their skulls for several more years than the rest of us.

This is no different than the fact that most dentists still believe that dental amalgams are harmless.

People are finally realizing that those letters following people's names usually mean that people know a lot about the current state of a profession, but tend to lack in common sense (perhaps due to the increased susceptibility to social pressure):

http://urlbam.com/ha/M001k


"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"

—Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

The above issues have actually been pretty thoroughly discussed here. For anyone who finds Russ' post to be a wee bit biased, I invite you to look for the truth yourselves. Read what's been posted here in the past, search on the internet, borrow or buy some books. You don't even have to take TalkOrigins' word for anything. Just take what they tell you and research it for yourself.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics.

Quote

"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isn’t anyone listening?"

Here's an example of one type of experiment he did. One can google and find out more.


One only has to view the reality of the fossils themselves. An abundance of examples of many different kinds of fossils to look at for those who are interested:

Are the Fishing Lures of Faith still there, or did he get rid of those?

By the way, regarding the brief creationist article about Mendel -- it says nothing about the fact that alleles can change. In fact, one modern definiton of evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles over time.

There is an attempt of late to save the crumbling faith of evolution by redefining it. One of these redefinitions is an attempt to claim that evolution is nothing more than the changing of alleles over time.

If we are clear about what it being spoken about in this redefinition, evolutionists have to deal with the fact that probability is against him. Of course, this has always been a problem; One of many.

In short and simple terms, if we want to deal with the transformation of a cell to a human body, the information that has to be assembled to properly sequence genes is mind boggling. Of course, evolutionists like to break the complexity down into really tiny steps to make it more manageable.

At first glance, this seems (feels) feasible but upon more critical inspection, we see a different story emerge.

In order to keep this simple, one of the (many) problems we come upon is that fact that human bodies have symmetry. We have two eyes. One is a mirror image of the other. How does evolution explain this?

Well, as one evolutionist on this forum attempted to explain, HOX is the answer. But HOX isn't the answer. We're talking about symmetry here, not repetition or specialization. So, what is the answer?

Is it possible through natural processes to form the left eye, then the right, then connect them to the brain through a nerve system, then set up a muscular system for movement and a skull system for support?

Is it possible through natural processes to do the same with each finger, toe, rib, muscle, connective tissue, etc., etc., etc.?

Here is the punch line.

Symmetry is a problem you cannot subdivide.

If you're doing something on the left side, you have to do it on the right as a mirror image. This type of a configuration requires something that cannot occur through natural processes:

Planning.

The fundamental problem still exists with evolution no matter how small you attempt to subdivide the problem. It's about the self-organization of information, which, of course, does not occur through natural processes. Instead, we know that information erodes into its simplest stable form.

So what is the answer?

Intelligence.

As I've stated all along, machines do not self assemble. Despite how widespread a faith is, a faith cannot be confirmed as true by the number of its members. But numbers do indeed make it feel more real, and deception always, at some stage in the process, appeals to emotion.

(How does evolution appeal to emotion? See the quote at the bottom of this post.)

Regardless of how "real" it feels, we cannot disregard these fundamental brick walls that prevent evolution from occurring.

When each of us reach a point that we are mature enough to put our own bias (feelings/emotions) aside, we have to face the fact that order demands intelligence; Human bodies cannot self assemble no matter how much time you give them.

One great irony here is that evolutionists often accuse creationists of doing the very thing they are doing.


Redefining Evolution

Do Amino Acids Self-Assemble Into Proteins?

Drama In the Rocks


"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

But Darwin did not know about genetics, so would it be reasonable for us to expect him to have explained evolution with this in mind? Science has to keep pace with new evidence continually coming to light.

For those who are reading, this is another recycled topic: RAZD started one about the definition of evolution and set out how you could test it: you can read it here.



Yet we see species changing in steps in the fossil record. The horse and the whale have been discussed several times here. We also know that for 3 billion years, the only fossils we find are simple single-celled organisms. It is speculated that the very first organisms were not cells, but the components of cells that reproduce, like RNA. But you are getting into the theory of abiogenesis here. We know that organisms change over time and this knowledge does not predicate that we also must know how it started.

