• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Debate 6 of 6

  • Thread starter Thread starter ÃÂoppleganger
  • Start date Start date
Ã

ÃÂoppleganger

Guest
This is 6 of 6 final articles I have written, through incomplete and just excerpts, that I feel I need to post before I move on to wikigodsword.org to help them build there site. I'll still be a member but, I won't be posting or replying that much anymore. You can debate this but don't expect a response from me. I believe this is information everyone should be aware of!

This article I was working on was intended for our evolutionist guests at Christianforums.net. this article is still incomplete in may respects, but I hope every Christian and non-Christian gets the jist of it. I hope this clears the air somewhat between me and a few of our scientific counterparts.
I do nothing halfway. I will not respond to this article since my intention is to help wikigodsword.org build its site. My intent was to show inconsistancies in scientific methods that are based on presumption and evidence gathered and assembled haphazardly by scientists trying provide their theories, as in the case of Lucy. And that hints in molecular biology probably hold the only clues. I was using wilipedia as a base and intended to use biological science journals to verify the content but what can you do, its time to move on!
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
OK, heres a simple (if you can call it that) explanation of a "missing Link"
"The Missing Link" is a popular term used for transitional forms. The term is especially used in the regular media, many times implies that there was a single link missing to complete adjoining species, The term arose in the 19th century where the awaited discovery of a "missing link" between humans and "lower" animals such as chimps was considered to be the final proof of evolution.

Transitional fossils are the remains of a life form that illustrates an evolutionary transition. It can be identified by having certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with its more derived relatives, such as defined in the study of cladistics.

http://www.palaeos.com/ http://www.answers.com/ http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary
Plesiomorphic means widely shared Features more in a particular group. These primitive features for a group cannot provide evidence for the group. An evolutionary trait that is homologous (Biologically speaking is similar in structure and evolutionary origin, though not necessarily in function, as the flippers of a seal and the hands of a human.) within a particular group of organisms but is not unique to members of that group and not used as a defining character for the group. For example, vertebrae are found in zebras, cheetahs, and orangutans, but the common ancestor in which this trait first evolved is so distant that the trait is shared by many other animals. Therefore, possession of vertebrae sheds no light on the phylogenetic relations of these three species.

Phylogenetic relates to phylogenesis, or the race history of a type of organism.

According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized by hindsight.

Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species claims that there was a lack of transitional fossils. Darwin also stressed that the lack of it was the most formidable obstacle to his theory. Yet, the discovery of Archaeopteryx two years later was hailed as a triumph for supposition of common descent. Significant gaps remain in the fossil record, which is a considerable problem for evolutionists. Most scientists accept the fact that the rarity of many extinct animals fossils will always remain unknown.

Various Sources
Cladistics is a philosophy of classification that arranges organisms only by their order of branching in an evolutionary tree and not by their morphological similarity. As the end result of a cladistic analysis, tree-like relationship-diagrams are made with an approach to the classification of living things in which organisms are defined and grouped by the possession of one or more shared characteristics that are derived from a common ancestor and that were not present in any ancestral group (as envisioned by Charles Darwin's idea of “descent with modificationâ€Â). For example, all vertebrates make up a clade; all tetrapods (vertebrates that have four limbs with wrists, ankles, toes, and fingers) form their own clade within the vertebrate clade. In this example the vertebrate clade would be considered “primitive†and the tetrapod clade “derived.†In paleontology the characters are primarily skeletal. Cladistics is especially significant in paleontology, as it points out gaps in the fossil evidence. It is also felt to be more objective than fossil study, which of necessity extrapolates from a limited number of finds that may or may not be representative of the whole. The different so-called 'natural' or 'monophyletic' groups form nested units that do not overlap. Within cladistics there is thus no longer a
transition between groups, but a differentiation within groups. In this context, transitionals can be defined as the different branches of a cladogram between one particular branch and the group that is placed at the top of a lineage.

