Challenge for evos

[YEC]

Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one species into another species in which the new species is a member of a different taxonomic rank of Family.

Or (if you don't like taxonomic ranks and you're a cladistics fan)

Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits.

[Aximili23]

YEC,

Creationists are often accused of ignoring the evidence, and your unwarranted dismissal of the TalkOrigins data is clear proof of this. You challenge us in your opening post to be presented with a fossil series. Having been presented with several, you dismiss it with completely unrelated and poorly articulated arguments regarding other (unreferenced) fossil series! Until you actually critically examine and refute the data presented to you, I'll consider my argument as completely intact.

You didn't even have a good analysis of the data that you presented. For example, you ciriticized the conclusions based on these five fossils:

1. Ophiacodon, Early Permian, Texas: "skull had changed from the small low shape...this allowed for longer jaw muscles to develop."

2. Phthinosuchus (: Base of Late Permian, USSR: " strikingly similar...but with larger synapsid opneings behind the eyes.. paelontologists believe this to be intermediate in structure between pelycosaurs and Therapsids.

3. Thrinaxodon, Early Triassic, South Africa, Antartica: "Another mammalian trend seen in the lower jaw... teeth were set into a signle bone,, the dentary, which had become larger at the expense of the smaller bones at back of jaw."

4. Cynogathus: Early Triassic, South Africa, Argentina: practically the whole lower jaw on each side was made up of a single bone, the dentary...coronoid process at back of dentary articluiated with the skull and meant the jaws could open wide.

5. Morganucodon: Late Triassic to Early Jurassic, Africa, Europe, Eastern Asia: see pictures presented.

With statements such as:

In the first Picture, Ophiacodon packs his bags and heads north from Texas to the USSR and then becomes Phthinosuchus. I wonder how much trouble this guy had crossing the Appalachian mountains on his journey to evolve?

Then a few yers later Phthinosuchus decides to head south, passing through Pennsylvania and New Jersey...and ends up in South Africa and Antartica where it becomes Thrinaxodon.

Thrinaxodon then hangs out there for a while, evolves into Cynogathus then decides to head north again and takes a trip to East Asia.

The highlighted statements reveal your ignorance of what the data implies. These five fossils, as you stated, span a period beginning from the Early Permian to the Early Jurrasic, roughly a hundred million years. Comments such as "a few yers[sic] later" and "for a while" are completely inaccurate in this context. Furthermore, the millions-of-years time scale makes it entirely plausible that these species crossed the geologic barriers (Appalachian mountains) and roamed the distances mentioned. Humans colonized the entire world without assistance of modern ships and airplanes in only a few thousand years, which you have to admit EVEN IF you believe in a literal bible.

[Aximili23]

YEC,

I should also add that you've misrepresented the quality of evidence that evolutionists have to offer. You've presented an evolutionary lineage consisting of only five species spanning a hundred million years; probably not a very good lineage even by evolutionists' standards. But modern paleontology has unearthed hundreds if not thousands of fossils worldwide that document the evolution of many vertebrate lineages; only some of these are included in the data that I presented to you. The evidence for evolution is there; it's up to you to come up with a logical refutation and an alternative scientific theory.

[YEC]

Aximili23, If you don't like the linage I presented...then present a new one and I'll show you where it is wrong.

But, back to the other linage.....Why do we not find in-b-tweens in route from one location to the other? Heck, they had millions of years and plenty of opportunity to become fosilized....but they didn't. There are huge gaping gaps in the linage.

What you fail to realize is that all of those species were comtemporanious. I already proved it is easy to line up fossils and call it evolution.

[Aximili23]

Aximili23, If you don't like the linage I presented...then present a new one and I'll show you where it is wrong.

?????

I DID show you a new lineage! Several of them in fact. Here they are again, for the third time:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

But, back to the other linage.....Why do we not find in-b-tweens in route from one location to the other? Heck, they had millions of years and plenty of opportunity to become fosilized....but they didn't. There are huge gaping gaps in the linage.

First of all, you did not provide a reference for that lineage. For all I know, there are dozens of in-between fossils that have already been discovered. I'm not a paleontologist, I wouldn't know. I bet you wouldn't, either.

Second, I had already pointed out that you gave a misrepresentative sample of the evidence for evolution. There may be gaps in this fossil lineage, but there are dozens of lineages that are much more complete. Again, check out the TalkOrigins link I posted.

Third, it's already been repeatedly stated to you, and you even stated yourself, that fossilization is a rare event. It's simply possible that all of the in-between species did not fossilize.

Fourth, maybe there ARE in-between fossils. They may just not have been discovered yet.

