[_ Old Earth _] Random Mutation Generator

[Bronzesnake]

So show us a modern species of bat that exists as a fossil from that time, whatever age you want to put on it. You won't find one.

So there are no bat fossils?

Barbarian observes:
I think it's a pretty good statement. And he's right. If you doubt it, name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll try to find you a transitional.

(no response) What a surprise.

The reason I didn’t bite that lure was because I know exactly what I’ll get.
For example; I’ll say humans and apes, and you’ll whip out a partial monkey or ape fossil and claim it to be a transition.
I have tried and tried to explain this Barb.
Darwinian evolution absolutely requires not just the odd ape or monkey fossil, but a series of graduated transitional fossils which show speciation. There are none as Gould, Eldridge and others honestly admit.
If Darwinian evolution were factual then the great majority of fossils would have to be transitions; that is, there should be loads of series of graduated transitional fossils leading to speciation.

It's like declaring that ten bombs exploded in a field.
So safety people go out to collect the dangerous sharp pieces of shrapnel so that people don't step on them and cut their feet.

However when they get to the field they expected to find thousands upon thousands of pieces of shrapnel of varying sizes and shapes but all they find are enough pieces to reconstruct a single bomb.
So what we have is one bombs worth of debris where there absolutely had to have been many thousands of more shards to reconstruct all ten bombs.

The conclusion therefore that ten bombs had exploded in that field has to be incorrect. Someone must have stolen ten bombs and tried to cover up the crime by exploding one of the ten they stole and hoping it would appear as though all ten bombs were exploded.
The huge multitude of critical transitional series of fossils is absent in the field Barb!
All we find are fossils of animals which consistently show stasis.

Gould exposed the trade secret of paleontology by revealing the utter lack of any such series of transitions, and so evolutionists have sponsored a shell game debate where they take single fossil examples and claim them to be transitional.
He says there are transitions which in his opinion fit in with evolution; however, his issue was the lack of the critical series of fossils Barb. I am not by any means trying to convince anyone that Gould, Eldridge and others have abandoned evolution, quite the contrary, Gould abandoned Darwinian evolution and hypothesised a new evolution idea which as we all know is P.E., and this hypothesis has serious problems as well, so I’m waiting for the next “saviour†to arrive and come up with a newer improved peanut butter!

There is serious debate even among evolution scientists in regards to the entire supposed ape to human fossils Barb, as you well know.
The evidence is extremely tenuous at best. The series of graduated transitional which should be extremely abundant are simply missing.

The lack of such critical evidence actually goes toward legitimizing God’s special creation.
Lack of evidence is actually an excellent scientific tool to place serious doubt on evolution.
If you can’t place the weapon in O.J.’s hand, you have a serious problem...â€if the glove don’t fit you must acquitâ€!

Barbarian observes:
Um, he said they are abundant. He said complete transitions at the species level are rare, but he mentions horses as an example of that. You've simply misrepresented what Gould said. And you've been reminded of this before.

And you've been reminded of this before. Yes teacher...sigh
I have not misrepresented anything Barb. I have used the exactb words, and agree with his explanation.
I don't know why you keep inferring I am being dishonest. Perhaps you don't comprehend my position in relation to my useing the quote. I've tried and tried to explain it to you.

Honestly Barb, you really should abandon the horse evolution. It has been rejected by most evolutionists’ one major reason being the fact that the fossils they believed were transitional were actually co-existent.

But that's not what Gould said. He said species level transitions are rare. He did not say there were none. And your belief requires that there be none at all.

OK, let me try to explain again...
I assert that any example you would provide as an example of a species level transition will not be a series of graduated transitionals Barb, you’ll do what all evolutionists do - hold up say...“Lucy†and make the declaration “this is a transitional fossil which proves speciation†in spite of the fact it is a single fossilised example of an ape.

I have asked and asked many evolutionists over the years to show me photos of any series of graduated transitional fossils which shows speciation and have never seen a single example.
This is extremely damaging to the theory due to the fact that we should see series after series if the theory were correct.

Bronzesnake Wrote; what exactly does that infer?

Perhaps you don't know what "infer" means.

This adds to the discussion how?

In science, precision counts. Horses didn't evolve in a straight line, but diverged into many lines.

Yes, I agree. In the same way we have many different kind of dogs. That is not macro evolution however Barb.

Bronzesnake quotes an evolutionists; Bat fossils that are considered 50 million years old look essentially the same as today’s bats of the same type.

Barbarian chuckles:
Show us a species of bat that was in existence 50 million years ago.

John also chuckles; I agree, there are no 50 million year old fossils of bats, or any other animal for that matter.
However, your people are telling anyone who will listen that they have 52 million year old bat fossils so you may want to stop laughing at your own team Barb.

So show us a modern species of bat that exists as a fossil from that time, whatever age you want to put on it. You won't find one.

I seem to recall you dressing me down because I should study facts before I make a fool of myself and post incorrect or dishonest remarks...However I won’t reciprocate that sentiment.

Here’s a direct quote and photo from... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/feb/13/bat.evolution

Scientists have wrestled with three alternative theories for the evolution of bats: flight evolved before echolocation; echolocation came before flight; or both happened in parallel. The new pair of fossils - which date from around 52.5m years ago - resolve the issue.

Bronzesnake wrote; Perhaps a better example to make the point is the CÅ“lacanth. This fish was touted as the model transitional with its “feetâ€

No. It has no feet. It's close to the line of fish that did have feet, however.

Barb, before the fish showed up alive and virtually the exact same as it was the supposed millions of years in the past, evolutionists were telling us this fish was a serious and excellent example of a transitional. Actually, this fish deserves an entire thread of it’s own because it really exposes the shady methods utilised by some evolutionists, so I’ll start a new thread and show how the fish was presented in terms which were offered as factual.

