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.

[USIncognito]

Oh Google, I should just buy your hyperinflated stock just repay the value you have in on-line debate.

YEC is Ark Guy? Wow. Didn't see that coming, though I must admit that the less YECist intransigents out there the better so multiple user IDs make me happy. Why don't you post to CF anymore?

This post is over a year and a half old and as one can see by the second page of it - fully demonstrated to be untennable.

Aximili23 has already pointed out the numerous problems with this supposed stubling block to evolution, but I'd just like to offer a few more comments.

Below are 5 so-called transitionals as presented bythe evos.

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

Ignoring the points previously made about the YECist position requring migrations of even more astounding speed than the evolution side, we're talking about a period of around 50,000,000 years from the start of the Early (or lower) Permian to the Late (or upper) Permian, and given how species have migrated and a very divided planetary surface, it doesn't surprise me that species could migrate very far on a united surface like Pangea.

Two points for lurkers. First , there are some amazingly complete examples of Ophiacodon which demonstrate the subtle jaw changes that determined the claudistic/taxonomic classifcations. Second - and this will be a recurring theme - if the flood explains burial, why are there no Swans, Squirrels, Ibex, Elephants, Mice Tarsiers or even Lemurs in contemporaneous Early Permian strata?

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.

Ahah! Herein we see the problem of the Creationist objection. There is indeed questions about the place of Phthinosuchus in the Therapsid to Mammal transition, so the geographic objection might be irrelavent. That said, even if one of the five clearly transitional fossils is eliminated from the series, how does that effect the other four - it doesn't. Please note, by admitting (unlike YECists are wont to do) that there is some disagreement, I'm not excluding this example from the list of transitionals - I'm just refusing to engage in the Xeno's Paradox game so beloved by Creationists.

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."

Well, here we go again (and for the next two examples) of the geography issue being a red herring since the time from the Upper Permian to the Lower Triassic covering many millions of years. Thrinaxodon and Cynogathus being found within the confines of what was Laurasia are exactly what evolutionary theory would predict.

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.

Oh no, a simple check of the
United States Geological Survey website shows that Africa and Eurasia (or Laurasia back then) were all connected during the millions of years during which that epoch took place. Of course, considering this means putting aside for a moment that common descent and biogeography is a record, not an itenerary.

I've mentioned it would be a recurring theme in this post, but I've only addressed it once, but I must ask again - regardless of the complaint about the scarcity of the fossil record, the geographic diversity of the few specimines we are lucky to find, and the claims of Flood Geology explaining fossils, why, in every strata, from the Lower Permian to the Early Jurassic do we never, ever once find fossils of Camels, Impalas, Oxen, Jaguars, Manatees, Rats, Apes - or for that matter - Eiders, Snow Cranes, Chickadees, Crows or Moas and Ostriches?

Where are they if the Flood mixed all these corpses together?

[Aximili23]

YEC,

Doesn't it bother your conscience to be deliberately misleading? From the links posted by USIncognito to christianforums, it's clear that you have presented these (bad) arguments over a year ago, and have been refuted. But you presented the same arguments here, which shows that you are trying to trick us with arguments that you already know to be wrong. This is beyond mere ignorance and poor logic, this is DECEPTION.

It disgusts me that creationists, who rely on faith, religion, and spirituality for their beliefs, are the ones who use lies and deception when arguing with evolutionists. If you believe so strongly in God, then why do you lie? This sort of hypocrisy is just sickening.

[YEC]

I'm still waiting for a refute.

You did notice there still isn't an answer to my questions.

Come on my evo friends, why the great distances and many many years and no fossils inbetweens? Seems strange to me.

Oh, that's right....all the inbetweens eroded away. My bad.

Then again fossils are hard to make...especially inbetweens.

[micatala]

If you wait for the bus, and then ignore it when it goes past, it's not the bus drivers fault.

[Aximili23]

I've had enough. YEC has clearly demonstrated an appalling inability to even acknowledge the arguments and evidence presented against him, much less argue against them. This goes far beyond a violation of Forum Rule 5:

5. Support your arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic.

His obtuseness is making any sort of meaningful debate impossible. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated in a forum whose tagline is "Rational and reasonable debate between members of all religions and world views." I hereby request that forum moderators and admins penalize YEC.

[otseng]

His obtuseness is making any sort of meaningful debate impossible. This sort of behavior should not be tolerated in a forum whose tagline is "Rational and reasonable debate between members of all religions and world views." I hereby request that forum moderators and admins penalize YEC.

I am sorry that it has come to this. I have brought this up with the moderating team to discuss this and have decided to impose the next disciplinary step to YEC.

YEC has not demonstrated respect to fellow posters (and a moderator at that) with the following statements:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9090#19090

Jose...will you please stop with the rhetoric....please.

Sheeze man, present something that actually counters what I say instead of a bunch of mumbo-jumbo words that really mean nothing.

Answer the challenge or go away to another thread.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 9094#19094

jose, you presented nothing, you answered nothing.

Either stay on topic or once again...go away.

YEC is now placed placed on probation. The next disciplinary action will be a ban from the forum if further rules are violated.

[rjw]

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.

Gidday YEC,

I would not mind betting that you have a theory of origins which very closely matches mine – namely that some 4,000 years ago we both had human ancestors, the progeny of which ultimately gave rise to us.

Now there have been some folks who proposed theories which potentially or actually cast all of this into doubt.

Here is your chance to prove those theorists wrong.

Show me the bones of all ancestors leading to yourself. If you cannot show me those bones then tell me why that is so. If you cannot tell me then presumably you know where they are buried. So tell me where they are buried so that I can send these doubters to excavate. Tell me how I can inform these doubters that they belong to your ancestors.

This should be very easy for you. After all it is for a period of only a few thousand years. (We are expected to be able to return to periods of a factor of three (1,000) longer.


If you cannot do this will you grant that these alternative theorists are indeed correct?


Regards, Roland

[USIncognito]

YEC is now placed placed on probation. The next disciplinary action will be a ban from the forum if further rules are violated.

I'm new here, but have engaged in Internet debates on evolution/creation for seven years now, and I have come to the conclusion that unrepentant intransigents are valuable to the discussion - but only as a teaching tool to lurkers. The biggest problem with keeping intransigents around for that purpose is it requires others with the time and willingness to point out the faulty logic and factual incorrectness of their assertions.

The intransigents drive me crazy, but I do see their value for lurkers, as long as there is someone to point out the bankrupcy of their position.

Just my $.02.

[otseng]

The intransigents drive me crazy, but I do see their value for lurkers, as long as there is someone to point out the bankrupcy of their position.

There has actually been some discussions among the moderators along the line that you brought up.

However, the overriding principle of this forum is respect. I believe the only way to have a civil forum is to enforce the rules of respect. As for lurkers reading how one should not debate, I believe there are plenty of forums out there to view such activity. And there is no need for this forum to add to the already overpopulated list.