What you fail to realize is that all of those species were comtemporanious. I already proved it is easy to line up fossils and call it evolution.

Huh, what are you now talking about??? You cited those species as coming from the Permian, Triassic, and Jurassic. So how can they be contemporaneous? "Contemporaneous" is defined as "occurring in the same period of time" or "of the same period."

Also, paleontologists do far more than merely select fossils and line them up. Lineages are judged based on the age and location of the fossils. The fake lineage that you showed us would never pass peer-review in a scientific journal.

And third, even our ability to line up various species and call it evolution is somewhat suggestive of evolution. Because our ability to do so demonstrates the nested hierarchy that we see in the morphology of different species. Different organisms carry similar physiological characteristics in a manner that suggests common descent. This observation is strongly supported in the fossil record as well as in genetic studies. For example, we do not see a particular trait (say, the vertebrate body plan) appear in the fossil record, disappear for millions of years, and then appear again. Rather, basic morphological features appear consistently or are gradually modified in later fossils. And the apparent evolutionary distance between species as suggested by their morphological distances is supported by the genetic variation between them. It is no accident that humans and chimpanzees, which look so alike, are also so similar in their genetically.

[USIncognito]

since no one else is answering the question....i will. From the looks of the skulls, one can infer that ape ends at L and humans begin at M. This is due to the fact that skulls M and N are not as elongated as the all of the previous skulls. The skulls are more round, and the monkey skulls are longer. There's no connection between the ape skulls and the human skulls.

Thank you for actually taking the challenge. I think you're one of 3 (I was using hyperbole earlier) who have actually made the delination and more importantly why.

M and N are anotomically modern humans. J, K and L are Neanderthals. Do you consider them "apes?" D through I are all classified the genus Homo meaning they are all considered "humans" taxonomically. Do you stand by your delination, and can you give me a reason why beyond what you offered in the quote above?

(YEC, I have a response to your lengthy reply soon. )

[YEC]

Aximili23, thanks for the reply.....although most of it is hand waving.

Now if you really want to present the transitionals I suggest you post them rather than a link to some list.

After all it really shouldn't be that hard...right?

[USIncognito]

I didn't know your theory taught we actually evolved from a chimp..I thought we were just distant relatives with a common ancestor...in other words, all that was presented was a bunch of skull pictures lined up to portray evolution. Call it fraudulent if you like.

Just keep on avoiding the question. We can both agree that A, the Chimp is an ape. Where do you draw the line between what you would consider an ape and a human and why?

So you previously observed evolution? Interesting concept. What kind of time machine did you have?

Just keep on dancing man... We make observations by analyzing DNA and unearthing fossils. These observations, in the lab, and in the field either buttress or falsify predictions made by evolutionary theory (this is exactly what I posted back on page 2).

Tell me your not going to use the refuted chicken scute to feather argument? Did you ever see a picture of this so called feather?

The way you shuck and jive to avoid answering tough questions might help in obfuscation, but it isn't conducive to communication. Do you know what Hox genes are and why they are important to morphology?

{snip Homology hokum from Icons of Evolution}

Wells is an idiot.

Again, evolutionary theory makes the prediction that we would find similar structures in species of common ancestry. That's why we don't find birds with both wings and arms. That's why we don't find whales with flukes and legs (at least not atavistic ones). That's why terrestrial tetrapods with air bladders. If we're specially and seperately created, why don't any of these very useful body styles exist?

What we find instead is evolution using previously existing structures (with periodic novelization) in other descended species. Examples being limbs where we find the single upper bone, double lower bone, carpals or tarsals and phlanges in all structures as diverse as human arms and legs, horse legs, bat wings and dugong fins and flukes. More importantly, when we look at things like the Hox gene, we know why this is.

Did you read the part where I said there is over 206 skulls to choose from? 206 skulls to choose a few select and line up.

Yes, but I don't recall a citation, and aside from not being willing to play Xeno's Paradox with you, I'm waiting for one before getting to bogged down in your claim. Needless to say, it's odd how these representative 12 form so seemless a transitional series - when such tansitionals shouldn't exist at all.

Remember folks, these "skulls" typically exist chiefly in the form of plaster of paris to fill in between the fragmented peices. Maybe if you said, skull cap, teeth or jaw peice you would be a bit more accurate. {snip image - it's back on page 2 if you've forgotten}

That's not true at all. The skulls, except for the casts of Homo Erectus referred to as Pekin Man (this originals have been lost) are all legitimate fossil finds that range in completeness from fragmentary to nearly complete. Here's the body and a skull close up of my favorites - Turkana Boy.


http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html

Currently we have 206 or so different types of primates living on the planet. If given a skull from each of those 206 primates it would be possible to line them up as if to create a supposed ancestral linage. This is exactly what those that have faith in evolutionism are doing with the contemporaneous pre-flood primates and humans. See the above picture in this thread for proof.

