Topic: Creation or Evolution - articles and discussion

[bumblebee]

Tapos na ba tayo sa fossils?
 

Not yet. How do you define transitional fossils? Say, from reptile to bird, what characteristics are you looking for before you can call it transitional?

Sorry, pero sa inyo Lang mukhang mintis.

[docelmo]

Not yet. How do you define transitional fossils? Say, from reptile to bird, what characteristics are you looking for before you can call it transitional?

Sorry, pero sa inyo Lang mukhang mintis.

Since this is a phrase coined by evoluionists, then the definition should come from those who believe in evolution. Then give us examples of these animals and explain why these (if there are any)animals are transitional form....

[bumblebee]

I already pointed to a definition but you guys seem to have a different definition which you use to invalidate our findings.

[docelmo]

I already pointed to a definition but you guys seem to have a different definition which you use to invalidate our findings.

sir, para di na ako mag read back, kindly repost your definition and also your example of these animals...thanks.

[dpogs]

by their definition...

mudskipper (fish) is considered transitional form

[bumblebee]

sir, para di na ako mag read back, kindly repost your definition and also your example of these animals...thanks.

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

[barrister]

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

 
"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1]"

Your above definition came from Wikipedia (as acknowledged by you in your prior post), and the Wikipedia footnote states that the definition came from Herron, et al. 
 
The definition is composed of two parts:
 
1.  The existence of an ancestral group and a derived descendant group; and
2.  Traits common to both groups.
 
In order that the definition can be properly applied, the existence of part 1 is a prerequisite.  Part 1 must first be established before we can proceed to part 2 --- the identification of common traits between the two groups.
 
However, in the application of the definition, they immediately presume the existence of the two groups without proper basis.  Then they point to the common traits as "transitional," and conclude that this is evidence for evolution.
 
Using that flawed logic, whether they find similarities or differences, they will always call it proof of evolution.
 
Pag may similarities?  --- Common ancestry daw kasi.
Pag may differences?  --- Transitional daw kasi.
 
 
In reality, their conclusion is pure speculation. 
 
If you find similarities, just say you found similarities and stop there.  If you find differences, just say you found differences and stop there.
 
Anything more would be baseless conjecture.

[bumblebee]

^So what happens to the rest of the paragraph?

I think it's fair for you to say it's speculation. A lot of things in science started as speculations until new technologies or discoveries helped prove them. Baseless conjecture? That's your opinion.

[docelmo]

A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

Atty, has already dissected the definition very well. Allow me to just add some comments. The definition makes an assumption that animals did evolved from one animal to another. Thus you are using transition(evolution) to prove evolution!

The last two sentences makes an ambigious encompasing statement which at least admits the lack of fossil records that if new discoveries to the contrary( and there are a lot) are made, then the hypothesis will be modified anew!


On whale transitional specie......just speculation!

"The most important transitional fossil in the whale evolutionary sequence is Rodhocetus. It is what we should expect from a genuine transitional fossil — it had a fluked tail (as we see in today’s whales) and flipper-like ‘arms’. But there’s just one slight problem. It’s based on speculation! Dr Phillip Gingerich admitted the tail and the limbs of Rodhocetus are based on imagination. He said:"

“I speculated that it might have had a fluke... I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail. ... Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale.”[4]

[barrister]

^So what happens to the rest of the paragraph?

The first sentence is the definition. The rest of the paragraph is not.

The definition is a quotation form the book of Herron, et al. The rest of the paragraph expounds on the definition, but is not itself a definition. There is no footnote for the rest of the paragraph because that was the opinion of an unknown Wikipedia uploader rather than a cited scientist (Wikipedia is freely editable by the general public).

You want me to discuss the rest of the paragraph?  Puwede rin ako doon:



...This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group.

Again, we see that the existence of an "ancestral group" is presumed without proper basis.



...These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation.

Here, he says that the variation between life forms is a "continuum" --- that life forms gradually evolved, from one form to another, continuously. Thus, the truth of the process of evolution is presumed without proper basis.



...Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence.

This part admits that until the fossil record is complete, it is not yet possible to know exactly how close the life form is to the ancestor.

But note that the author is sure that common ancestry exists; he's only saying that he is not sure how close the fossil is to the ancestor. Therefore, the existence of common ancestry is again presumed without proper basis.



...Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

He admits he's not sure of what? --- He's not sure of direct ancestry only, not of ancestry per se.

How about common ancestry? He's sure of that.

Therefore it is clear that once again, common ancestry is presumed without proper basis.

Baseless conjecture? That's your opinion.

Go ahead and keep telling yourself that.   
 

[barrister]

On whale transitional specie......just speculation!

"The most important transitional fossil in the whale evolutionary sequence is Rodhocetus. It is what we should expect from a genuine transitional fossil — it had a fluked tail (as we see in today’s whales) and flipper-like ‘arms’. But there’s just one slight problem. It’s based on speculation! Dr Phillip Gingerich admitted the tail and the limbs of Rodhocetus are based on imagination. He said:"

“I speculated that it might have had a fluke... I now doubt that Rodhocetus would have had a fluked tail. ... Since then we have found the forelimbs, the hands, the front arms of Rodhocetus, and we understand that it doesn’t have the kind of arms that can be spread out like flippers are on a whale.”[4]

 
Thanks for this.  I'm not familiar with Rodhocetus, so I'm going to have to read up.  Dr Phillip Gingerich din pala ito.
 
Sabi ko, tapos na siguro tayo sa fossils, kaya ibang aspect naman like DNA.  Ayaw ni sir bumblebee, gusto fossils pa rin.  Pagbibigyan natin siya.
 
Akala yata maiiipit niya ako sa definition, mintis din naman pala.
 
Bakit ayaw niya ng DNA?  Kasi ang meaning ng DNA --- "Di Namin Alam"... 

[bumblebee]

Sabi ko, tapos na siguro tayo sa fossils, kaya ibang aspect naman like DNA.  Ayaw ni sir bumblebee, gusto fossils pa rin.  Pagbibigyan natin siya.
 
Akala yata maiiipit niya ako sa definition, mintis din naman pala.
 
Bakit ayaw niya ng DNA?  Kasi ang meaning ng DNA --- "Di Namin Alam"... 

Wow, you really are too full of yourself. And ang dami mong assumptions about me. And dude, bakit naman kita iipitin? Hindi ko naman kaligayahan ang magpahiya ng tao.


Anyway, the definition does presume ancestors and descendants, I thought that was obvious. Hindi naman magkakaroon ng definition ng "transitional" without that presumption di ba? It'll be just "fossils".

Now, you claim that those fossils mentioned before aren't transitional. Based on the definition I mentioned, they are. So why aren't they? Ano ba definition mo?

[barrister]

Wow, you really are too full of yourself. And ang dami mong assumptions about me. And dude, bakit naman kita iipitin? Hindi ko naman kaligayahan ang magpahiya ng tao.

I apologize if you were offended, sir.
 
I really thought OK lang sa yo ang asaran.
 

[RU9]

Pero hindi pa rin totoo ang evolution... 
Si sir RU9 nga, sabi "magic" daw yung reptile na naging ibon.
Nung sinita ko, binawi... joke lang daw... 

The statement was in connection with the accompanying infographic that shows the reptile cannot instantly turn to a bird.

The article showed one reptile fossil. So you want to see a bird in there?

You want the reptile change to a bird?

Is this your definition of evolution?



Magic No wonder...

[RU9]

"The reverse always enters my mind. Evolution has perfected the immune system... etc, that is why we are alive and rational to create god."

On the contrary the immune system is not perfect. If it where then there would be no diseases, medicine, wala sana kamin trabaho ngayon!

Perfect in the sense that human beings were able to survive. If the system failed, no human will be alive today.

[RU9]

Now if i make use of this classification on evolution, i would place the current evidence as Level C or D

I am not surprised. You are a believer of ID.

How would you read the Designer?
Faith- A?

[docelmo]

I am not surprised. You are a believer of ID.

How would you read the Designer?
Faith- A?

Would you honestly grade as Level A the evidence for say rodhocetus when the discoverer admitted that he speculated on the anatomy of the animal?

[RU9]

Would you honestly grade as Level A the evidence for say rodhocetus when the discoverer admitted that he speculated on the anatomy of the animal?

i am not the authority to grade theories or beliefs. there is a big scientific community out there with better credentials.

[RU9]

  I notice you were eager to reply to one part of my post, yet content to ignore other parts:
 

I was amused by outburst to the joke. First time I saw you lose your cool.
So I just let it go.