Here's a thought. There is a great deal of evidence for the process of evolution in the natural world. There are a variety of ways by which evolution is known to occur, for example natural selection and genetic drift, and at the core of this is mutations in genes.

That given, intuition tells me that there are still more ways that aren't yet a part of that list. I believe that consciousness is capable of a lot more than most people give it credit for. What if a consciousness has directed evolution as well -- a group (species) consciousness, or maybe even a divine consciousness. A knowledge that certain changes to an organism would benefit that organism, for example if a new habitat has opened up (as indeed it did after the extinction of the dinosaurs). Consciousness (or maybe more correctly subconsciousness or superconsciousness) could guide those changes to happen in a way we could empirically see as evolution. Scientists would not like this idea because it would be difficult to test, but it's my own little idea at the moment.

As for symmetry, it's been done to death here. There are genes responsible for symmetry and some simple changes in those can result in dramatic morphological changes.

If you have something new to say, Russ, and not recycled comments like (in a nutshell) "it's impossible" or "it's against common sense," I'll perk my ears up.

Why do you say " you don't have to take talkorigins word for it"? This implies that the site is some sort of conspiracy to promote evolution when it is an open forum in which anyone is free to debate.
I don't have enough free time to read much of talkorigins but the posters there are among the most intelligent and educated on the internet.In a previous post Russ you admitted that you have only twelve years of formal education . Perhaps you should go to college and study anthropology , physics and the other fields you need to understand in order to critique evolutionary theory.

You are taking a few comments out of context.
If life on Earth has existed for almost four billion years , do you need to have an example of a transitional species for every year , every 100,000 years , every million years or what period of time in order to support the theory of evolution? Scientists are continually filling in the gaps between species.
How old do you think the earth is ?

Transitions, Telling Truth from Lies

This is an old thread about transitionals, though they have been discussed many other times here as well.

I said you can research for yourself what Talk Origins says because (anyone can correct me if I'm wrong) the prevailing ethos here is that TO is nothing but lies. Therefore if evolutionists here want to support something they've said, they're not allowed to refer to TO. But like any good science, you will find the information there replicated in many other places.

I think it's good for anyone to find things out for themselves anyway. If you ask a biased source, I guess you need to ask yourself whether you want to accept that bias. Then again, you may never even know it's biased if you don't do some independent verification of your own.

I have no idea whether the "fishing lure" has been removed or not. I can't imagine considering this of such major focus/importance, but can see why it might be for the evolutionist. There are so many fossils available to look at, yet a case of mistaken identity in amber is THE one that catches the eye of the evolutionist. This was the same one two other evolutionist members brought up on another thread here also. I'm not sure whether it served the desired outcome of shifting focus from the rest - but certainly I found it very revealing.

To me, it seems rather trivial in comparison with the rest of the abundant examples of fossils displayed on that website. And I dare say probably won't do much to overshadow them

I am not sure whether I have kept up as much as others with the modern/new definitions of evolution. I gave one example of an experiment in one article. I'm sure they are plenty more. I did mention that those who wish to find out more about this Father of Genetics, can surely google and search for themselves.

His experiments appear to show that though there is great potential for variation, even selective breeding has not been able to turn one kind into another. There does appear to be limits, even with the great variety within kinds.

This is one of the most famous genetic experiments of all time. Does your common sense tell you that scientists have willfully ignored it for over 100 years? I looked up your quote by Mendel and was not surprised to find that it had been taken out of context. You are welcome to gain further information here. I know very little about plants, but we can observe the changes that have occurred in dogs in the geological blink of an eye. If those changes continued, then logically we would end up with not just a separate species from wolves, but a number of separate species of dogs. I believe RAZD discussed this at one point; we seem to be revisiting a lot of old topics.

