God and Evolution

[YoursTrue]

What are you talking about Tiktaalik's fins are transitional.

Perhaps you should learn what transitional means. A transitional fossil has some traits from an older preexisting form and some of the traits of a younger form. That is all. Being transitional is not absolute proof of relationship (remember science does not prove things) but it is evidence that there is some degree of relatedness.

I can figure what transitional means. But where was the transition from? What evidence is there from whence (what animal) did the Tiktaalik transition? That's one question. It is possible that a two-headed lizard died and fossilized. This does not mean that God created a two-headed lizard. It means that mutations can occur.
Now here's what I'm saying -- I am not saying Tiktaaliks are mutations. What I am saying is that according to evidence, layers on rocks and mountains show that an enormous amount of time happened to form these structures. I am also saying that it takes time to grow a tree usually from a seed, also for a deer to grow up. Therefore, each day in the Bible's creation account most assuredly is more than a 24-hour period. The evidence proves it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to one estimate, and it makes a certain amount of sense to me, larger mammals (like humans) will become extinct because the earth's warming atmosphere will make continuing life impossible for humans. Quoting one source, (bold is mine) "Some people say we can adapt due to technology, but that’s a belief system, it’s not based on fact. There is no convincing evidence that a large mammal, with a core body temperature of 37 degrees C, will be able to evolve that quickly. Insects can, but humans can’t and that’s a problem.”
So you can say good-bye to human population because imagine this: human life on another planet within the next 50 years (?) is virtually impossible.
Life on Earth now officially at risk, scientists say

Again try to find more serious scientific sources that make that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you, and I understand that. It had legs or something like that, didn't it? (Yes, it did from the pictures.) You don't know that from the Tiktaalik came human (or ape) hands. That's like saying, as one scientist did, and I paraphrase, "Oh, good! That fits the theory," when they discovered the Tiktaalik. I'm even beginning to remember its name. Tiktaalik. And that's like saying that because fossils of feathers on a dinosaur means that birds came from dinosaurs. Meantime, there are lots of different birds. Parrots. Sparrows. Ostriches. I happen to like birds, they are fantastic and can be beautiful. I like looking at birds, not particularly having them as pets.

Those are far from "human". Those bones can be found in all tetrapods (except snakes of course). Bats, whales, dogs, lizards. they all have those same bones.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can figure what transitional means. But where was the transition from? What evidence is there from whence (what animal) did the Tiktaalik transition? That's one question. It is possible that a two-headed lizard died and fossilized. This does not mean that God created a two-headed lizard. It means that mutations can occur.
Now here's what I'm saying -- I am not saying Tiktaaliks are mutations. What I am saying is that according to evidence, layers on rocks and mountains show that an enormous amount of time happened to form these structures. I am also saying that it takes time to grow a tree usually from a seed, also for a deer to grow up. Therefore, each day in the Bible's creation account most assuredly is more than a 24-hour period. The evidence proves it.

There has been more than one Tiktaalik found. You hear mostly of the first one, but you should never assume that fossil finds are one of a kind. Since fossilization is very rare it only makes sense that what one see are the norms and not the exceptions.

But it is nice to see you realize that the Earth cannot be young.

By the way, I like reliable sources because they can make the case more clearly than I can:

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."

If you ever see a cladogram with fossils on it the fossils are usually slightly off the main line indicating that the direct line of descent is uncertain.

But one must remember what each model predicts. The evolutionary model predicts transitional forms and we see them. Creationists have no explanation. To even claim to have an explanation the first thing that must be done is the construction of a falsifiable model and for some odd reason creation "scientists" are afraid to do that.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is the fin of Tiktaalik, but you can see the very crude bones that became our hands.

It looks pretty complete to me. If I were an evolutionist, I would say that it would be great to find a predecessor to it, and the successive being (thing? item?) to it. But I would also think the bones of a predecessor would show everything except the fins, and the successor would show advancing fins to hands or something like that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Those are far from "human". Those bones can be found in all tetrapods (except snakes of course). Bats, whales, dogs, lizards. they all have those same bones.