This fish was declared to be one of your “transitionals†Barb,however it inconveniently reappeared after it had supposedly become extinct. More on this later.

Bronzesnake wrote; however as you most likely know these fish were rediscovered recently and are virtually identical as the supposed millions of years old transitional fossils are.

Nope. The ancient ones were small, freshwater fish. The modern ones are large, deep ocean fish. The modern genus and species are unknown in the fossil record.

That’s simply wrong Barb. I’ll prove it in the new thread shortly.

Bronzesnake wrote; there are scores of living fossils. These are a huge problem for evolution because they must have forgotten to evolve.

You've been misled on that, too. Darwin pointed out that a well-adapted organism, in stable selection pressures, would not evolve. It's called "stabilizing selection" and it's well-known.

It’s odd that whenever you disagree with me I’ve been “misleadâ€
In any case, you seem to have all the most convenient readymade responses.
So the evolutionists were so exactingly scientifically superior that even in Darwin’s day they knew specific animals would not evolve at all and others would. That is very convenient, and it makes it impossible for you to ever be incorrect because when you are shown a fossil which in the past was touted as a transitional, and has had the audacity to show up in our times, you forget all the text book references to that “transitional†and simply declare it to be one of the animals which you knew would remain in a state of stasis.

Wow, all you need to do is preface it will a fancy scientific sounding title "stabilizing selection" and you can never be challenged as having been incorrect...neat.

Bronzesnake wrote; In any case these living fossils go a long way to corroborate stasis which lines up with scriptures and creation, and goes directly opposite to evolution.

Surprise. There's a lot more you don't know about the theory. Maybe you'd be well-advised to learn what it actually says.

Here is a typical declaration. “Hey, you’re wrong because I say soâ€

“Maybe you'd be well-advised to learn what it actually saysâ€
Perhaps you could have enlightened me Barb.

Here’s a fact. “stasis†actually does corroborate creation. Creation means animals were created as they are today. A cow has always been a cow. That’s called “stasis†stasis means the animal does not become another, new animal Barb, so where exactly have I gone wrong Barb, except for the fact that you do not agree with me?

Bronzesnake wrote; The Royal Ontario Museum has a fossilised example of the Cœlacanth on display Barb. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes.

Um, yes they do.

Hold it, you said there were no CÅ“lacanth fossils.
Let me refresh your memory...you stated...

And neither of the two known species are found in the fossil record. The early ancient ones were tiny freshwater fish. The modern ones are highly-evolved large deep ocean fish.

And now you’re saying there is?
I think you’d better refrain from berating people for not studying the subject they are posting from here on in Barb.

And it is indeed of the same species that exists today. For good reason. It was recently caught off the Comoros Islands.

Nice try. Yes a specimen was caught off the Comoros Islands, but it’s not the fossil in the museum Barb.
There are other so called ancient CÅ“lacanth fossils Barb.
Here’s a couple for example...

They first appeared in the fossil record in the Middle Devonian Prehistoric species of coelacanth lived in many bodies of water in Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic times.
Coelacanths are lobe-finned fish with the pectoral and anal fins on fleshy stalks supported by bones, and the tail or caudal fin diphycercal (divided into three lobes), the middle one of which also includes a continuation of the notochord. Coelacanths have modified cosmoid scales, which are thinner than true cosmoid scales. Coelacanths also have a special electroreceptive device called a rostral organ in the front of the skull, which probably helps in prey detection. The small device also could help the balance of the fish, as electrolocation could be a factor in the way this fish moves.

If it wasn’t recently found alive and exactly the same, this fish would still be held up as a model transitional. How many more are being incorrectly used today I wonder? All of them I believe.

Bronzesnake wrote; The yellow areas are guesswork; however it looks like a monkey skull to me.

If you think so, you've never seen a monkey skull.

OK an ape skull, my blunder.

Bronzesnake wrote; How does this help evolution?

It's nicely intermediate between apes and Homo.

Because you say so?

Take care Barb.

Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:
So show us a modern species of bat that exists as a fossil from that time, whatever age you want to put on it. You won't find one.

So there are no bat fossils?

I'm asking you to support your claim by showing us a modern species of bat in the fossil record. Since you've declined to do it, that's all we need to know.

Barbarian observes:
I think it's a pretty good statement. And he's right. If you doubt it, name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll try to find you a transitional.

(no response) What a surprise.

The reason I didn’t bite that lure was because I know exactly what I’ll get.

A transitional. That's why creationists choke on that challenge. I didn't expect you to answer.

Darwinian evolution absolutely requires not just the odd ape or monkey fossil, but a series of graduated transitional fossils which show speciation. There are none as Gould, Eldridge and others honestly admit.

Your own quote from Gould said that complete sets of transistionals were rare. Which means they do exist. And Gould said transitionals themselves are "abundant."

If Darwinian evolution were factual then the great majority of fossils would have to be transitions;

Yep. That's why you wouldn't answer me; they are, as Gould said, abundant.

Gould exposed the trade secret of paleontology by revealing the utter lack of any such series of transitions,

He says complete species-to-species transitions are scarce. But he does note that they exist. And this isn't the first time you've been reminded of this.

There is serious debate even among evolution scientists in regards to the entire supposed ape to human fossils Barb, as you well know.

I don't know of any paleontologist today who denies that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Can you show us an example of a prominent paleontologist who does?

Barbarian observes:
Um, he said they are abundant. He said complete transitions at the species level are rare, but he mentions horses as an example of that. You've simply misrepresented what Gould said. And you've been reminded of this before.

And you've been reminded of this before. Yes teacher...sigh

Tell the truth, and fear no man.

have not misrepresented anything Barb. I have used the exactb words, and agree with his explanation.

