Altfish
Veteran Member
Just like your Dad is the transition between your Granddad and you. Every fossil is a transitional fossil.
There is nothing special about an individual fossil.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish
- Thread starter james bond
- Start date
There is nothing special about an individual fossil.
Satans_Serrated_Edge
Deicidal
See, I look at the same thing and find the opposite obvious; we share somewhere in the high 90s percentile in common DNA with other great apes, to which we look and act remarkably similar when compared to other forms of mammalian life on this planet.
If you understand, at least at a layman level, how evolution theory works, the reasons for why there are other great apes is pretty obvious too.
Why are there so many types of similar but different cats? Birds? Canids? Do you deny the entire field of taxonomy?
james bond
Well-Known Member
If this is true, then the transitional fossils should be popping up everywhere. We've had millions of years to look for them.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Well, we have the Darwin fish and the Darwin ape. I suppose they can't make up their mind.
Well, we have the Darwin fish and the Darwin ape. I suppose they can't make up their mind.
Well...the fish theory gives way to the ''aquatic ape theory.''
james bond
Well-Known Member
I read from this website. What books have you read? Maybe you can explain how Saccorhytus coronarius became Tiktaalik.
What has the head of a crocodile and the gills of a fish?
james bond
Well-Known Member
james bond
Well-Known Member
Since you read more, then maybe you explain the lack of transitional fossils and now with Saccorhytus coronarius how the first mouth and anus becomes a champanzee-like-ape.
james bond
Well-Known Member
This the evolution vs creationism section.
We've really only been looking for hundreds of years.
If a 6 million old ancient hominid ape (i.e. ape in the human line ) is found, it will also be in the Nature magazine, but it will not be new news that humans descended from apes (since we already have enough fossil evidence for that).Sure. Nature magazine is not news then
Your inability to read the article is not surprising, and I do not expect you to understand, but for others here:-
1) Its NOT a fish. Not even a vertebrate. Its a species belonging to a line of animals that was the ancestor of all vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals)
The actual words of the actual scientist was completely correct
And this specific earlier fossil shows the point where deuterostomes have just emerged and have not yet diversified
This species is a fossil that provides evidence of evolution of vertebrate animals from invertebrate ancestors. The evidence that a line of fish (a vertebrate) evolved into amphibians and came on land and became the ancestor of all land animals, including us has been there for over 60 years.
Not necessarily, bones don't always end up in ideal conditions through ideal conditions to survive millions of years of decay. Though billions of animals transitions have died and/or went extinct so a few do pop up here and there.
james bond
Well-Known Member
The human came first. God created mature adult living creatures.
Atheists are His greatest achievement....the most intellectually gifted, the bravest, & pretty good looking.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Even then we should have more fossils. So far, we have Saccorhytus coronarius and then Tiktaalik. They do even look alike. We also have questions between apes and humans. How does know which end is up on the Saccorhytus coronarius? Those aren't eyes, but barnacles or something like that. All we have here is a mouth and anus haha.
How do you know we should see more than we have?Even then we should have more fossils. So far, we have Saccorhytus coronarius and then Tiktaalik. They do even look alike. We also have questions between apes and humans. How does know which end is up on the Saccorhytus coronarius? Those aren't eyes, but barnacles or something like that. All we have here is a mouth and anus haha.
The ginormous list of only the most famous transitional fossils
List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia
Err..what?
Edited:- Wrong link was posted
Last edited:
Even then we should have more fossils. So far, we have Saccorhytus coronarius and then Tiktaalik. They do even look alike. We also have questions between apes and humans. How does know which end is up on the Saccorhytus coronarius? Those aren't eyes, but barnacles or something like that. All we have here is a mouth and anus haha.
Reminds me of back when I was just a sperm swimming around. Oh those were the days.
james bond
Well-Known Member
We do not see the transitional fossil evidence, so the fossil record is not evidence for ToE nor creationism. The evolutionary timeline and the fossil timeline are both tied to an old earth. You have go back to the 1800s when the argument became one of an old earth vs and young earth.