Setting aside for a moment that the ERV evidence I mentioned above (something you're totally ignoring to myopically focus on fossils btw) is powerful evidence for the lineage of New World Monkeys, Old World Monkeys, Gibbons, Ourangoutans, Gorillas and Chimps and Humans and our other Hominids, why would the skulls point to such a shared morphological legacy if not for evolution?

Common Creator....but then again you already knew that.

Oh, I must have missed the other morning that you're getting the number 206 from existing primate species. Well, for one thing, we sorta can. For each of the extant species, there is a common ancestor that would look similar to the groups I quote just above. For another thing, your number is a red herring. I'm asking about the 12 fossil homind skulls, the chimp and modern human skull. Your obfuscation won't hide that you're unable to draw a line in the series between ape and human.

I won't stop pointing that out no matter how much you dance around it.

Your "Common Creator" pithyism tells me that you either don't understand the Endogenous Retrovirus evidence, or you think the Creator is a trickster. What else would explain a Creator inserting retrovirus DNA into the the genome of various species, the natural process is nearly being impossible to occur and have there be less and less insertions as farther and farther apart species are checked - thus giving the appearance of common descent? Maybe nobody fools mother nature, but apparently this Creator is using ERVs to fool us.

Seamless transition??? Please present just one series of seamless transitions or retract your ststement.

I did. And all your dancing won't change that fact, nor the fact that you are unable to draw a simple delineation between ape skulls and human skulls.

Forensic scientist can easily tell one race from another. Then again, just which race is the more evolved?

To answer the latter question, blacks are more evolved, but you'd be confused as to why so I'll just leave it at that. As far as how discernable different racial characteristics are in modern humans, I'm going to need to see the evidence or dig around for an answer myself. The only thing I know can be discerned from skeletal structure (apart from height, arthritus, etc. is sex). It's my understanding that fully dissicated bodies are usually assinged a race forensically by hair samples.

Oh, and one more thing... If your interpretation the Bible says that the Asian (actually it never mentions the Asian races) races were "post-Flood," how could they possibly have existed pre-Flood?

huh????

Dude, you really need to think your comments through. You said if we dug up an Caucasian and "Oriental" pre-Flood skulls, we'd assign them to different species. I was pointing out that white and Asian skulls cannot be pre-Flood, since the existing races did not come about (in whites from Japeth, for Asians, it doesn't say, but I guess through Japeth too) until after the Flood. If you're going to make pithy accusations about ineptitude on the part of your opponents - at least try and make them logically coherant.

There is more layers in a birthday cake than layers of evidence for evolution.

I guess pithyisms are your forte, unfortunately they're not evidence nor compelling arguments. The usual birthday cake is a sheetcake of one layer - without going into the various details of each: Fossils, DNA - there's two.

I like the way the evos find one species in one part of the world, then move 12,000 miles awy to find the next, then 6,000 miles in another direction to find the next...boy those guys really got around. You think they would have left a better fossilized trail rather than some hodge podge pick and choose this fossil from way over hhere fits trail.

My irony meter just blew up. You seem to think that it's problematic that over hundreds of thousands or millions of years populations might have migrated as the environment changed (I'd add a comment about geographic distribution and it's importance regarding ring species, but I don't think you're ready for that yet) - and yet - your entire YECism is based on an giant boat landing on Mt. Ararat and somehow, in less than 100 years:

- Marsupials only travel to The Ameicas and Australia, but not Africa, Asia or Europe.
- Flightless Kiwis and Moas make it to New Zealand, Dodos to Mauritius and Elephant Birds to Madagascar.
- Moles and hedgehogs make it to Europe.
- Sloths make it to South Ameica.
- Snails make it everythere.
- Etc.

Why would one expect them in the western hemisphere if they were not originally created there?

Since Hominids evolved, and weren't created, your pithyism falls a bit flat. But that fact aside, ostensibly Opossums and Three toed sloths would, by your logic, have been created in the Mid-East as well. Why do we find them in the Western Hemisphere (and all the other biogeographic issues I just pointed out, but not Hominids?

As an aside, we know why the Wolf has transformed into the Bulldog, Basenji and Corgi - through human intervention and that's why their skulls are so disperate. Does Creationism offer an explanation as to why we have found Hominid fossils as disperate as Lucy, KNM-ER 1470, Turkana Boy and Neanderthals?