So the question is, when you say they have the same bones, would you say they have the same heads? And while I can laugh a little while saying that, I mean just because a living thing has a head (including snakes), does that mean that they all evolved from a common bacteria? So yes, let's be honest. I am going to maintain that God created each living thing according to its kind. He made the plants. Animals. Fishes. Bacteria. How it was done and what the stages were for their creation except as revealed in the Bible which makes sense to me, I don't know.
I do know this. Most trees come from seeds. These seeds are planted, grow into a tree, and produce other seeds. I bring this up because one might wonder, what came first, the seed or the tree? And in any case, it takes time for a seed to develop into a tree that will bring other trees.

 

[YoursTrue]

There has been more than one Tiktaalik found. You hear mostly of the first one, but you should never assume that fossil finds are one of a kind. Since fossilization is very rare it only makes sense that what one see are the norms and not the exceptions.

But it is nice to see you realize that the Earth cannot be young.

By the way, I like reliable sources because they can make the case more clearly than I can:

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.[1] This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."

If you ever see a cladogram with fossils on it the fossils are usually slightly off the main line indicating that the direct line of descent is uncertain.

But one must remember what each model predicts. The evolutionary model predicts transitional forms and we see them. Creationists have no explanation. To even claim to have an explanation the first thing that must be done is the construction of a falsifiable model and for some odd reason creation "scientists" are afraid to do that.

It's getting late, I'm getting tired, I have enjoyed our conversation. I like wikipedia, it is often my first source of reference in a question, then I dissect, clarify, or learn what I want to if need be. When I see pictures of layers of rocks and sediments, I realize this took lots and lots of time to happen.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It looks pretty complete to me. If I were an evolutionist, I would say that it would be great to find a predecessor to it, and the successive being (thing? item?) to it. But I would also think the bones of a predecessor would show everything except the fins, and the successor would show advancing fins to hands or something like that.

If course it is complete. The creationist version of evolution is wrong. The important part is in the details. Everything about that is very general. Compare it with the "hand" or wing of a bat. Even though many of the same bones are there you will see a high degree of specialization in the bat wing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I imagine you are figuring evolution to be that of all living matter having evolved by 'natural selection' (I dare not say mindlessly, so I'll say 'natural selection') from one form of matter (whatever that was) to all the different branches of life, i.e., that of plants, fishes, and animals. Is that more or less right?

Your ignorance is making you choose words that when strung together, makes very little sense in context of biological evolution.

Biological evolution is the process by which changes are accumulated over generations in a population which eventually leads to speciation.

This process is responsible for the diversity of life that we see on this planet.

Common ancestry is a genetic fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why would larger nomadic tribes require writing systems and how did these writing systems develop, oddly enough, within only the past 5,000 years or so.

It seems you are again not paying any attention.
I just explained to you how writing systems were developed by early societies that settled down and explained the rationale behind it. It was not developed by nomadic tribes.

Not the literally hundreds of thousands of years before while these small tribes you say were wandering around. Small tribes now it gets to? Um, exactly now many nomadic travelers were there prior to 5-6,000 years ago?

Before humans settled down in settlements at the dawn of human civilisation - which really wasn't that long ago, all humans were nomadic.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It was? After virtually hundreds of thousands of years?

Civilisation isn't "hundreds of thousands" of years old. Try 7000-8000 years instead.
Before that, humans were nomadic.

Took them all that time to get together (advance) to so-called civilization and figure out how to communicate with writing instead of making cave wall art?

Yes and it's very easy to explain why that is.
Once they settled down and figured out how they could grow their own food and cattle (which went hand in hand), they had the opportunity to explore ways to organize their society better, as they had more "free time" on their hands and had less to worry about concerning dangerous predators and such, as they fortified their settlements with walls and stuff.

This triggered waves of innovation in toolmaking, agriculture, language, writing, math, politics,......

Ah -- you will -- I suspect it's because you don't know the answer as to the dating process.

Guess again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tiktaalik is considered by some to be a transitional form.

If by "some" you mean pretty much every single evolutionary biologist, geneticist, paleontologist,.... then sure.



It has anatomical traits of both its fish ancestor and its land crawling descendants. That's the very definition of a transitional.

Macro? Very macro I suppose, from fish to land entirely. Very macro.
Let me get off the exact subject, although related, to an extent for a moment.

So, you really aren't even going to address the fact that this fossil was actually found by prediction?

I guess I get that. Probably a bit too hard for you to explain how evolution theory can be accurately used to find fossils by prediction that are hundreds of millions of years old, while evolution theory is supposed to be incorrect.

Do you believe perhaps that humans also are in a state of transition?

