New Evidence Found To Show Humans Came From Fish

[BilliardsBall]

You claimed that if we saw small, incremental changes in the fossil record, "creationism would be null and void". I provided a very clear example of exactly that.....a complete fossil record of foraminifera that shows numerous small, incremental changes in their history, documents hundreds upon hundreds of species-species transitions, and validates Darwinian evolution.

Therefore by your own criterion, creationism is indeed "null and void". But it looks like your preferred tactic in the face of this data is to simply ignore it and hope no one notices. Says a lot, doesn't it?

1. I claimed no such thing.

2. I challenge how you or any scientist on Earth can demonstrate conclusively that Fossil X species evolved from Fossil Y. They are FOSSILS.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are mistaken. I have shown you two examples where the lines of descent are clear and unbroken because the fossil record is very complete. There are many more. The degree of certainty regarding lines of descent is proportional exactly to the amount of fossils one has. Furthermore evolutionary theory is entirely about closely related evolving populations of organisms that share a gene pool. Thus the establishment of cladograms through genetic and fossil records is sufficient evidence for its validity. The idea of who begat who ala Bible or those obsessed with lineage is completely useless for validating the theory of evolution. Apart from cladograms, the only other descent tree that are useful are gene trees which do provide scientifically relevant information. The reason is simple...because sexual reproduction causes random shuffling of genes from mother-father to sibling, in only a few generation, no characteristic feature of your descent line survives the shuffling process. Hence generational descent trees are utterly useless apart from old (and unscientific) conceptions of regal lineages etc. (Its different in bacteria, who reproduce asexually and whose descent trees really do matter). Please read the article below to gain a basic understanding of how to develop cladograms that have useful scientific information.


Understanding Evolutionary Trees




No evolutionary scientist cares about descent lines (as its unscientific and tells us nothing). But the cladograms for fish to amphibian evolution is indeed accepted in all science. Textbooks showing the universal scientific consensus are there:-
Gaining Ground
If new species are found (and will be found), they will be added as branches to the cladogram, but the structure of the cladogram is unlikely to change given the evidence we have for it. However there are currently no gaps in the fish to amphibian fossil record as the stages of evolution are well captured by the current fossils,and validated by genetics. New species will of course be discovered showing new variation in the theme, but while they increase understanding, they do not fill any gap. Its like this, a new coffee shop down the street may add to our experience in coffee drinking, but does not fill any gap in our knowledge of coffee. Not the case in all cases, there are places where lack of fossils create genuine gaps, like how flowers evolved and diversified, but fish to amphibian evolution is not such a case.

Punctuated evolution is also a form of gradualism that occurs through the usual mutation and natural selection processes over millions of years. Read a book on the topic. Actually the fish to amphibian transition and all the evidence I linked to is a case of punctuated evolution. Its punctuated, because the transition happened quite rapidly..which for biologists mean 10-15 million years. Rapidity is in relation to the usual units of time in a field, and for earth's history hundreds or millions of years are usual units of time. Furthermore, every species along a transitional gradient is a fully complete form adapted to the environment it lives in. Where do you get the erroneous idea that transitional species and their organs are not fully complete and adaptive and functional in their environment? Indeed species like Tiktaalik which is transitional between fish and amphibians, was well adapted to the shallow estuarine environments it lived in, and to which its transitional fin-limb appendages were well adapted.


Evolutionary theory will be falsified if partially formed creatures and hopeful monsters are ever uncovered. Do you even know what the theory is and what kind of fossils it predicts? Where do you get all this false information about evolution from. Who has been lying to to you?
Here is the correct theory and its predictions:-

What is Evolution?
What is Evolution?

Do you read what I write?

Evolutionary theory will be PROVED if partially formed creatures and hopeful monsters are ever uncovered.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Those are different than worshiping a deity, to me.

Worship is reverence and adoration. The things I mentioned aren't deities.

It is appalling to me (I'm being honest) to see sinners adore themselves and not their Creator. I know myself, and I know some other people, and they are unworthy of such veneration.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The Bible contains claims. Proper evidence has to come from a source outside of the book making the claims.

I agree. I'm an apologist because I spent a lot of time in those outside sources.

 

[BilliardsBall]

They are "transitional forms", as are you and I. If our children were just clones of ourselves, you might have a point. But they aren't, and so you don't.