Your own quote from Gould says that species-to-species transitions are rare, not absent. C'mon, be honest with yourself, at least.

I don't know why you keep inferring I am being dishonest.

When one persists in misrepresenting what someone says, after being reminded several times, that does make people think.

Honestly Barb, you really should abandon the horse evolution. It has been rejected by most evolutionists’

Hmmm... a quick survey of the literature shows dozens of articles on it. Would you like me to post some of them?

one major reason being the fact that the fossils they believed were transitional were actually co-existent.

Ah, the "if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead" argument. It's hooey.

Barbarian notes:
But that's not what Gould said. He said species level transitions are rare. He did not say there were none. And your belief requires that there be none at all.

OK, let me try to explain again...
I assert that any example you would provide as an example of a species level transition

No. You claimed that Gould said there were none. And that is a falsehood.

I have asked and asked many evolutionists over the years to show me photos of any series of graduated transitional fossils which shows speciation and have never seen a single example.

Here's an example of such species-to-species transitions in primates:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewc ... gsstaffpub

Barbarian observes:
In science, precision counts. Horses didn't evolve in a straight line, but diverged into many lines.

Yes, I agree. In the same way we have many different kind of dogs. That is not macro evolution however Barb.

Only if you think this:

and this:

are the same species.

Bat fossils that are considered 50 million years old look essentially the same as today’s bats of the same type.

Barbarian chuckles:
So show us a modern species of bat that exists as a fossil from that time, whatever age you want to put on it. You won't find one.

I seem to recall you dressing me down because I should study facts before I make a fool of myself and post incorrect or dishonest remarks...However I won’t reciprocate that sentiment.

Here’s a direct quote and photo from... http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/ ... .evolution
Image

Doesn't look like any modern species of bat. Which modern species do you think it is?

Perhaps a better example to make the point is the CÅ“lacanth. This fish was touted as the model transitional with its “feetâ€

Barbarian observes:
No. It has no feet. It's close to the line of fish that did have feet, however.

Barb, before the fish showed up alive and virtually the exact same as it was the supposed millions of years in the past,

No. The modern genus is unknown in the fossil record. The ancient ones were smaller, fresh water species. The modern ones are of a new genus, and are evolved deep-water marine species.

there are scores of living fossils. These are a huge problem for evolution because they must have forgotten to evolve.

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled on that, too. Darwin pointed out that a well-adapted organism, in stable selection pressures, would not evolve. It's called "stabilizing selection" and it's well-known.

It’s odd that whenever you disagree with me I’ve been “misleadâ€

I know what the theory says. You don't.

In any case, you seem to have all the most convenient readymade responses.

That's the hazard of cut-and-paste. I've seen all of this before, so it's easy to refute.

So the evolutionists were so exactingly scientifically superior that even in Darwin’s day they knew specific animals would not evolve at all and others would.

Darwin merely pointed out that organisms that are fit in terms of their environment won't change unless the environment changes in a way that affects their survival. Common sense, really.

That is very convenient, and it makes it impossible for you to ever be incorrect

As I said, if you think about it for a moment, you'll surely see that it has to be true. It's unusual for selective pressures to be constant over many millions of years, but rarely, it does happen.

Here’s a fact. “stasis†actually does corroborate creation.

If so, it's not the way YE creationists would like it to.

Creation means animals were created as they are today.

But as you see, even coelacanths have changed greatly from earlier ones...

Rates of Evolution in the Coelacanth and Dipnoan Fishes
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2405507

That’s called “stasis†stasis means the animal does not become another, new animal Barb, so where exactly have I gone wrong Barb, except for the fact that you do not agree with me?

You've gotten crossways with the evidence, again. Sorry about that.

The Royal Ontario Museum has a fossilised example of the Cœlacanth on display Barb. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes.

The fish on display there was recently caught off the Comoros islands.

Hold it, you said there were no CÅ“lacanth fossils.

No. I said the ancient ones quite different from the modern ones.

Here's what I actually said:

And neither of the two known species are found in the fossil record. The early ancient ones were tiny freshwater fish. The modern ones are highly-evolved large deep ocean fish.

Nice try. Yes a specimen was caught off the Comoros Islands, but it’s not the fossil in the museum Barb.

Let's take a look...
http://www.dinofish.com/bkchapt6.html

Surprise. The Museum has some fossilized coelacanth scales, none of which identifies as being of the modern genus.

How does this help evolution?


Babarian observes:
It's nicely intermediate between apes and Homo.

Because you say so?

Because it has anatomical features of both groups.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Barbarian chuckles:
Show us a species of bat that was in existence 50 million years ago.

Did you forget you asked this question Barb?
You actually “chuckled†at the very idea that there would be any bat fossils which were dated at 5o million years!
I provided you with an example from your own camp which says the fossil is over 50 million years old, so now, you attempt to pretend you really meant...

Barbarian suggests:
So show us a modern species of bat that exists as a fossil from that time, whatever age you want to put on it. You won't find one.
I'm asking you to support your claim by showing us a modern species of bat in the fossil record. Since you've declined to do it, that's all we need to know.

Really? Again, you really should study before you post Barb.

Barbarian observes:
I think it's a pretty good statement. And he's right. If you doubt it, name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll try to find you a transitional.

(no response) What a surprise.

I did answer...
Bronzesnake wrote; The reason I didn’t bite that lure was because I know exactly what I’ll get.

A transitional. That's why creationists choke on that challenge. I didn't expect you to answer.

As I said,I did answer Barb, The reason I didn’t bite that lure was because I know exactly what I’ll get.
For example; I’ll say humans and apes, and you’ll whip out a partial monkey or ape fossil and claim it to be a transition. but as usual you blow smoke up the old kilt and keep threatening to show proof, and yet none ever comes.
Darwinian evolution absolutely requires not just the odd ape or monkey fossil, but a series of graduated transitional fossils which show speciation. There are none as Gould, Eldridge and others honestly admit.