http://www.answers.com/
Morphology in biology, the study of the size, shape, and structure of organisms in relation to some principle or generalization. Whereas anatomy describes the structure of organisms, morphology explains the shapes and arrangement of parts of organisms in terms of such general principles as evolutionary relations, function, and development.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Transitional forms vs. intermediate forms
The terms 'transitional' and 'intermediate' are for the most part used as synonyms to each other. However, a distinction between the two can be madein two ways, they are: "Transitional" can be used for those forms that do not have a significant amount of unique derived traits that the derived relative does not possess as well. In other words, a transitional is morphologically close to the actual common ancestor of itself and the derived relative. "Intermediate" can be used for those forms that do have a large number of uniquely derived traits not connected to its derived relative. According to this definition, Archaeopteryx, which does not show any derived traits that more derived birds do not possess as well, is transitional. In contrast, the Duck-billed Platypus is intermediate because it retains certain reptilian traits no longer found in modern mammals and at the same time possesses a lot of derived traits of its own, as a highly specialized aquatic animal. Following this definition, all living organisms are to be regarded as intermediate forms to some other related life-forms. There are many species alive today that can be considered to be transitional between two or more groups.

Critics of evolution often state that there are no known transitional fossils per say. What does represents a transitional feature? Some creationist argue that is no fossils are found with partially functional features. Scientists say it is plausible, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. For example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight. This explanation seems a bit redundant, and really doesn't address the question.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered.Thus, the transition itself can only be by fossils, but it will never be known in detail. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is often drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. The theory, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxon
A taxon (plural taxa), or taxonomic unit, is a name designating an organism or group of organisms assigned a rank and placed at a particular level in a systematic hierarchy reflecting evolutionary relationships. Distinction's are to be made between taxa/taxonomy, refering to biological names and the rules of naming and classification/systematics, the rank ordering of taxa according to presumptive evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationships.
 
Today Australopithecus afarensis (more commonly known as "Lucy") is seen as a key transitional fossil. The discovery of Australopithecus africanus (Taung Child), Java Man, Homo erectus, Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man), are called vital links to this study. Although fossils closer to the chimpanzee line have been recovered since the early 1970s, Lucy remains a treasure among anthropologists studying human origins. The fragmentary nature of the older fossils furthermore deter confident conclusions as to the degree of bipedality or their relation to true hominines. The Lucy skeleton is supposed to be an intermediate between ape and man. There has been a lot of discussion of Lucy's knee joint by creationists and much misunderstanding. The best I can now determine is that there were 2 kneejoints, one found nearby and one far away. The one found far away was found two to three kilometers away from the skull and 60-70 meters deeper in the strata. Dr. Johansen does not claim that the knee joint belonged to Lucy. Instead, it was part of another fossil he found some time earlier. However, he does put them together logically, though, claiming that they were of the same species. This whole issue is discussed at length in the talk.origins FAQ. Lucy is an example of australopithecus afarensis, and other examples of this species have been found since then. Dr. Charles Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that the australopithecines have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever, and are simply an extinct form of ape (Fossils, Teeth and Sex: New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, 1987). I am told that no australopithecine we know anything about could have made the Laetoli footprints, because even australopithecines which are much younger than the Laetoli footprints have clear apelike features. The only possible upright walker, A. afarensis, is known to have had a chimp foot with an opposable toe. One of the world's leading authorities on australopithecines, British anatomist, Solly Lord Zuckerman has concluded (based on specimens aged much younger than Lucy) that australopithecines do not belong in the family of man. He wrote "I myself remain totally unpersuaded. Almost always when I have tried to check the anatomical claims on which the status of Australopithecus is based, I have ended in failure." (Beyond the Ivory Tower, 1977, p. 77)

One of Zuckerman's associates in the field of anatomy Dr. Chas. Oxnard (USC) writes "Although most studies emphasize the similarity of the australopithecines to modern man, and suggest, therefore that these creatures were bipedal tool-makers at least one form of which (A. africanus "Homo habilis," "Homo africanus") was almost directly ancestral to man, a series of multivariate statistical studies of various postcranial fragments suggests other conclusions." He further concludes, "Finally, the quite independent information from the fossil finds of more recent years seems to indicate absolutely that these australopithecines of half to 2 million years and from sites such as Olduvai and Sterkfontein are not on a human pathway." In Oxnard's opinion, australopithecines were neither like humansor apes but more like Pongo, the orangutan ... even more "distant" from man, than a gorilla... "to the extent that resemblances exist with living forms they tend to be with the orangutan" (U. of Chicago Magazine, Winter, 1974, pp. 11-12).