Maybe you could define what you mean by "kinds," and where these limits are that you think exist. Are tigers and cats the same "kind"? Are birds and dinosaurs? Could you not just carry on claiming ad infinitum that these are all "variations of a kind"?

It's also interesting to see that you also find cutting and pasting from people's websites indiscriminately to be acceptable science, even when the pictures are of fishing lures and not real organisms, even when mistakes have been made with identifying species, even when the modern organisms are not actually the same as the fossilised ones and the comparisons have simply been made by looking at pictures. No one who did this would be published in a scientific journal; they'd be laughed out of the building. Not because they're a creationist, but because their work in no way approaches rigorous scientific standards.

Some creatures have changed little in millions of years, this is true, but we've discussed it before. They tend to be in environments that also have not changed (such as the deep ocean) and they are very well adapted to those environments, such that any major changes would detract from their "fitness." Creatures whose habitats have changed, or that have been genetically isolated, do tend to show great changes as you look at the fossil record. Also, claiming "these creatures have not changed" doesn't explain why the vast majority have. The horse and the whale, for example, whose fossils show gradual change from one layer to the next in the fossil record.

Funny coincidence here. I was just pondering the prospect of using selective breeding to obtain pigs with sonar (bats and dolphins have it).

I do not see the quote you mention. Perhaps you need to be reminded that falsely accusing people is against current rules here. Your link leads to equivocation over the term 'species', a practice quite common among evolutionist writers. The author employs at least three meanings for the term in the space of one page.

Being subject to equivocation or misinterpretation by disingenuous parties is not the same as being out-of-context. If this were so, everything ever written would be out-of-context. Until you manage to figure out the distinction, I suggest you refrain from making accusations, lest they turn out to be untrue.

I don't racall Bex stating that acceptable science consists of such.

As I recall, a total of 3 alleged mistakes were found in a very large book. Would you apply a double-standard, or shall we pitch all references which contain 3 mistakes?

Darwin's books contain more than three. Talkdeceptions is a complete joke even without such a strict standard. Wiki contains more mistakes than one can count, although it'd be possible if the thing were frozen and a large enough team took on the assignment.

Which of your own posts here would qualify to be published in a scientific journal?

Since Bex's quote was about Mendel's use of the term "species," and as this is a thorough discussion of what was meant by the term as Mendel used it, it's very relevant. I see no one's commented on the fact that Mendel didn't know about genetic mutation, which really makes the issue pointless to pursue anyway.

I think you need to back up your accusation of "equivocation" with some evidence or else I'll accuse you of slander and you'll have to give yourself a warning. As you will also have to do with "bogus posting", i.e. post 48372 above which adds nothing to the discussion at hand.

Mendel employed the term in the quote. The quote itself was not about defining the term.



Neither you, nor your source have demonstrated that this quote is out-of-context.

Indeed, plugging in alternative meanings for 'species' is contrary to the full context of the quote. Who was going about insisting that the transformation merely of varieties took place, turning deaf ear to Mendel and a blind eye to his evidence? Nobody that I know about.

But let me repeat this just one more time: being subject to misinterpretation is not the same thing as being out-of-context. That's the false accusation I was talking about, and it remains utterly false no matter how 'species' is defined.

Did you not bother to read the content before posting the link? That's all the evidence anyone needs. "We say 'species' means this; we say Mendel meant that."

Your link is all the evidence one needs, if they know the meaning of the term 'equivocation'. If they don't, perhaps a dictionary would be required.

Is there evidence to support this accusation?

Quote from Linda:


I never suggested it was. You have been misleading here. Take a look at the website and let's have a look at how many fossils one could remotely mistake for a fishing lure? Let us know how many you find. In my posts, have I presented pictures of fishing lures when presenting examples of fossils or ones that could be? How many readers do you assume will take your word for it rather than view the site itself I wonder?

I see nothing unscientific in giving people a source of an abundant examples of many real life fossils to view ... I prefer giving a link to (or putting them up myself) of this, rather than animation and charts/scenarios. I see no reason not to repeat the link to those who wish to review such a variety fossils themselves and may not wish to search through many past posts to find it. Irrespective of your protests against it, your attempts to discredit and misrepresent the entire site based on a few errors - I will continue to refer to this website as an excellent source to view fossils.

