• 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!

The Best Evidence for Evolution (Challenge to all Creationists)

DavidFirth

Well-Known Member
Wow, this is like pulling teeth. You know what would be nice and simple? A basic definition.

Can you please just answer the questions I've had to ask over and over? Why don't you want me to understand what you're talking about? I don't get it.

See Genesis 7:1-4
 

Socratic Berean

Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
...the sentence you pulled from the abstract was "However, the lack of fossil intermediate forms between scales and hairs and substantial differences in their morphogenesis and protein composition have fueled the controversy pertaining to their potential common ancestry for decades."

Notice how that's talking about scale-hair transitions, not scale-feather. We do have very good morphotypes of the stages of feather evolution. So we have very good data showing that it did happen, and very good data showing how it happened. That a handful of Christians in an internet forum refuse to accept this reality isn't at all surprising.
You seem to be missing the point. That we lack a single example of a skin appendage that represents anything like a scale morphing into a feather is a well recognized nut for the scientific community to crack. I was not relying on this single quote to back that claim, but it does show yet another missing transitional form in the fossil record--scale to hair (or any intermediate feather-like form in between, if that is your view on hair evolution). Sorry if that was unclear in the way I presented it.

The link you provide is to a number of abstracts and articles that discuss the evolution of "feathers"--"morphotypes of the stages of 'feather' evolution," as you put it. They show variation among things that we easily recognize as "feathers." They do not show a transitionary form between scales and feathers (the topic of discussion at hand).

If you have seen an example that shows otherwise, that shows a clear scale-to-feather transitionary form, I would be interested in seeing it and we can then put this issue to rest. Please post a pic of a fossil of a skin appendage that is somewhere between a scale and a feather.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
No judgement of rubbish. No need for rebuttal. Look at the actual evidence in the paper (not the sound bite, pop-sci, culturally popular conclusions) and follow the evidence where it really leads.
How can a blind man know where a path "really" leads?

How about actually critiquing the paper and it's findings rather than just advancing an adjectival philippic that lacks any actual support for your claim?

What background do you have to hold yourself up as an authority on the evolution of feathers?

Do you know anything whatever about this rather rarified topic save when you have swallowed hook, line and sinker from unsupportable, uncritical and might I note, unknown and unreferenced cretanist websites?
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
You seem to be missing the point. That we lack a single example of a skin appendage that represents anything like a scale morphing into a feather is a well recognized nut for the scientific community to crack. I was not relying on this single quote to back that claim, but it does show yet another missing transitional form in the fossil record--scale to hair (or any intermediate feather-like form in between, if that is your view on hair evolution). Sorry if that was unclear in the way I presented it.

The link you provide is to a number of abstracts and articles that discuss the evolution of "feathers"--"morphotypes of the stages of 'feather' evolution," as you put it. They show variation among things that we easily recognize as "feathers." They do not show a transitionary form between scales and feathers (the topic of discussion at hand).

If you have seen an example that shows otherwise, that shows a clear scale-to-feather transitionary form, I would be interested in seeing it and we can then put this issue to rest. Please post a pic of a fossil of a skin appendage that is somewhere between a scale and a feather.
Thanks, but no thanks. I've been around these conversations long enough to recognize the folly of trying to show and explain science to Christian creationists. You've been given a means to look into the subject further. If you're truly curious you'll look through it; if you're not, you won't, regardless of what I do.
 

Socratic Berean

Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
Thanks, but no thanks. I've been around these conversations long enough to recognize the folly of trying to show and explain science to Christian creationists. You've been given a means to look into the subject further. If you're truly curious you'll look through it; if you're not, you won't, regardless of what I do.
My friend, you are obfuscating. I've asked for one simple piece of data, and you walk away from the conversation hurling insults? (This Christian creationist has a degree in archaeology and, before heading down that path, worked as part of a clinical pharmacology research team in the National Cancer Institute. I was 16 the first time I successfully spliced a gene from one organism into another, 17 when I served as a member of a field research team studying large carnivores in the wild, and 18 when my name first appeared on a peer-reviewed, published research paper. I do appreciate your efforts to explain science to me, nonetheless.)

The means that you have provided are focused on the wrong issue, as I've tried to gently point out again and again. This is not about "feathers" and how they have changed over time; it's about finding an example (just one) of a scale-to-feather transitional form. It's about surfacing a missing piece of data that will help bridge a gap in our understanding.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I've asked for one simple piece of data, and you walk away from the conversation hurling insults?
You've obviously started off this discussion without knowing much about the lines of evidence that indicate reptile-bird common ancestry. That's no big deal; pretty much everyone is in that state. But you have an interest in the subject, as indicated by your queries. In response I provided you with a very good starting point to look into the subject further.

Now here's the fundamental problem....because you're treating this as a pissing match rather than an opportunity to learn something about a subject that interests you, you're demanding that I personally glean through the material and pick out only that information that meets your specific criteria and post it here for you. And if I don't do that, you'll walk away thinking yourself the victor.