Every single species, or even individual, is transitional between the previous generation and the next.

Evolution doesn't stop. As long as there is reproducing life, that life will be subject to evolutionary processes.

As you might also think the same about lions and alligators.

ALL species are subject to evolutionary processes. It is inevitable.

Yet in the 5,000 or so years of written history or documentation, I don't suppose there is any evidence of transitions observable.

Evolutionary changes on the scale you wish to see, doesn't happen in just 5000 years.
Case in point, it took some 7 million years to get from the common ancestor with chimps (which would have been more chimp like then human like) to homo sapiens. 5000 years is nothing compared to such timespans.

***At the present time, scientists are predicting that unless the atmosphere is turned about (from the pollution), life will be virtually extinct for humans on the earth. But then, life became extinct for tiktaaliks in the past, didn't it. And while tiktaaliks supposedly did not have resources to sustain their species, scientists are saying mankind is in big trouble due to its polluting the resources.

Extinction is when a branch on the evolutionary tree of life turns into a dead-end.
Did our common ancestor with chimps go extinct?

Well... not really... that branch of the evolutionary tree of life wasn't a dead end. It just speciated further into chimps, bonobo's and homo sapiens.

When species A evolves into sub-species B, we can't really say that A went extinct.
The branch of A still exists... we just call it B today.

From "The Guardian," -- An article explained that earth's population will be forced to colonize other planets within 50 years if resources continue to be exploited as they are currently. A study by the WWF warned that humans are plundering the planet at a pace that outstrips its capacity to support life.
Earth 'will expire by 2050'

While interesting and traggic, this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with evolution and even less with the fact that evolution theory (along with other independend theories) was successfully used to predict both the location and traits of Titkaalik.



Whenever you are ready to actually address the notion that Tiktaalik was succesfully found by prediction based on evolution theory, dating mechanisms, historical geology, etc etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thank you, and I understand that. It had legs or something like that, didn't it? (Yes, it did from the pictures.) You don't know that from the Tiktaalik came human (or ape) hands. That's like saying, as one scientist did, and I paraphrase, "Oh, good! That fits the theory," when they discovered the Tiktaalik. I'm even beginning to remember its name. Tiktaalik. And that's like saying that because fossils of feathers on a dinosaur means that birds came from dinosaurs. Meantime, there are lots of different birds. Parrots. Sparrows. Ostriches. I happen to like birds, they are fantastic and can be beautiful. I like looking at birds, not particularly having them as pets.

I see you are still completely ignoring how this previously unknown fossil was found by prediction. And that the prediction included both the location where it would be found, as well as the transitional anatomical traits it would have to have.

You see.... while Tiktaalik is in itself a very nice transitional fossil in support of evolution theory... the REAL impressive and remarkable bit here, is that it was found by prediction. Literally.


I'll repeat in a nutshell:
- scientists see that in period X, there was only sea life
- scientists note that in the later period Y, there was land life.
- scientisits hypothesize that in between X and Y, life from the sea must have evolved into land life.
- scientists narrow down when that "in between" period was.
- scientists look on a geological map to find relevant exposed rock from that particular period
- scientists list traits that the transitional creature would have to have
- scientists go to that place, dig down and find Tiktaalik

=> correct rocks, correct period
=> correct anatomy, exhibiting the exact transitional features they expected it to have


Regardless of wheter you accept evolution or not... In fact, perhaps especially if you reject evolution.... Don't you think it is remarkable that scientists were able to do this???

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can figure what transitional means. But where was the transition from? What evidence is there from whence (what animal) did the Tiktaalik transition? That's one question. It is possible that a two-headed lizard died and fossilized. This does not mean that God created a two-headed lizard. It means that mutations can occur.
Now here's what I'm saying -- I am not saying Tiktaaliks are mutations. What I am saying is that according to evidence, layers on rocks and mountains show that an enormous amount of time happened to form these structures. I am also saying that it takes time to grow a tree usually from a seed, also for a deer to grow up. Therefore, each day in the Bible's creation account most assuredly is more than a 24-hour period. The evidence proves it.

So when scientists predicted this fossil in both anatomy and location and then actually found it ... they were just lucky?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It looks pretty complete to me.

There is no such thing as "incomplete" creatures.