[dpogs]

malakas ang faith sa scientist

kapag sinabi ni scientist na transitional ito... un din ang paniniwalaan... ... pero kapag ang scientist na may 'better credentials" ang magtestify na walang enough proof ang evolution sasabihin bias ang scientist kasi laban sa evolution

[docelmo]

i am not the authority to grade theories or beliefs. there is a big scientific community out there with better credentials.

That's a Non-answer! Let me put it this way, you believe in evolution right? Now here is a scientist w/ all credentials mind you. He discovered the first rodhocetus fossil! He says he speculated about the anatomy of the animal and subsequent finds reveals that he was incorrect. Do you still accept this as part of your evidence for whale evolution? Or at the very least you have some questions on validity?

[bumblebee]

That's a Non-answer! Let me put it this way, you believe in evolution right? Now here is a scientist w/ all credentials mind you. He discovered the first rodhocetus fossil! He says he speculated about the anatomy of the animal and subsequent finds reveals that he was incorrect. Do you still accept this as part of your evidence for whale evolution? Or at the very least you have some questions on validity?

Hi docelmo, I can't find any site other than creation sites, that mentions his quote. Is this from a paper or something?

[RU9]

You are demanding an answer. hehe..

I asked first..

How would you read the Designer?
Faith- A?

[bumblebee]

malakas ang faith sa scientist

kapag sinabi ni scientist na transitional ito... un din ang paniniwalaan... ... pero kapag ang scientist na may 'better credentials" ang magtestify na walang enough proof ang evolution sasabihin bias ang scientist kasi laban sa evolution

Are you referring to Carl Werner?

[dpogs]

there are two group of scientists with better credentials:

1. group of scientist that doesnt believe in evolution on a basis of there is not enough proof that evolution exist
2. group of scientist that believe in evolution in evolution

Group 2 and believers of evolution ang lagi nilang argument ay kung merong scientist na hindi naniniwala sa evolution tatawgin nilang not true scientst, bias kasi christian daw, and etc... parang lgbt lang eh... lahat ng research, studies puro bias bastat hindi ayon sa gusto nila...

but if a scientist believes (kahit nga hindi scientist eh) in evolution iyon daw ang totoong scientist kasi evolution daw ay 'science' ... and hindi bias ang findings...

[docelmo]

You are demanding an answer. hehe..

I asked first..

How would you read the Designer?
Faith- A?

My short answer, I believe that an "intelligent cause" is a more plausible explanation for the emergence and complexity of life. Take note I said Plausible and not absolute certainty.

While on the other hand i think you believe in the absolute certainty of evolution. That when presented with opposing view some coming from evolutionary scientists themselves are immediately labelled as bias and unscientific statements....

[Tempter]

there is no such "theory of creation" nalagyan lang ng "theory of" dahil sa idea ng evolution...

creation --->>> theoritically impossible, but in actuality, it happened.

Really? Can you prove it??? Of course you will aswer the usual... FAITH...

And yes, you are correct, it is NOT a theory or to put it appropriately, not SCIENTIFIC theory. Because its a theory of ignorant people who perceived things of course from what else... their personal experience, nothing more. nothing less. San pa ba naman nila ibabase ang mga isusulat nila? E sa mga karanasana lang nila at sa abot lang ng utak nila... And this is not directed to all of you who believes in Creation, but for those who wrote your basis.

[docelmo]

Hi docelmo, I can't find any site other than creation sites, that mentions his quote. Is this from a paper or something?

That's right sir bumblebee,  there is also a video clip of that interview sa you tube....doesn't make it any less credible...
para ding Raissa Robles "Binay Tapes" yun....

If you checkout the wiki definition you'll find something very peculiar......there is NO description of the tail!


"Through a principal components analysis Gingerich 2003 demonstrated that Rodhocetus had trunk and limb proportions similar to the Russian desman, a foot-powered swimmer using its tail mainly as a rudder. From this Gingerich concluded that Rodhocetus was swimming mostly at the surface by alternate strokes of its hind feet, and that it was insulated by fur rather than blubber, as are Dorudon and modern cetaceans, which made it buoyant and incapable of deep diving."

The holotype of Rodhocetus balochistanensis, GSP-UM 3485, is:[8][9]

    A weathered braincase found at the surface next to a partial dentary with an unfused mandibular symphysis, a characteristic of protocetids.