Your response to my posts on this thread (starting with a mere link to giving an example of many varities of fossils) has been highly defensive, evidenced by your attitude and attempt to misrepresent both my position and the website in question. You have coloured an entire website based up a "fishing and lure" mistake or any other few examples of "mistaken identity". Anybody who takes a look at that site can see for themselves that regardless of the few errors, it is a brilliant and abundant example of MANY fossils which you have failed to mention in preference for highlighting whatever mistakes you can discover (or google in search for). Again, very revealing.

Regardless of what you have pointed out here. What the fossils do show, regardless of variation/adaption and some changes, is that they are recognisable to the many creatures we still observe to this day E.g. birds, frogs, goats, horses etc are still birds, frogs, goats and horses. The point here is not to dispute the changes that we observe takes place within existing genetic information, lending the variety we see today, which is recognised by creationists - it is however a challenge to macroevolution. Which has not been observed in our day and age, nor so it seems displayed from the past.

Linda, CTD has given you a warning already. Here is mine. I suggest caution before clicking the submit button should you be tempted to repeat the same behaviour.

OK CTD, I'll repeat what I said earlier. Mendel was not aware of genetic mutation, which addresses the original point that suggested that changes we see in organisms are only due to certain dominant or regressive alleles expressing. This is clearly not the case, so I'll leave it at that.

OK Bex, I think I see what you are saying. CTD is wiping my posts apparently because of my comments about Yahya, which I'm going to have to discuss with him individually. In the meantime, in my previously wiped post here, I said that I would look again at your link and pick out one or two specific examples to discuss, when I have a chunk of time later.

As a side note, if you'd said something to me like, "I'd like to know what you make of some of the specific examples on Yahya's site, which you don't seem to be aware give information as well as pictures. Then tell me what you think" -- I would have done so. If people here would just answer my questions, tell me what they'd like me to address, or simply express their own points of view (and correct me where I'm wrong) rather than telling me that I'm misrepresenting them, I think we'd understand each other better.

In the meantime, you said,



You are saying, yes, that any species that exist today, which have changed significantly, must have done so "within existing genetic information."

Can you explain to me how existing genetic information changed mesonychids to a modern whale, or eohippus to a modern horse?

It's rather funny that if one misdefines 'mutation' as more than one evolutionist would have us do (any genetic difference whatsoever between parent and offspring), Mendel must be credited withdiscovering mutations!

Should we take your words here as an indication that you don't advocate incorrect definitions of 'mutation'? (I'll be nice and remind you that RAZD might not be pleased.)

Before you make comments like this, you might try learning about some basic genetics, and you might also read up on what Mendel discovered in his experiments.

Here is a site explaining what mutations are, and it also mentions Mendel's discoveries. Actually it's got a lot of good, accessible information about genetics and evolution.

The definition you will see of a mutation, repeated thousands of times over is,

A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene.

It is not responsible for traits expressed in offspring due to dominant or recessive alleles, as this involves combinations of genes rather than changes to the genes themselves.

If you find any other definition of mutation, please post it here.

You talk as if you have not seen other definitions with your very own eyes.

Were you not paying attention when RAZD jabbered on and on about it? Oh! I'm supposed to search the threads here for 'mutation', right? Fat chance!

But by recalling other terms that came up in the discussion, it's a less time-consuming search.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=40573#Post40573

And while you're in the neighborhood, you'll have a chance to review your priest's opinion.


I've already posted a definition once, and the post was totally ignored.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44839#Post44839

That's all the time I'm devoting to this pathetic project. Anyone who's participated on any forum where evolutionism is promoted has seen more than one or two definitions of 'mutation'.

Before you make assumptions about what people don't know, you... Well, what silly insults would be left to post?

Nevermind...


So short-sighted...

A mutation is a permanent change in the DNA sequence of a gene.