He says complete species-to-species transitions are scarce. But he does note that they exist. And this isn't the first time you've been reminded of this.

Please Barb, by all means prove me to be wrong. All you have to do is provide real examples, not drawings, real life photos Barb. Then you won’t have to keep reminding me! I can draw fantastic pictures of Jesus creating Babr, will you place as much faith in that as you do the evolution drawings? I can even back my drawings up with written coroboration!

Bronzesnake wrote; There is serious debate even among evolution scientists in regards to the entire supposed ape to human fossils Barb, as you well know.

I don't know of any paleontologist today who denies that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Can you show us an example of a prominent paleontologist who does?

I didn’t say anything about evolutionist’s faith based beliefs Barb. I said... There is serious debate even among evolution scientists in regards to the entire supposed ape to human fossils Barb, as you well know. Nice try though.

Barbarian observes:
Um, he said they are abundant. He said complete transitions at the species level are rare, but he mentions horses as an example of that. You've simply misrepresented what Gould said. And you've been reminded of this before.

If your horse evolution is factual then please show us the photographic proof Barb.
If the fossils exist then surely the evolution scientists have thought it may be a good idea to take s few shots...you know, to shut up the nay sayers.
I predict that you will not be able to do this, and that all you will do is “proclaim†this imagined horse evolution to be fact, as is the case with every single other imagined evidence for evolution.
I provided exact quotes from leading evolution scientists who says the so called horse evolution evidence is known to be false and yet it is still being used as evidence for evolution which actually upset the poor guy!
Would you like to learn more about this?

Hmmm... a quick survey of the literature shows dozens of articles on it. Would you like me to post some of them?

Bronzesnake wrote; one major reason being the fact that the fossils they believed were transitional were actually co-existent.

Ah, the "if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead" argument. It's hooey.

So, you believe you are an evolutionary transition from your uncle???!!
How can any one of two concurrent animals be the result of an evolutionary ancestral transition? Do you even comprehend this?

Barbarian notes:
But that's not what Gould said. He said species level transitions are rare. He did not say there were none. And your belief requires that there be none at all.

Yes, I believe there are none. So shut me up and show me photographic proof of any series of graduated transitionals which show one animal becoming a new completely different animal. Not an ape becoming an ape.

No. You claimed that Gould said there were none. And that is a falsehood.

Yes, and I have asked and asked many evolutionists over the years to show me photos of any series of graduated transitional fossils which shows speciation and have never seen a single example.

Here's an example of such species-to-species transitions in primates:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewc ... gsstaffpub

Hey really nice DRAWINGS Barb. Apes becoming apes is not Darwinian evolution Barb.

Barbarian observes:
In science, precision counts. Horses didn't evolve in a straight line, but diverged into many lines.

Yes, I agree. In the same way we have many different kind of dogs. That is not macro evolution however Barb.

Only if you think this:
and this: are the same species.

OK, so you have just shown me two photographs of fossil which both look like horses.
First of all, you do understand that in order for Darwinian evolution to be real, you need a series of graduated transitional fossils which clearly show one animal becoming a totally different new kind of animal right?
So this seems to show two horses?
I don’t know what proportion of these fossils is actual bone and which is actually inferred man made bones. I’ve seen that happen all too often Barb.

Bronzesnake wrote; Perhaps a better example to make the point is the CÅ“lacanth. This fish was touted as the model transitional with its “feetâ€

Barbarian observes:
No. It has no feet. It's close to the line of fish that did have feet, however.

How so? Because you believe it?
Please show me the series of graduated transitional fossils which show this Barb.
Barb, before the fish showed up alive and virtually the exact same as it was the supposed millions of years in the past,

No. The modern genus is unknown in the fossil record. The ancient ones were smaller, fresh water species. The modern ones are of a new genus, and are evolved deep-water marine species.

That is just plain wrong Barb. Would you like to show us all the photographic evidence please?

Bronzesnake wrote; there are scores of living fossils. These are a huge problem for evolution because they must have forgotten to evolve.

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled on that, too. Darwin pointed out that a well-adapted organism, in stable selection pressures, would not evolve. It's called "stabilizing selection" and it's well-known.

It’s odd that whenever you disagree with me I’ve been “misleadâ€

That's the hazard of cut-and-paste. I've seen all of this before, so it's easy to refute.

Then you should quit doing it.

But as you see, even coelacanths have changed greatly from earlier ones...

Rates of Evolution in the Coelacanth and Dipnoan Fishes
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2405507

Gee, no photos, not even any fossil photos, that’s unusual...
If we look at the fossilised fish, and then we look at the real live one, there is no difference, as hard as that fact is to swallow Barb, that is the real fact and there are real photos would you like to learn more?

Bronzesnake wrote; That’s called “stasis†stasis means the animal does not become another, new animal Barb, so where exactly have I gone wrong Barb, except for the fact that you do not agree with me?

You've gotten crossways with the evidence, again. Sorry about that.

Oh, ok, I see now, I’ve gotten crossways with the evidence...again! Gee wiz thanks for clearing that up buddy. Boy do I feel the fool!

Bronzesnake wrote; The Royal Ontario Museum has a fossilised example of the Cœlacanth on display Barb. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes.

The fish on display there was recently caught off the Comoros islands.

No it wasn’t Barb. That fossil is supposed to be millions of years old. Stop making things up.

Bronzesnake wrote; Hold it, you said there were no CÅ“lacanth fossils.

No. I said the ancient ones quite different from the modern ones.

Here's what I actually said:

And neither of the two known species are found in the fossil record. The early ancient ones were tiny freshwater fish. The modern ones are highly-evolved large deep ocean fish.