If I were an evolutionist, I would say that it would be great to find a predecessor to it, and the successive being (thing? item?) to it. But I would also think the bones of a predecessor would show everything except the fins, and the successor would show advancing fins to hands or something like that.

Still ignoring that Tiktaalik was found by prediction it seems.
This find is actually exactly what you are asking for here.

It's successive to ancient fish and a predecessor of land crawlers.
In fact, that was the prediction.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your ignorance is making you choose words that when strung together, makes very little sense in context of biological evolution.

Biological evolution is the process by which changes are accumulated over generations in a population which eventually leads to speciation.

This process is responsible for the diversity of life that we see on this planet.

Common ancestry is a genetic fact.

I understand the explanation. What I don't understand is how and if you can explain the development of plants and animals as kingdoms. I said the development of these kingdoms. Can you explain? Allow me to imagine what you will say. You will say that they just developed, cells multiplied by some force of nature, and voila! you have the plants, animals, and a few more kingdoms. Now please correct me if I'm wrong. So from one cell developing into more cells by itself without an intelligent force behind it, comes the different kingdoms, including plants and animals. Is that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no such thing as "incomplete" creatures.



Still ignoring that Tiktaalik was found by prediction it seems.
This find is actually exactly what you are asking for here.

It's successive to ancient fish and a predecessor of land crawlers.
In fact, that was the prediction.

The theory is there. Discovery of Tiktaalik doesn't describe a go-between evolving specimen of something between fish and land crawlers. That part is a theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand the explanation. What I don't understand is how and if you can explain the development of plants and animals as kingdoms. I said the development of these kingdoms. Can you explain? Allow me to imagine what you will say. You will say that they just developed, cells multiplied by some force of nature, and voila! you have the plants, animals, and a few more kingdoms. Now please correct me if I'm wrong. So from one cell developing into more cells by itself without an intelligent force behind it, comes the different kingdoms, including plants and animals. Is that right?

Your questions are often ill formed and people can have a very difficult time deciphering what you are asking.

You tend to use terms improperly which results in people answering a different question than you want to ask. It appears right now that you are asking how plants became a thing. You are not asking the proper question here. You should ask about the trait that led to plants existing. So let me give you a hand:

How did photosynthesis evolve?

And this would have been a very good question to ask since it leads to a part of evolution where we do not have all of the answers yet. But one thing that history tells us, not knowing all of the answers is never a valid excuse to put God into the equation. It is best to say "we don't know yet" and continue to work it out. Before I go on here is an excellent article on the topic:

Early Evolution of Photosynthesis

A few highlights. An early eukaryote probably began a symbiotic relationship with some organisms similar to modern cynao-bacteria. Cyanobacteria have a rather simple photosynthesis. In other words, some cyanobacteria were engulfed but not digested and the two organisms worked so well together they essentially became one. A similar event happened in our past.

Those species eventually formed colonies and colonies led to specialization. If you want more details I again find a biologist, or do your own homework. Do not ask leading questions and avoid creationist sites and you will get real answers to your questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The theory is there. Discovery of Tiktaalik doesn't describe a go-between evolving specimen of something between fish and land crawlers. That part is a theory.

You have that wrong. Tiktaalik was not part of the theory. Tiktaalik was found by applying the theory. And Tiktaalik is a perfect transitional form, showing traits of both land and sea life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand the explanation. What I don't understand is how

- reproduce, passing on your (mutated) genes
- mutate during reproduction
- survive
- repeat

That's it in a nutshell.
It really is that simple.

and if you can explain the development of plants and animals as kingdoms. I said the development of these kingdoms. Can you explain?

One could fill a year worth of biology classes with that explanation. No, I will likely not be able to explain that to you in sufficient detail in a forum post....

However, you are know talking about evolutionary history. Wheter it is the development of plants and animals, the development of photosynthesis, the development of wings or eyes or echo location or <insert whatever evolved trait or group you wish>... the process by which it happens is the same for all of them.

If you really are that interested in how animals and plants evolved, I suggest you get a good book or two on the topic.

So from one cell developing into more cells by itself without an intelligent force behind it

Are you aware that scientists have seen multi-cellular life develop in the lab from single celled yeast?

Lab yeast make evolutionary leap to multicellularity

, comes the different kingdoms, including plants and animals. Is that right?

All evolutionary developments in biology happen through the same evolutionary processes.
Not sure what kind of answer you are looking for here...