But you're missing the bigger picture. In the end, you walk away just as ignorant as when you started.....you haven't learned a thing. Obviously that outcome doesn't concern you, because if it did you would have taken advantage of the opportunity to learn. But that never was your objective here, was it? You weren't in this to learn, you just wanted to score points in a debate.

That's how I know it's pointless to participate in your charade. I've seen it from Christian creationists far too many times.

The means that you have provided are focused on the wrong issue, as I've tried to gently point out again and again. This is not about "feathers" and how they have changed over time; it's about finding an example (just one) of a scale-to-feather transitional form. It's about surfacing a missing piece of data that will help bridge a gap in our understanding.
Again we see how you approach this as a challenge to me, rather than an opportunity for you to learn. As long as you operate from that framework, you'll remain perpetually ignorant and have no one but yourself to blame.

So you can either go through some of the material and learn a few things, or you can ignore it.....makes no difference to me.
 

Socratic Berean

Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
Don't tell me, "There are no transitional fossils"
Altfish - I didn't tell you any such thing. I did, however, ask something from you--one example, only one, of a skin appendage fossil that represents a mid-transition form, something demonstrating a true scale-to-feather form.
 

Socratic Berean

Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
You've obviously started off this discussion without knowing much about the lines of evidence that indicate reptile-bird common ancestry. That's no big deal; pretty much everyone is in that state. But you have an interest in the subject, as indicated by your queries. In response I provided you with a very good starting point to look into the subject further.

Now here's the fundamental problem....because you're treating this as a pissing match rather than an opportunity to learn something about a subject that interests you, you're demanding that I personally glean through the material and pick out only that information that meets your specific criteria and post it here for you. And if I don't do that, you'll walk away thinking yourself the victor.

But you're missing the bigger picture. In the end, you walk away just as ignorant as when you started.....you haven't learned a thing. Obviously that outcome doesn't concern you, because if it did you would have taken advantage of the opportunity to learn. But that never was your objective here, was it? You weren't in this to learn, you just wanted to score points in a debate.

That's how I know it's pointless to participate in your charade. I've seen it from Christian creationists far too many times.


Again we see how you approach this as a challenge to me, rather than an opportunity for you to learn. As long as you operate from that framework, you'll remain perpetually ignorant and have no one but yourself to blame.

So you can either go through some of the material and learn a few things, or you can ignore it.....makes no difference to me.
Jose - We are obviously talking past each other. I'll bow out. If you ever learn of a fossilized skin appendage representing a scale-to-feather transitionary form, please flag it for me in a pm.
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
Jose - We are obviously talking past each other. I'll bow out.
Without having learned a thing. If someone provided me with resources into a subject I was interested in and I refused to look at any of it and came away without learning anything, I'd be seriously concerned.

If you ever learn of fossilized skin appendage representing a scale-to-feather transitionary form, please flag it for me in a pm.
Again you illustrate my point. You're approaching this as a challenge to me, rather than an opportunity for you to learn. Oh well.
 
Last edited:

Socratic Berean

Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
How can a blind man know where a path "really" leads?

How about actually critiquing the paper and it's findings rather than just advancing an adjectival philippic that lacks any actual support for your claim?

What background do you have to hold yourself up as an authority on the evolution of feathers?

Do you know anything whatever about this rather rarified topic save when you have swallowed hook, line and sinker from unsupportable, uncritical and might I note, unknown and unreferenced cretanist websites?
Sapiens - You are reading too much into this. My use of the words "sound bite" and "pop-sci" and "culturally popular" were too emotional, and for that, I apologize.

I'm simply imploring someone to actually look at the data--not just the title, the abstract, or the simplified conclusions--and to use their own critical thinking skills to weigh the evidence rather than allow the author to do all the thinking for them (and lead them astray with overly ambitious titles, abstracts, etc.).

I'm sure, as a polymath, you are aware that the peer-review process is not flawless (and can be downright weak in some publications). It is not uncommon to see papers that have titles, abstract conclusions, discussions, etc. that go well beyond the data. It is also not uncommon for scientists to challenge each other's published conclusions after a healthy review of the data, a process I've been involved with. It is not uncommon, too, here on RF, to have people citing papers in support of their position based on the title alone and without checking if the data (or the paper more broadly) actually supports their argument.

It doesn't require a specialized background to identify analytic leaps or notice when something is characterized speculatively in one paragraph and as fact in the next.

In the end, should we not analyze everything in life in such a manner, and encourage each other to do so? Shouldn't we look at the evidence and objectively follow wherever it may lead? Cross check analysis and conclusions to ensure that they remain honest to the data, unbiased by pre-held notions?

This is all outside the scope of this thread. The OP holds up transitional fossil forms as a good evidence for evolution, and invites comment. I threw out one longstanding conundrum--the rapid appearance in the fossil record of feathers and a lack of any fossil specimen showing a skin appendage that is between a scale and a feather, a true scale-to- feather transitionary form. Several people have added comment or cited papers (like this one) or provided links to abstracts regarding everything but the very narrow topic at hand--fossil record, a physiological representation of scale-to-feather transitionary form. I've asked several to help surface and post one (just one) example that would allow us to check this box solved. Is that unreasonable? The replies have been insults, people stepping out of the conversation in a huff, and all manner of wild accusations about religious affiliation and visited websites. It has been fascinating to observe.
 