If changes are permanent, how can evolution be possible. Permanence is antithetical to change.

By this definition, the only mutations that qualify are deletion mutations. Once information is lost, it cannot be recovered... Unless the mutant is bred with a non-mutant, and the offspring inherit the undamaged information, of course.

Your misdefinition actually raises an interesting question: what does it take for information to be permanently lost?

RAZD posted


Note the definitions that apply to genetics (one is a noun, one is a verb). They describe a change in the DNA, which is the scientific definition of a mutation -- as opposed to, say, the inheritance and expression of dominant and recessive alleles, which no scientist would define as mutation. Note there are other definitions here from other fields of resaearch, or colloquial use (I could write a story, for example, in which I used the term metaphorically).

Your task would be to find a scientific article about evolution and show that its use of the word "mutation" meant something other than a change in DNA. If you cannot/will not, then any claims you make about the misuse of the term by evolutionists will be considered time-wasting.

I looked up your link and all I could see was something about "plain English." Maybe you can repeat, right here in this thread, what Mutations According to CTD are, and in the process also explain why geneticists have got it wrong.



It seemed a reasonable assumption to make that you have a limited background in genetics, since you are quibbling about the definition of mutation without providing any evidence, and since you appear to be confusing Mendel's famous experiments with mutation.



I don't follow the logic here. "Permanent" in this case would mean that the organism will retain that mutation during its lifetime. If the organism's offspring survive and the gene changes again at a future time, then that's another mutation.

Hi Bex,

I was going to set aside a chunk of time to look at Yahya's site, but what I'm finding is that over and over, it's simply pictures of fossils compared to pictures of modern species, though there appear to be a few exceptions (I found one to be trilobites, which I will discuss in a moment).

To again address this, the theory of evolution is all about how new species come into existence. Nothing in the ToE says an existing species has to go extinct. An example of a species that shows very little change over a long time just means that small changes in its genetic makeup were not helpful in its environment, and that that environment must have been relatively constant.

Also, other species can branch off during geographic isolation and evolve into many new species in new places while the ancestral species is not changing very much over in its environment. Thus, finding something that has not changed does not prove that it was not part of evolution you don't know about.

Moving on from that, Yahya claims that the "complexity" of the trilobite's eye means it could not have evolved. I decided to look up some information about trilobites. Yahya seems to think they had one type of eye, when in fact the eye types were many and varied. Some even evolved from sighted ancestors to have no eyes at all, as they lived in a deep ocean environment. I found this website, which gives a lot of accessible information, including how the eye evolved.

Interestingly, he does make many claims involving the worlds "existed for millions of years." Do you agree with this as well?

To be honest I found it frustrating trying to navigate Yahya's site, because its 94-or-so pages are in no particular order -- alphabetical order, at least, would have helped. Is there a particular specimen there that you think makes a good point, which you'd like to call my attention to?

I'll tell you what I note:
I note that your challenge has proven every bit as bogus as I cannot doubt everyone already knew it to be.

What's the point of this? You knew, I knew, everyone who's spent any amount of time on this or any similar forum knew that there are several definitions of 'mutation'.

You do not assign tasks to me. Not during waking hours, at least.


The link goes directly to a post which begins

"I was lucky, and chanced to find this."

Perhaps I was too subtle, but this is not a definition of my own writing. Even now it remains ignored.


I have confused nothing. I merely pointed out that adopting the approach I commonly see taken by evolutionists, one would have to say Mendel discovered mutations.

RAZD argued most insistently that the results of recombination need to be included in the definition of 'mutation'. And we know why: recombination produces beneficial results. If anyone should be ignorant enough to buy this definition, there's a chance such a person can be duped into thinking that since beneficial recombination occurs, beneficial mutations do too.

Mendel discovered recombination (one form). You can google "mendelian recombination" and find out for yourself.

Now before you up & get excited, thinking this is an opportunity to claim I didn't understand what RAZD said,

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38467#Post38467



What's more, you cannot claim ignorance.