The ER-1470 skull was found in l972 (in fragments) a little below a geological strata known as KBS tuff. This tuff had been dated a few years earlier at 2.6 million years so Richard Leakey assigned the skull an age of 2.9 million years. This aroused a storm of controversy as the skull had an enormous brain capacity of perhaps 825 cubic centimeters and several surprisingly modern features. After nearly a decade of debate, often acrimonious a committee of neutral experts was assembled and used a variety of sophisticated tests which included faunal comparisons (especially fossilized teeth of both Lake Turkana and Ethiopian Afar pigs). They redated the tuff at 1.9 million years. (The skull fragments themselves have never been dated.) Leakey then estimated the skull's age at 2 million years. He regarded it as an example of Homo Habilis. Unfortunately the skull is too advanced for this species or this age. A new generation of scholars tends to call ER-1470 Homo Ergaster and this new species is seen as a bridge from Homo Habilis to Homo Erectus, our alleged immediate ancestor. But in some ways ER-1470 is too modern even for these species. The maturation and gender of the original owner of the skull is unknown. If ER-1470 was a female, the cranial capacity of an adult male of this species would approach 1,000 c.c, right to the edge of modern humanity. If ER-1470 was an adult male, then the small brow ridges, thin cranium and other modern features would assume greater importance and approach modern man. Thus, no matter how you slice it, ER-1470 is a problem for all concerned. It would seem that this one fossil, therefore, could be a major focus for creationist science.
 
Which eventually leads me to this article, which is the point I was trying to make.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 170623.htm
No Missing Link? Evolutionary Changes Occur Suddenly, Professor Says
Science Daily  Jeffrey H. Schwartz, University of Pittsburgh professor of anthropology in the School of Arts and Sciences, is working to debunk a major tenet of Darwinian evolution. Schwartz believes that evolutionary changes occur suddenly as opposed to the Darwinian model of evolution, which is characterized by gradual and constant change. Among other scientific observations, gaps in the fossil record could bolster Schwartz's theory because, for Schwartz, there is no "missing link."

If an organism's stress proteins are unable to cope with a significant change, the genomic structure can be modified. However, Schwartz notes, a mutation also can be recessive in an organism for many generations before it is displayed in its offspring. Whether or not the offspring survives is another matter. If it does in fact live, the presence of this genetically modified organism is not the product of gradual molecular change but a sudden display of the genetic mutation, which may have occurred myriad years prior.

However, it is not only the current molecular theory that intrigues Schwartz, but the failure of the scientific community to question an idea that is more than 40 years old: "The history of organ life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else," says Schwartz.

To date, the scientific community has accepted the MA as a scientific truth. It is this assumption, which Schwartz is contemplating: "That always struck me as being a very odd thing--that this model of constant change was never challenged." Schwartz has his own theories regarding evolution, which are backed by recent developments in molecular biology

A widespread misconception must be corrected here. It has become almost an axiom among non-paleontologists that "humans are descended from the apes". This in fact is not strictly true, although the creationists do their best to pander to this popular misconception. The hominids are not descended from any of the existing monkeys or apes. Rather, paleoanthropologists have concluded that, approximately 5 million years ago, the human line and the ape line shared a common ancestor, from which the apes went on their separate way, leading to modern gorillas, chimps and orang-utans, and the hominid line went on in another direction, producing the bigger-brained Australopithecines and ultimately you and me. The modern apes are therefore our evolutionary relatives, not our ancestors; we are no more descended from monkeys or apes than you are descended from your sister or cousin.
 
I glanced through the material, some of which is not bad, but then I saw this:

The only possible upright walker, A. afarensis, is known to have had a chimp foot with an opposable toe.

A picture is worth 10,000 words...

pelvis_and_feet.gif


Notice that later Australopithecines had human-like feet. Only recently (2006) did an A. afarensis foot come to light. It was from a 3-YO female..

The femur (thigh bone), the tibia (shin bone) and the foot of the girl preserve evidence that this ancient species walked upright effectively even at the age of three.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 193509.htm

Although Australopithecine feet are somewhat less evolved than those of modern humans, they are also much more like our feet than they are like those of modern apes.
 
Back
Top