Nice try. Yes a specimen was caught off the Comoros Islands, but it’s not the fossil in the museum Barb.

Let's take a look...
http://www.dinofish.com/bkchapt6.html

Surprise. The Museum has some fossilized coelacanth scales, none of which identifies as being of the modern genus.

Hmmm, weird Barb...Surprise! I didn’t see any photos again! That’s just not like the evolution world, they always have highly detailed photos!

Bronzesnake wrote; How does this help evolution?( in response to a few photos of skulls which Barb posted as if they were somehow evidence for evolution)

Babarian observes:
It's nicely intermediate between apes and Homo.

Because you say so?

Because it has anatomical features of both groups.

So, you ascribe to homology?
Maybe you should read some recent literature, say at least twenty years old because no serious evolution scientists use homology anymore.

As usual, lots of proclamation and zero substance.
If only the church had such great blind faith.

John

 

[jasoncran]

bronzesanke please be watchful with the sarcasm, these debates are quite heated as is.

 

[Bronzesnake]

bronzesanke please be watchful with the sarcasm, these debates are quite heated as is.

OK...although I wasn't trying to be sarcastic.
I will try and be more careful though.
Thanks Jason

John

 

[Barbarian]

You actually “chuckled†at the very idea that there would be any bat fossils which were dated at 5o million years!

I was amused that anyone would think there is a modern bat species that would be found in the fossil record from that time. I challenged you to show me one.

I provided you with an example from your own camp which says the fossil is over 50 million years old, so now, you attempt to pretend you really meant...

Let's go see what I asked for...

Barbarian asks:
So show us a modern species of bat that exists as a fossil from that time, whatever age you want to put on it. You won't find one.

And, notice, that you couldn't find one.

Really? Again, you really should study before you post Barb.

Doesn't look like any modern species of bat to me. Which modern species do you claim it to be?

Barbarian observes:
I think it's a pretty good statement. And he's right. If you doubt it, name two major groups said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll try to find you a transitional.

(no response) What a surprise.

I did answer...

You refused to do it. For reasons we all understand.

Barbarian, regarding the claim that Gould says there are no transitionals:
He says complete species-to-species transitions are scarce. But he does note that they exist. And this isn't the first time you've been reminded of this.

Please Barb, by all means prove me to be wrong.

No problem. As you saw, Gould said they were scarce, not non-existent. Would you like to see the statement again?

There is serious debate even among evolution scientists in regards to the entire supposed ape to human fossils Barb, as you well know.

Barbarian observes:
I don't know of any paleontologist today who denies that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. Can you show us an example of a prominent paleontologist who does?

(declines to show one)

Yep.

Barbarian observes:
Um, he said they are abundant. He said complete transitions at the species level are rare, but he mentions horses as an example of that. You've simply misrepresented what Gould said. And you've been reminded of this before.

If your horse evolution is factual then please show us the photographic proof Barb.

First, let's get through with what Gould said. As you've been repeatedly reminded, he said species to species transitions are scarce. You claimed he said that there are none at all. That is not an honest description of his statement.

If the fossils exist then surely the evolution scientists have thought it may be a good idea to take s few shots...you know, to shut up the nay sayers.
I predict that you will not be able to do this, and that all you will do is “proclaim†this imagined horse evolution to be fact, as is the case with every single other imagined evidence for evolution.

Let's take a look...

Your challenge is to show that these two have more differences than found within a single modern species of mammal today. If you can't find them, then you've found a transitional.

I provided exact quotes from leading evolution scientists who says the so called horse evolution evidence is known to be false

I've actually read the articles. They don't say what your edited snippets might lead people to think. I told you earlier that you would be responsible for the truth of any quote-mining you did, so you best read the article to make sure it's not been altered.

Barbarian chuckles:
Hmmm... a quick survey of the literature shows dozens of articles on it. Would you like me to post some of them?

one major reason being the fact that the fossils they believed were transitional were actually co-existent.

Barbarian laughs:
Ah, the "if you are alive, your uncle has to be dead" argument. It's hooey.

So, you believe you are an evolutionary transition from your uncle???!!

What it means, is that often original species continue after new species branch off. No one is surprised by that.

How can any one of two concurrent animals be the result of an evolutionary ancestral transition?

Easy. One subpopulation gets isolated from the rest, and the subsequent variation becomes enough to make them reproductively isolated. The old population continues, and so does the new one.

Do you even comprehend this?

This is another case where not knowing anything about biology is a problem for you.

Barbarian notes:
But that's not what Gould said. He said species level transitions are rare. He did not say there were none. And your belief requires that there be none at all.

Yes, I believe there are none.

Which is your right. It's not your right to make false claims about the opinions of others.

So shut me up and show me photographic proof of any series of graduated transitionals which show one animal becoming a new completely different animal.

See above. Tell me if the two fossils I showed you differ more than the variation we can find within a species today. Then we'll go on.

Barbarian observes:
You claimed that Gould said there were none. And that is a falsehood.

Yes,

Does that mean you will stop misrepresenting him?

Barbarian observes:
Here's an example of such species-to-species transitions in primates:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewc ... gsstaffpub

(Sound of goalposts being frantically repositioned)

Hey really nice DRAWINGS Barb. Apes becoming apes is not Darwinian evolution Barb.

It is an example of detailed species-to-species evolution. Just what you claimed didn't exist. And it's exactly what Darwin predicted.

Only if you think thisHyracotherium)
and thisEquus) are the same species.

OK, so you have just shown me two photographs of fossil which both look like horses.

You think Hyracotherium looks like a horse? What horselike features do you think it has?

First of all, you do understand that in order for Darwinian evolution to be real, you need a series of graduated transitional fossils which clearly show one animal becoming a totally different new kind of animal right?