Rational Agnostic

Well-Known Member
In the absence of even a single tangible example of a transitioning scale-to-feather skin appendage, a fossilized specimen, that we can point to as physically observable and testable data, what is the "very good indication?"
.

We may not have found scale-to-feather skin appendage transitional fossils (*yet*), however, we most certainly have found numerous other transitional fossils, including fish-to-reptile (fins evolving into leg stumps) and many examples of ape-to-human transitional fossils (look them up for yourself).
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
Altfish - I didn't tell you any such thing. I did, however, ask something from you--one example, only one, of a skin appendage fossil that represents a mid-transition form, something demonstrating a true scale-to-feather form.
And if I don't....GOD DID IT

Look, I'm no scientist, no evolutionary expert, but the evidence is overwhelming. Yes there are gaps, but those gaps are being filled every year. If you want an example you need a better expert than me.
 

Misunderstood

Active Member
The time lines may be right, but it would be a different timeline than we now use our basis for time.

I have to admit it is a bit difficult to understand. I try to get my thoughts down as fast as I can, but my thoughts flow faster than I can get them down. When I proof read it I usually read into it what I was thinking and miss that I left parts out or does not say what I was thinking. My name on here is because I find it hard to articulate into words what I think, it takes me awhile to get it down correctly. I have been here a while, but have not written much because of this, I will try to do better.

I will be out of town the next couple of days and do not have much time to reply tonight. I get back as soon as I can.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Bacterial cells are what I am talking about. They are supremely complex. You cannot make one from scratch. Prove me wrong. You cannot. Nor can you equal the power and elegance of the creator who designed that magnificent system. Just point me to any, absolutely any example of a system that humans can make that is 1/10 as complex and amazing. Again I ask, how can you explain the complexity of a single cell? You obviously cannot.
Why? Why is "let's see scientists do it in a lab!" always the pre-requisite for accepting something as a plausible explanation versus explicitly denying it? Do you know how much CREDIT you are giving the world's scientists in expecting that they can "create" life? As I usually point to, scientists can't manufacture an accurate artificial banana flavoring - how do you expect them to craft a living cell?

That is exactly the kind of questions that Scientists *ought* to be working on instead of trying to undermine our faith in a creator.
I could have sworn I have seen you posting before along the lines that evolution itself does not preclude the existence of a creator. There are many people (more and more according to polls, apparently) who incorporate evolution into their ideas of what "The Creator" created. Does "evolution" intrinsically undermine faith then? Are scientists truly "working to undermine faith?" Or is this just your paranoia showing?

The whole thing is not only like a computer but better than any computer ever devised!
Not at all like a computer. Transcription errors are enough to douse that idea. They happen all the time. Errors accepted and simply run with - the "CPU" basically tripping all over itself in attempts to muddle through, producing all manner of mutated and disadvantaged lifeforms. Where is the parity checking that could-have-been/would-have been instituted into a computerized system? Where is the double-check before proceeding without a retry at the transmission for corrected data? There are no such systems in place. It's a free-for-all, with raw chemistry leading the fore.

See I am perfectly reasonable.
I dare you to say that again with a straight face.
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Fossil evidence. Consider how many creatures and people are alive today, and compare that number to the number of fossils. Its a tiny fraction. The point is that fossils are typically formed under catastrophic conditions, but C14 dating assumes steady state conditions.
Fossil-creation in no way needs to be tied to "catastrophe" - only chance-occurring "perfect" conditions. Like those stories of the mummies preserved perfectly for thousands of years because of some gas leak of a particular type that happened to erupt into the resting chambers - something that stopped bacteria's progression cold and halted deterioration. Chance occurrence of choice circumstances - no need for "catastrophe."

In addition if the dates of bones that are older than 6,000 years do happen to be accurate they could be part of a previous creation. There are hints in the Bible that there could have been previous creations, so that is plausible.
Can you not see the double-standard you set here? Demanding more and more evidence on top of evidence for evolution, but giving your faith-based ideas a free-pass based on "hints?" It's plausible because "HINTS?"
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
All dogs are like kinds. They're all dogs.

How about dingos? wolves?

All cats are like kinds. They're all cats.

How about tigers and lions? Cheetahs?

Apes and orangutans are like kinds. They're all monkeys.

Of course, they are NOT monkeys. They are apes. That you don't know the distinction is telling.

Cats and dogs are not like kinds.

Are all bears in on kind? Or is there a different kind for polar bears and black bears? How about pandas?

Apes and humans are not like kinds.

Why, specifically? Biologically, we have *all* the characteristics of an ape.

There is nothing hard about it.

No, it is just too vague to be useful. You want to divide up species as you think they should be divided up in spite of what the biology, genetics, and fossil evidence say.
 
Top