{Snip Lucy reconstruction}

Yep, she didn't have a complete face. Ignoring for a moment that her real importance is evidence of bipedalism, how about we get back to the skulls you didn't comment on like KNM-ER 1470, Turkana Boy or the Neanderthal finds? Or how about if you get back to the original skull photo and simply draw a line between ape and human?

....please, instead of talking about this Morphologic evidence of fossils, present it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not much of a dancer. You've been presented the morphological evidence, closing your eyes, plugging your ears and singing "la la la" won't make it go away. You've also been presented (some of) the DNA evidence, and you haven't addressed any of it so far. I guess it's just easier to dance away from the bones you're so scared of and hope they'll go away.

[Aximili23]

Aximili23, thanks for the reply.....although most of it is hand waving.

Hahaha! I have to hand it to you man. Of all the creationists that I have encountered in different forums, you are by far the best at avoiding arguments and evidence.

It's not convincing anyone though. I doubt even the creationists reading this forum are impressed by you.

Now if you really want to present the transitionals I suggest you post them rather than a link to some list.

After all it really shouldn't be that hard...right?

Not hard at all. But considering that the Transitional Fossils FAQ that I posted consisted of several long webpages, it would be extremely inconsiderate to copy and paste it all here (a habit, by the way, that you seem to be fond of). But if you're having trouble I'm perfectly willing to help. Right click on the link, and then click on "Open link in a new window" or "Open link in a new tab". The TalkOrigins page will appear on your screen, and you can read it at your convenience.

Tell you what. I'll concede this argument if you can properly refute even just ONE of several main lineages in that FAQ.

(Why do you hang around here in this forum, anyway? Aren't you embarassed about being soundly defeated all the time? Either present arguments and evidence, or go away.)

[Aximili23]

Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one species into another species in which the new species is a member of a different taxonomic rank of Family.

Or (if you don't like taxonomic ranks and you're a cladistics fan)

Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits.

Since you seem to be intimidated by the many series that I presented simultaneously in the TalkOrigins FAQ, I'll respond to this challenge again with a much more focused fossil series; the one for cetaceans. Here is a convenient picture for you to study:



And several links that provide useful information on cetacean fossils and evolution:

CETACEAN EVOLUTION (WHALES, DOLPHINS, PORPOISES): EVIDENCE OF COMMON ANCESTRY OF CETACEANS AND CERTAIN SPECIES OF LAND MAMMALS

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

Cetacean Evolution

WHALE FOSSILS AND EVOLUTION: Archaeoceti, The Ancient Whales

I'd particularly LOVE to hear a creationist explanation of why cetaceans, both extinct and living, have rudimentary pelvic bones. And before you back up your arguments (if you even have any) with copied material from Answers in Genesis, you should read this:

ANSWERS IN GENESIS: AMBULOCETUS' MISSING PELVIC GIRDLE? ...BACKBONE? LEG BONES?

Finally, I will end with this quote from the TalkOrigins whales page:

Taken together, all of this evidence points to only one conclusion - that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. We have seen that there are nine independent areas of study that provide evidence that whales share a common ancestor with hoofed mammals. The power of evidence from independent areas of study that support the same conclusion makes refutation by special creation scenarios, personal incredulity, the argument from ignorance, or "intelligent design" scenarious entirely unreasonable. The only plausible scientific conclusion is that whales did evolve from terrestrial mammals. So no matter how much anti-evolutionists rant about how impossible it is for land-dwelling, furry mammals to evolve into fully aquatic whales, the evidence itself shouts them down. This is the power of using mutually reinforcing, independent lines of evidence. I hope that it will become a major weapon to strike down groundless anti-evolutionist objections and to support evolutionary thinking in the general public. This is how real science works, and we must emphasize the process of scientific inference as we point out the conclusions that scientists draw from the evidence - that the concordant predictions from independent fields of scientific study confirm the same pattern of whale ancestry.

Having once again responded to the challenge that YOU made, I will now make a prediction. You will ignore all of this evidence, and instead make some unwarranted dismissal, claiming that this is all somehow hand-waving or previously refuted. You will once again fail to make any sort of cogent argument, once again proving the emptiness of creationism.

[QED]

I know it is frowned upon to post cartoons to make a point in topics, but a great deal of effort has already gone into providing the evidence YEC has asked for and it is quite clear that none of it is ever going to be properly considered. I therefore think this simple illustration is well deserved.


(from http://www.nobeliefs.com/Creationism.htm)