No, that's just a story creationists make up to try to protect themselves from evidence. So, you've concluded that an animal with multiple toes, flexible backbone and wrists, non-growing teeth, and short head is a horse? No wonder you're confused.

I don’t know what proportion of these fossils is actual bone and which is actually inferred man made bones. I’ve seen that happen all too often Barb.

All original fossils. So explain how all those changes evolved.

Please show me the series of graduated transitional fossils which show this Barb.

Barb, before the fish showed up alive and virtually the exact same as it was the supposed millions of years in the past,

Barbarian observes:
No. The modern genus is unknown in the fossil record. The ancient ones were smaller, fresh water species. The modern ones are of a new genus, and are evolved deep-water marine species.

That is just plain wrong Barb.

Nope.

It is often claimed that the coelacanth has remained unchanged for millions of years, but, in fact, the living species and even genus are unknown from the fossil record. The most likely reason for the gap is the taxon having become extinct in shallow waters. Deep-water fossils are only rarely lifted to levels where paleontologists can recover them, making most deep-water taxa disappear from the fossil record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth

there are scores of living fossils. These are a huge problem for evolution because they must have forgotten to evolve.

Barbarian observes:
You've been misled on that, too. Darwin pointed out that a well-adapted organism, in stable selection pressures, would not evolve. It's called "stabilizing selection" and it's well-known.

It’s odd that whenever you disagree with me I’ve been “misleadâ€

Barbarian observes:
That's the hazard of cut-and-paste. I've seen all of this before, so it's easy to refute.

Then you should quit doing it.

Sorry, Refuting them can be boring, but it's useful.

Barbarian observes:
But as you see, even coelacanths have changed greatly from earlier ones...

Rates of Evolution in the Coelacanth and Dipnoan Fishes
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2405507

Gee, no photos, not even any fossil photos, that’s unusual...

Nope. But let's see if I can find you a picture...

Ancient coelacanth:

Modern coelacanth:

Different families, genera, and species.

If we look at the fossilised fish, and then we look at the real live one, there is no difference, as hard as that fact is to swallow Barb,

Now you know better.

The Royal Ontario Museum has a fossilised example of the Cœlacanth on display Barb. I’ve seen it with my own two eyes.

Barbarian observes:
The fish on display there was recently caught off the Comoros islands.

No it wasn’t Barb. That fossil is supposed to be millions of years old. Stop making things up.

I just showed you the article on bringing it to the museum from the Indian Ocean.

Hold it, you said there were no CÅ“lacanth fossils.

Barbarian observes:
No. I said the ancient ones quite different from the modern ones.

Here's what I actually said:

And neither of the two known species are found in the fossil record. The early ancient ones were tiny freshwater fish. The modern ones are highly-evolved large deep ocean fish.

Nice try. Yes a specimen was caught off the Comoros Islands, but it’s not the fossil in the museum Barb.

Let's take a look...
http://www.dinofish.com/bkchapt6.html

Surprise. The Museum has some fossilized coelacanth scales, none of which identifies as being of the modern genus.

Hmmm, weird Barb...Surprise! I didn’t see any photos again!

The link has several. It documents that the coelacanth in the museum is a modern one.

(Transitional hominin skull)

How does this help evolution?

Babarian observes:
It's nicely intermediate between apes and Homo.

Because you say so?

Barbarian observes:
Because it has anatomical features of both groups.

So, you ascribe to homology?

Perhaps you don't know what "homology" means. Your question makes no sense.

Maybe you should read some recent literature, say at least twenty years old because no serious evolution scientists use homology anymore.

Let's take a look...
Workshop on Molecular Evolution, Europe 2010
Cesky Krumlov, Czech Republic
10 - 22 January 2010, individual research session 22 - 29 January 2010
Application Deadline: 1 October 2009
http://workshop.molecularevolution.org/

Michael P. Cummings and Scott A. Handley, Co-Directors
Naiara Rodriquez-Ezpeleta, Associate Director

* Databases and sequence matching: database searching: protein sequence versus protein structure; homology; mathematical, statistical, and theoretical aspects of sequence database searches
* Phylogenetic analysis: theoretical, mathematical and statistical bases; sampling properties of sequence data; Bayesian analysis; hypothesis testing
* Maximum likelihood theory and practice in phylogenetics and population genetics: coalescent theory; maximum likelihood estimation of population genetic parameters
* Molecular evolution integrated at organism and higher levels: population biology; biogeography; ecology; systematics and conservation; population genetics
* Molecular evolution and development: gene duplication and divergence; gene family organization; coordinated expression in evolution
* Comparative genomics: genome content; genome structure; genome evolution
* Molecular evolution of recently diverged species

http://systbio.org/?q=node/299

Surprise. You believe all that nonsense the professional creationists tell you, even when you've repeatedly been shown that it's nonsense.

If only the church had such great blind faith.

Indeed.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello Barb.
Bronzesnake wrote; You actually “chuckled†at the very idea that there would be any bat fossils which were dated at 5o million years!

Barb responded;

I was amused that anyone would think there is a modern bat species that would be found in the fossil record from that time. I challenged you to show me one.

Bronzesnake wrote; I provided you with an example from your own camp which says the fossil is over 50 million years old, so now, you attempt to pretend you really meant...

Barb replied;

Let's go see what I asked for...

Barbarian asks:
So show us a modern species of bat that exists as a fossil from that time, whatever age you want to put on it. You won't find one.

And, notice, that you couldn't find one.

An extremely interesting attempt to bamboozle Barb.
Let’s keep it real though, and we’ll break it down to reveal what actually happened.

Bronzesnake wrote; you actually “chuckled†at the very idea that there would be any bat fossils which were dated at 5o million years!