    Large parts of the axial skeleton including cervical, thoracic, and proximal caudal vertebrae, but excluding sacral vertebrae.

    Forelimb material including the left distal humerus, radius and ulna, and two virtually complete hand skeletons including all carpal bones, unfused and lacking an os centrale, and phalanges.

    Parts of the pelvis including an acetabular rim.

    Hind limb material including right femur, patella, tibia, possible partial fibula; two virtually complete foot skeletons including tarsal and metatarsal bones and phalanges. The astragalus (heel bone) is characteristic of artiodactyls with a deep tibial trochlea restricting lateral movements and a large calcaneal tuber (posterior part of heel bone) providing leverage for powerful extension. The metatarsals and phalanges are very long and thin and can not have been weight-bearing, suggesting that Rodhocetus was predominantly aquatic and on land must have walked on the plantar surface of the tarsals. The shape of the metatarsal and phalanges reveal that these bones could be tightly compressed during flexion and widely separated during extension.

[bumblebee]

That's right sir bumblebee,  there is also a video clip of that interview sa you tube....doesn't make it any less credible...
para ding Raissa Robles "Binay Tapes" yun....

Thanks, I've seen the clip. I was hoping there was an un-edited version though.

If you checkout the wiki definition you'll find something very peculiar......there is NO description of the tail!


"Through a principal components analysis Gingerich 2003 demonstrated that Rodhocetus had trunk and limb proportions similar to the Russian desman, a foot-powered swimmer using its tail mainly as a rudder. From this Gingerich concluded that Rodhocetus was swimming mostly at the surface by alternate strokes of its hind feet, and that it was insulated by fur rather than blubber, as are Dorudon and modern cetaceans, which made it buoyant and incapable of deep diving."

The holotype of Rodhocetus balochistanensis, GSP-UM 3485, is:[8][9]

    A weathered braincase found at the surface next to a partial dentary with an unfused mandibular symphysis, a characteristic of protocetids.

    Large parts of the axial skeleton including cervical, thoracic, and proximal caudal vertebrae, but excluding sacral vertebrae.

    Forelimb material including the left distal humerus, radius and ulna, and two virtually complete hand skeletons including all carpal bones, unfused and lacking an os centrale, and phalanges.

    Parts of the pelvis including an acetabular rim.

    Hind limb material including right femur, patella, tibia, possible partial fibula; two virtually complete foot skeletons including tarsal and metatarsal bones and phalanges. The astragalus (heel bone) is characteristic of artiodactyls with a deep tibial trochlea restricting lateral movements and a large calcaneal tuber (posterior part of heel bone) providing leverage for powerful extension. The metatarsals and phalanges are very long and thin and can not have been weight-bearing, suggesting that Rodhocetus was predominantly aquatic and on land must have walked on the plantar surface of the tarsals. The shape of the metatarsal and phalanges reveal that these bones could be tightly compressed during flexion and widely separated during extension.

Yeah, seen this, but I really can't make out anything out it other than that Rodhocetus isn't a transitional animal as was originally believed. But it doesn't disprove evolution. In my opinion, if a new specie suddenly spring out of thin air, then that's the time evolutionists should call it a day.

[dpogs]

Really? Can you prove it??? Of course you will aswer the usual... FAITH...

And yes, you are correct, it is NOT a theory or to put it appropriately, not SCIENTIFIC theory. Because its a theory of ignorant people who perceived things of course from what else... their personal experience, nothing more. nothing less. San pa ba naman nila ibabase ang mga isusulat nila? E sa mga karanasana lang nila at sa abot lang ng utak nila... And this is not directed to all of you who believes in Creation, but for those who wrote your basis.

not personal experience... i read it from the Bible... not just from group of scientist... its from the Bible...
no one taught me about creation... i read it myself... compared sa natutunan ko sa college... wala... pulpol ang 'evolution'... mabuti pa ang lotto... kahit na gawi pang lotto 6/100 yan... posibleng manalo... pero ang evolution nah...

i maybe ignorant but i am not a fool to believe in evolution... hindi ako feeling matalino just like others... para magmukhang matalino paniniwalaan na lahat ng sinasabi ng mga 'magagaling' kuno na scientists and because of that they become fools


simple lang naman yan... if numbers cant explain it then dont believe it...