You contributed your two cents.
http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=41079#Post41079

Now you're welcome to claim you didn't understand what RAZD was saying...

Right... Mutations continue to accumulate throughout one's lifetime. They contribute quite a bit to aging. The definition you offer has too little thought behind it, and your skills are insufficient to cover for the blunder.

Bottom line: none of the new definitions promoted by evopushers are meaningful or honest. I'm not going to repeat the same argument all over again. Anyone interested can follow the link.

And LL's challenge, giving the impression that she has presented the only definition is misleading. Either she has memory/learning issues or she already knew better. Pretty obvious where the smart money is on that one.

Does he seem to think this, or do you wish us to believe he thinks it?

Please don't try to manufacture material for your ad homs out of your own imagination.

The talk origins website is filled with horrible disinformation, and judging from the deceptive writing style, this disinformation is likely intentional.

See an example here.

There have been ideas in the past that are appealing to people, so people latch on to those ideas and become promoters of the idea.

This widespread acceptance of the idea does not mean the idea is true.

So, to answer your question, Perhaps:

(1) The talk origins website is either intentionally deceptive and is designed to promote an idea for the sake of someone's profit (By the way, the quackwatch website is exactly the same type of website as talk origins. In its case, it is designed to debunk alternative health methods for the sake of the pharmaceutical company profits.), or

(2) It is the result of the widespread promotion of an idea that is emotionally appealing.

It's important for adults to come to a point of maturity where they realize that there is evil and deception in the world. It may be uncomfortable to accept, but it's true.

It's also important to realize that an amazing Book, the Bible, tells us that the entire world will be deceived into believing a false world view shortly before the return of the Messiah.

Evolution is the foundation of this deception.


An Confession of Self Deception

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."

—Aldous Huxley, "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley, Darwin's closest friend and promoter, and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century].

I certainly understand the point of your question, but here's the problem.

We don't have fossils that prove transitional forms exist.

You may ask, "Russ, how can you say this?".

I would reply, "I'm simply repeating what scientists have said."

Here, read it for yourself:



This confession from the talk origins website is true.

So, think about it. If we cannot prove direct lineages even if they were found, then why do we assume that they exist. In fact, why do they deceptively call them "transitional fossils" when transitional fossils cannot be proven?

Secondly, think about the phrase in the quote, "even if found".

This is clearly an admission that directly lineages have not been found. If a direct lineage fossil is a transitional form fossil, and a direct lineage fossil had not been found, then why do some arms of science continue to repeat the mantra that transitional fossils have been found?

Why is there this kind of confusion:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M001k

This is clearly a lie; A deception. The only question left is:

Why are they wanting us to believe this lie?

Here is a link to a post that answers this question, at least in part.

At some time in the future, I would like to write a complete explanation of the connection between the promotion of the evolution religion and it's role in the New World Order socialistic government that be being fraudulently thrust upon us. You must also realize that evolution is the self-proclaimed belief system of secular humanism (this is their statement, not mine):

Evolution Solves All Kinds of Problems:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0026



No they are not.

Again, according to the talk origins website, scientists only find fossils containing mosaics of similar features from different times. This is not a finding. It is an assumption based on horribly biased interpretations of fossils containing similar features.

Again, this is not intellectually honest and it is certainly not science.


"It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species… can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another."

—Dr. Gareth J. Nelson, American Museum of Natural History


"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."

—Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

I take it that you are unable or unwilling to provide an example of an evolutionary scientist who refers to a mutation in a way that does not mean changes in DNA. So be it.



We looked in detail at a definition from a dictionary. Is there a scientific meaning of the term that you know of, that is clearly something other than "change in DNA"? You appear to have refused to tell me what your own definition is and simply tell me (not for the first time) that you gave it at some point. I didn't see it in the link you provided. You could provide it right here, right now and there'd be no way I could "ignore" it.



What he actually said, and you quoted, was this:


He was making an argument for recombination being a change in DNA, which is a mutation. I don't know as much about genetics as he does and I don't know what the debates about this are in the scientific world; you may be surprised that scientists don't agree about everything.