Barb responded;

I was amused that anyone would think there is a modern bat species that would be found in the fossil record from that time. I challenged you to show me one.

That is so disingenuous Barb.
Take a look back on page 3 your first post which is the third post down from the top.
You know very well that you asked me to show you a bat fossil that was 50 million years old.
Barb quote; Show us a species of bat that was in existence 50 million years ago.

There was no mention whatsoever of a “modern†bat until your next post ( page 3 tenth post down from the top) and even then; you “chuckled†at the very idea of a bat fossil being 50 million years.
Barb quote;
Barbarian chuckles:
Show us a species of bat that was in existence 50 million years ago.

You finally did also ask for a “modern†looking bat fossil which I also provided, but you don’t recognise it as a modern bat, and I’m sorry I can’t help you out in that area. Perhaps you should do some studying in the bat family so you can be better prepared to recognise a modern looking bat when you are provided with an example.

There’s no reason for this kind of dishonest switch around. Everyone makes mistakes Barb, even evolutionists. It’s ok that you weren’t aware of 50 million year old bats, and it’s equally ok that you weren’t aware of modern looking bats in the fossil record which were also dated around 50 million years. I don’t think anyone knows everything Barb...well except for Jesus of course!

Now to clear up more bamboozling footwork.
You have tried to convince us that the Barb quote“coelacanths have changed greatly from earlier onesâ€
You even provide a rare photo comparison which you tried to bamboozle us into believing showing Barb quote;Different families, genera, and species! That is just seriously wrong Barb.

Here’s more examples...
Bronzesnake wrote; If we look at the fossilised fish, and then we look at the real live one, there is no difference, as hard as that fact is to swallow Barb,

Barb Replied;

Now you know better

Bronzesnake wrote; Hold it, you said there were no CÅ“lacanth fossils.

Barbarian observes:

No. I said the ancient ones quite different from the modern ones.

Here's what I actually said:

And neither of the two known species are found in the fossil record. The early ancient ones were tiny freshwater fish. The modern ones are highly-evolved large deep ocean fish.

I guess most people would just assume you had retrieved these “facts†from some evolution science resource, but you made it up hoping no one would understand what was going on.
You know full well that both those fossils show coelacanths! No change at all! No Different families, no different genera, and no different species!

Hey for those who are reading this, please don’t take my word for it – read an exact quote from the exact same page this example of so called “Different families, genera, and species, came from...
http://www.dinofish.com/

"The living coelacanth created a sensation as a possible "missing link" between fish and amphibians, though few if any recent classifications(text), give it that distinction. Seemingly immune to the pressures of natural selection, the coelacanth changed little (except in size and possibly in habitat) over the eons."

Now I know you were at this page Barb because you got your first fossil photo from this very page.
You certainly didn't get this "Different families, genera, and species" info from this source, or any other source that I can find Barb. It appears sadly that you just made it up, which is highly dishonest.

Barb, what’s going on brother?!! Please give us some kind of reasonable explanation that we can believe. Please show us some evolution resource that made a huge mistake by stating these incredibly incorrect facts, so that we can absolve you of this outright lie.

OK my friends, yes this may be an awkward post, but I think it's important that we understand the kind of tactics which are being used against a literal Christian belief.
Some of our opponents are actually honestly seeking a real debate aimed at either learning new facts, or attempting to honestly understand the Christian perspective.
However, there has always been a faction of evolutionists who are here simply to stir the pot.
Some of these evolutionists claim to be Christians, and there are theistic evolutionists for certain, however these people don't go out of their way to manipulate conversations, or to infuse false "facts" in order to make it appear as though Christians are ignorant people who ascribe to "fake' scientists, and ignore "real' scientists.

These people usually end up exposing themselves when they get tied up in their own shoe laces so to speak.
Another tell tale sign is these people usually are never seen to be defending Christian doctrine, or even making any kind of attempt to state their reasons for their faith until challenged to do so, and even then the attempt is usually seriously lacking and offered up only as a way to continue the ruse.

In any case we still are bound to attempt to bring these folks to Jesus.
Yes, we must expose the truth at all times, but we shouldn't ban these people from posting unless they become over bearing in their attempts to knock Christian doctrine.
Now this obviously isn’t my forum and I have no say as to what the forum masters should or shouldn’t do. I am simply giving my personal advice having been the owner and moderator of several Christian forums myself.

John Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No. I said the ancient ones quite different from the modern ones.

Here's what I actually said:

And neither of the two known species are found in the fossil record. The early ancient ones were tiny freshwater fish. The modern ones are highly-evolved large deep ocean fish.

An extremely interesting attempt to bamboozle Barb.

I never write anything I don't believe to be true here. If you're smart, you won't accuse me of that again. In this case, it's demonstrably true that neither of the two modern species are known in the fossil record.

I guess most people would just assume you had retrieved these “facts†from some evolution science resource, but you made it up hoping no one would understand what was going on.

Anyone can look it up for themselves. If you want to deny it, show us where either species is found in the fossil record. They are not.

You know full well that both those fossils show coelacanths!

Which is like saying "both of those fossils show primates", while arguing that spider monkeys and humans are the same animal. The order Coelacanthiformes is the same taxonomic unit as the order of primates.

No change at all! No Different families, no different genera, and no different species!

If you're right, you should be able to show us a fossil of L. chaluminae. If not, you've got some explaining to do.

Hey for those who are reading this, please don’t take my word for it – read an exact quote from the exact same page this example of so called “Different families, genera, and species, came from...