Creationists have the following evidence for a young earth and it backs up the Bible:
"Young Earth Evidence: Continental Erosion and Fossil Remains. The continents are eroding at such a rate that, if not for tectonic uplift, meteoric dusting and volcanic influx, they would erode flat (Mt. Everest and all) in less than 25 million years. At this rate, high-altitude, million-year-old fossils should have long since eroded away. And yet they remain. The implication is that these fossils are not millions of years old. If this were true, the entire geologic column would need serious revision (see our article on the Geologic Column).
Young Earth Evidence: Subterranean Fluid Pressure. When a drill rig strikes oil, the oil sometimes gushes out in huge fountains. This is because the oil is often under huge amounts of pressure from the sheer weight of the rock sitting on top of it. Other subterranean fluids kept under pressure include natural gas and water. The problem is, the rock above many pressurized subterranean fluid deposits is relatively permeable. The pressure should escape in less than 100,000 years. Yet these deposits remain highly pressurized. Once again, because of the supposed antiquity of these deposits and their location throughout the geologic column, this observation calls into question some of the interpretations which have led to the formulation of the column.
Young Earth Evidence: Global Cooling. In the 19th century, the renowned physicist and inventor Lord Kelvin (William Thomson) was the first to point out that if the earth began in a white-hot molten state, it would have cooled to its current temperature billions of years sooner than the 4.6 billion years accepted today. Since then, old-earth advocates have pointed out that radioactive decay within the earth would greatly slow down the cooling process. Young-earth advocates respond that, even given liberal assumptions concerning the amount of heat produced by radioactive decay, the earth would still cool to its current temperature much sooner than old-earth advocates allow.
Young Earth Evidence: Lunar Recession. The moon is slowly moving farther away from the earth. This has to do with the fact that the earth’s spin is slowing down due to tidal friction and other factors. Lunar recession was first observed by Edmund Halley in the late 1600s (the same Edmund Halley who is credited with being the first to predict the 76-year orbit of the famous comet which bears his name). Given the rate of lunar recession today, the fact that it has gradually accelerated over time, and several other factors, physicists have determined that the earth-moon system could not have existed beyond 1.2 billion years (you can review the mathematical equations involved at Center for Scientific Creation | In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood). This is 3.4 billion years less time than old-earth advocates are willing to accept. Furthermore, the closer the moon gets to the earth, the greater its influence on our tides. We can’t go too far back in time before we would all drown twice a day.
Young Earth Evidence: Helium diffusion from Precambrian Zircons. Helium is produced within the earth by the radioactive decay of certain unstable elements (uranium and thorium being two such elements). Some of this decay takes place inside of crystals known as “zircons.” Helium diffuses from these zircons at known rates depending upon depth and temperature. Scientists have discovered that, in zircons where a billion years of uranium decay has allegedly taken place, too much helium remains—way too much helium. It appears as if the helium hasn’t had enough time to diffuse out of the crystals. This observation has a couple of implications.
First, this observation may overturn a key assumption underlying radiometric dating (the most common old-earth dating technique). Scientists believe that a billion years of uranium decay has taken place within these zircons because they make certain assumptions about the unobservable past (see our article on Radiometric Dating). One of these assumptions is that radioactive decay has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. Scientists have been able to vary decay rates in the lab, but most don’t believe that it actually happens in nature. However, if billions years of uranium decay has taken place so quickly that the helium produced hasn’t had enough time to escape the zircons, this may be strong evidence that radioactive decay rates were greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.
Second, because the zircons came from Precambrian rocks below the geologic column, currently accepted old-earth interpretations of the geologic column may need serious revision (once again, see our article on the Geologic Column). These and numerous other scientific evidences for a young-earth theory give credence to the Bible’s account of the creation of the earth and universe as found in Genesis."
Is there any evidence for the Bible's view of a young earth?
james bond
Well-Known Member
You'll have to explain your link.
Evolutionary evidence for macroevolution is based on billions years of time and fossil evidence. We agree it's scant evidence, so how can you state for certain that your theory is correct? What else do you have besides fossil evidence?