The second sentence of your quote is unsupported speculation.



The thing is, this is not going to get you from the four-legged ancestor of the whale, to the whale. What Mendel got when he crossed pea plants was pea plants inheriting dominant or recessive alleles from the parents. If you want to pick bones about nuances in definitions then I suggest you do it with RAZD, whom you can freely speak with on CvE.

By the way, this site lists mutation and Mendelian recombination as separate things.



That's not necessarily the case. Have a read here. The genetics of ageing is more complicated than you seem to realise and we still know little about it.

I find I've forgotten why we are having this conversation in the first place. let's re-focus. What is your point in disputing the definition of mutation?

I'm not, and yes he said this. Go look.

It's your assertion, banbait. Evidence or a retraction would be in order.

Unwilling. There are links available in the thread I already linked to. You ignored/forgot the discussion once already.

And moving goalposts isn't exactly the most impressive way to string out a discussion. Your first challenge has been met.

Sure you could. Don't underestimate yourself so.

What he actually said, and I actually quoted was this:

I don't yet see why you chose to alter the quotation.
You don't know me very well if you think I'd be surprised by such.

For this false accusation against RAZD, you should consider yourself officially warned. The second sentence is supported by the same link(s) which supports the first. A significant number of evolutionists define 'mutation' as RAZD does, and it was not the least bit difficult for him to locate some of them.

It appears removing posts which violate the rules has not slowed you down one bit. In the past, warnings did not slow you down either. You are making a very convincing case that nothing short of banning will deter you in the slightest from violating the rules here.

When I say it, you don't understand. Oh well...

All I said was that if one employs the new bogus definitions, Mendel must be said to have discovered mutations.

You had to get all contrary and try to pretend there's only one definition, and I don't know enough...

Yes, there are plenty of scientists even among evolutionists who do not agree with RAZD.

Do mutations stop? No.

Because you choose to dispute what I say, no matter how commonly known the fact may be.

For my part, this occasionally this leads to funny results. And studying evolutionology in theory just isn't the same as studying it in the field.

Linda, what you've said here has absolutely nothing to do with my response to your attempts at misrepresenting an entire website based upon a few errors. Are you now trying to misrepresent this too? Feigning ignorance in this regard doesn't wash. If it were so, what does that say about your attempts to pull down a site full of many other fossils that you obviously haven't taken the time to view despite the fact they have been regularly presented?!

Not only have I provided pictures and information straight from that website a number of times on this forum in various threads, but given the link attached and encouraged people to view the many others available. You have had repeated opportunities to view the MANY fossils available with a link provided for your convenience. Instead, you googled whatever negative press/mistakes you could possibly find in order to colour the entire website based upon some discovered fossil errors. This is not an honest, nor fair portrayal and does the website an injustice based upon the many and varied fine examples presented.

If the fossils confirmed evolution, the commentary of the website owner would be a contradiction in terms and the fossils would prove him wrong. Instead, the fossils themselves become their own evidence and in and of themselves, remain a threat to the theory of evolution. Why?

The fossils, despite the changes that have supposedly taken place appear to defy such changes we'd expect had such transitions really occured. Even time has not been the remedy here for the evolutionist. Whatever changes we are to believe happened, have still failed to show the transition from one kind to another. If you check the fossils and look up the ones you're interested in viewing e.g. horses, frogs, goats, snakes, crocodiles, whatever it is, you will find they exist then the same animals as they do now.

Mistaken "fish lures" in amber will not change the fact that most of the fossils are easily clear and recognisable. Nice try Linda!



Have we observed any change to be significant enough to cause one kind of animal into another? Can you give me an example of an animal we have observed that this has or is happening to? Speculations on extinct species does not count as evidence, nor the painted scenarios that go with them. Nor is variation within kinds acceptable to use an explanation of the evolution of all life on earth.