At one time coelacanths were a large group comprising about 90 different valid species that were distributed around the world in both marine and freshwaters. Although Latimeria is a genus distinct from the fossil forms, all coelacanths share numerous features and are easily recognized by their distinctive shape and lobed fins.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/highlight/coelacanth/

Latimeria chalumnae and its pedigree
Journal Environmental Biology of Fishes
Issue Volume 32, Numbers 1-4 / September, 1991
Peter L. Forey1
(1) Department of Palaeontology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, England

Received: 10 April 1990 Accepted: 4 October 1990
Synopsis Latimeria is the product of a long coelacanth lineage, usually viewed as having changed very little. In this paper a classification of better known coelacanth genera is proposed based on a cladistic computer analysis of 56 morphological characters. Biometrical data are then matched with the classification to explore the possibility of identifying subtle change. It is concluded that throughout coelacanth history there have been changes in the structure of the vertebral column involving an overall increase in the number of vertebral elements, and a consequent crowding of these elements within the abdominal region. These changes may be associated with increasing lobation of the second dorsal and anal fins. In the skull, parameters involving the intracranial joint have also changed in such a way that the anterior part of the skull has lengthened in relation to the posterior part and this may be associated with an increase in length of the basicranial muscle.

Now I know you were at this page Barb because you got your first fossil photo from this very page. You certainly didn't get this "Different families, genera, and species" info from this source,or any other source that I can find Barb.

I'd like to believe that. But it didn't take my any time at all to document the above. Note that the literature documents that that L. chalumnae is not found in the fossil record, and that it has numerous features not found in the ancient members of the order.

It appears sadly that you just made it up, which is highly dishonest.

I'll assume your false accusation is a matter of carelessness on your part.

Barb, what’s going on brother?!! Please give us some kind of reasonable explanation that we can believe.

I guess the most charitable thing is to assume you were careless, and jumped to conclusions. That's what I'll assume.

Please show us some evolution resource that made a huge mistake by stating these incredibly incorrect facts, so that we can absolve you of this outright lie.

Note that I cited the literature on this one. Next time, be a little cautious.

OK my friends, yes this may be an awkward post, but I think it's important that we understand the kind of tactics which are being used against a literal Christian belief.

If you are a Christian, you should not fear the truth. If you'll admit your error, and apologize, this will end here. If not, people will draw the appropriate conclusions. As you see, the species of coelacanth we see today, is not the same as any of the fossil coelacanths. Just as the humans you see today are not the same species as any of the fossil hominids.

Yes, we must expose the truth at all times, but we shouldn't ban these people from posting unless they become over bearing in their attempts to knock Christian doctrine.

People have been removed here for less than you've already written. Meantime, if you want to pursue your idea, one way to do it, would be to document that L. chaluminae is found in the fossil record.

Now this obviously isn’t my forum and I have no say as to what the forum masters should or shouldn’t do. I am simply giving my personal advice having been the owner and moderator of several Christian forums myself.

Be careful to tell the truth. Right now, you probably want to document that the modern species of coelacanth is found in the fossil record, or apologize for accusing me of lying.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Barb.

And neither of the two known species are found in the fossil record. The early ancient ones were tiny freshwater fish. The modern ones are highly-evolved large deep ocean fish.

And that was not true.
I provided a photo of a fossil, which you said did not exists in the fossil record.
that's fine you wer wrong, no problem.
But then you went further and stated the fish fossils were...

Different families, genera, and species.

Did you not make this asserion Barb?
This was not anywhere in the source you got the fish from.
Youc an't just pretend this didn't happen barb.

I posted a direct quote from the very same site and this is what they said...

"The living coelacanth created a sensation as a possible "missing link" between fish and amphibians, though few if any recent classifications(text), give it that distinction. Seemingly immune to the pressures of natural selection, the coelacanth changed little (except in size and possibly in habitat) over the eons."
However you posted two photos of the fish and then stated...

Different families, genera, and species.

There's no getting around this Barb.

Although Latimeria is a genus distinct from the fossil forms

Here's another attempt to befuddle. You know full well were talking about the coelacanth Barb.
Don't try and make out like you were not aware of this.
Then there's the business of manipulating my quotes from the bat discussion. What about that?

Anyway, this is ugly and I'm done with it.
My main issue with you Barb is you seem to be playing us for fools Barb.
If you're an atheist that's fine, why pretend to be a Christian when you are constantly attacking Christian doctrine? Then there's this business.

I'm absolutly done with it Barb.
God Bless you brother.

John

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
And neither of the two known species are found in the fossil record. The early ancient ones were tiny freshwater fish. The modern ones are highly-evolved large deep ocean fish.

And thatw as not true.

Absolutely, it's true. If you doubt it, find an example of either modern species in the fossil record. You won't.

I provided a photo of a fossil, which you said did not exists in the fossil record.

I said the modern species don't appear in the fossil record. They don't.

that's fine you werw rong, no problem.
But then you went further and stated the fish fossils were...

Different families, genera, and species.

They are. The order Coelacantheformes is large and diverse in the fossil record. But the modern species are not found there.

This was not anywhere in the source you got the fish from.

But it is nevertheless true, as I recently showed you.

Youc an't just pretend this didn't happen barb.

Go back and look. I have two cites from scientific literature showing that it's true.

Although Latimeria is a genus distinct from the fossil forms

Here's another attempt to befuddle. You know full well were talking about the coelacanth Barb.

Actually, talking about "the coelacanth" is like talking about "the primate." Lots of different genera and species, and lots of variation. The key is, as I told you, the modern species is different than the fossil ones, and it is not found in the fossil record.

Then there's the business of manipulating my quotes from the bat discussion. What about that?

Anyway, this is ugly and I'm done with it.
My main issue with you Barb is you seem to be playing us for fools Barb.

I never write anything here that I don't believe to be true. Never have.

If you're an atheist that's fine, why pretend to be a Christian when you are constantly attacking Christian doctrine? Then there's this business.

I don't think you're going to help yourself by claiming I'm an atheist.

God Bless you brother.

Thank you. May God also bless you and give you more patience.