We have already had past discussions on the whale and horse evolution a number of times here. You behave as though they were never discussed and you complain about repetition? Much has already been presented regarding this, including real life fossils of horses/ponies etc, which show they were STILL horses and ponies, despite the chart displays that evolutionists provide to the contrary. I encourage people to view the links you have given and compare this with the real life fossils I have provided on this forum and see which of these would be a more acceptable fossil presentation. They can view the link to the fossil website I've provided on this thread and look for themselves. I am not impressed with links to yet more animation, more charts, more scenarios. There were a few reality shots showing moths and birds and guess what....they're still moths and birds. I recall that finches were used as "evidence" for evolution, aptly and amusingly dealt with in this video

How many times must it be pointed out to you that variation/adaption does not mean that one kind of animal has become another. Even the vast periods of time have not made that a reality. Even selective breeding hasn't made this a reality, yet you insist it happened in spite of a lack of evidence.

You have also criticised ones lack of credentials such as Kent Hovind and the fossil museum site owner, yet Charles Darwin was an average theologian not known to be brillaint. Most emphatically he was NOT a trained scientist! Even Kent Hovind has a doctorate in education! And the fossil museum site owner? Doesn't rely on cartoons or charts as evidence, he presents real life fossils displaying incredible stasis despite the vast periods of time they have had to "evolve". The attempts to put down his website, his reputation and character are, I'd imagine is hardly an isolated tactic that we've seen on this forum.

DARWIN UNDER THE MICROSCOPE


WHALES DESIGNED OR EVOLVED?


If you're not interested in viewing the videos? That's up to you. I present them for those that are.

I wrote a previous post about what was said there about trilobites, though CTD for some reason doesn't believe that I'm being honest about what Yahya's site said. It's OK though. These are all beautiful pictures of fossils which clearly prove that these animals have never changed and evolution never happened. One has to forgive the odd mistake, everybody makes mistakes.



Indeed, dogs don't give birth to cats and we don't see evolution happening anywhere today, despite what scientists claim. And all the changes we've ever seen have already been programmed into genes.



Indeed, you have been very patient in reminding me over and over. I don't know what I was thinking.



Yes. Darwin was ignorant and Yahya and Hovind clearly tell us what the real truth is. I was blind, deluded.

I am also the conniving, stupid, time-wasting piece of crap that CTD has always treated me as. I believed everything I was told by evolutionism-ists without question and preached it myself in order to delude others. I have been in error.

Anything else you'd like me to agree with while I'm in Room 101, I will. OK? This is my last post here. Enjoy.

Don't give up Linda . Keep posting because some minds on the forum are not closed .

Indeed. This is why we only see limited changes in these organisms, and these changes are not harmful. They are largely cosmetic and, I believe, were God's expression of variety for our enjoyment and His glorification.

This variety was predetermined; Preprogrammed and has expressed itself over time in the ways it was intended to.

It seems that her sarcasm was lost on you.

You say variety was pre-programmed. Let's suppose it was. How much was it pre-programmed?

Was the pre-programming only enough to have different color housecats?

Was it enough pre-programming to make a "cat kind" able to diversify into tigers, lions and housecats?

Was it enough pre-programming to make a "mammal kind" able to diversify into cats, bears, bats and whales?

Was it enough pre-programming to make "fish kind" diversify into amphibians, mammals, reptiles, and birds?

Was it enough pre-programming to make one organism diversify into all types of plants, animals, fungi, and protozoa?

What are the limits of this pre-programming? What investigations have been done to find those limits?
Does "pre-programming" eliminate the possibility of all life stemming from one ancestor organism?

That seems like the simplest way for God to do it. Make one piece of life and pre-program it to make all the others.
Simple and elegant.

No, I got it. I was just being kind.



The variety was cosmetic. That's all.

No new appendages were formed, nor were they morphed from one kind into another. Remember, a single hand is extremely complex, not to mention the mirror image on the other side of the body, perfectly placed in a symmetrical position.

This type of order does not form from error-based naturalistic processes. These appendages were designed.


"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."

—Arthur N. Field.