My children are human, theirs will be also. There is wonderful genetic variation, but my children aren't transitioning in any way into non-homo sapiens.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So you can not even provide 1 out of those thousand? More so a scattering of archaeological evidence does not support a wholesale claim of Christianity.



Hilarious when you state above that there is all these proofs but you can not name a single one. So what is your method? Make claims then refuse to support said claims? Great method you have.



Oh I am sure you will as you did with your thousand proofs....

I'm starting to believe you aren't open to proof but are arguing for the sake of argument. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Who says dogs become cats??

Who says they don't? Who are you to put a limit on Evolution? How do you know so much?

 

[BilliardsBall]

It doesn't validate it either.

What would validate Bible truth, in your opinion? That is, if you are open-minded and not close-minded to the possibility?

Normally when I ask this question, skeptics say, "Nothing!" because they cannot see past their own nose and their presentism.

Prove me wrong!

 

[BilliardsBall]

How is anybody supposed to know what you're talking about if you refuse to define your terms??

What are we talking about, then? I thought the OP had to do with humans being fishy.

 

[sayak83]

Do you read what I write?

Evolutionary theory will be PROVED if partially formed creatures and hopeful monsters are ever uncovered.

You are wrong.
Evolutionary theory will be DISPROVED if partially formed creatures and hopeful monsters are ever uncovered.

Your statement shows that you do not understand what the theory is and what its predictions are!

 

[Jose Fly]

Do you have a point?

Yes. You keep using the term "kind" in your arguments, but when asked to define the term you do everything you can to avoid defining it. That's a problem.

I find your tactics distasteful since I seek conciliation and agreement and you are acting childishly.

Well then you tell me.....what is the proper tactic when dealing with someone who keeps using terms that they cannot define, and absolutely refuse to define?

In a debate, it's good to define terms.

I agree. So since we both agree that defining one's terms is a good thing to do, please define the term "kind".

Are you saying YOU WILL ACCEPT WHATEVER term I use for kind in our debate?

Post your definition and we'll go from there. But notice how once again, you respond to me without actually defining the term. You talk all about me, how I post, what may or may not happen if you define the term, try and get me to define your term.........everything except posting a definition.

Why?

YOU DEFINE KINDS and I'll use your definition.

?????????????? Why would I need to define a term that is central to your argument? This isn't that difficult.....either you can define the term or you can't. That you've spent weeks now doing everything you can to avoid defining it strongly suggests that you can't. But for some reason it also seems you can't admit it either.

Why is this so difficult for you? Either define the term or just admit you can't. What's so hard about that?

 

[Jose Fly]

1. I claimed no such thing.

Yes you did. In post #489 you stated "There is NO small change that you can see in the record or creationism would be null and void."

Both Sayak and I posted examples of small, incremental changes in the fossil record. Therefore, according to your own criterion creationism has been rendered null and void.

2. I challenge how you or any scientist on Earth can demonstrate conclusively that Fossil X species evolved from Fossil Y. They are FOSSILS.

First, both Sayak and I posted examples of that. Did you read the material?

Second, why are you moving the goalposts? First you say that merely showing "small change" in the fossil record is all it takes to render creationism null and void. But then once examples of small change are posted, suddenly this new criterion pops up.

Do you understand how such behavior can be seen as rather dishonest on your part?

 

[sayak83]

2. I challenge how you or any scientist on Earth can demonstrate conclusively that Fossil X species evolved from Fossil Y. They are FOSSILS.

I challenge you to conclusively demonstrate that you were born from your mother. All you have are other people's memories, birth certificate, some DNA similarity and cute pictures. They prove nothing!!

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are wrong.
Evolutionary theory will be DISPROVED if partially formed creatures and hopeful monsters are ever uncovered.

Your statement shows that you do not understand what the theory is and what its predictions are!

I think you understand evolution and evolutionary theory as accepted today, but not what fossils are. You are "towing the party line" which I understand, since there is peer pressure from fellow scientists, but if only one in a million animals has a partially formed body we should still find thousands of such fossils. A simple Google search reveals thousands of homo sapiens alone who are born without limbs due to genetic evolution/mutation. The fossil record speaks most eloquently of creation.

Or perhaps, if you wish to continue this line with me, so I can learn, explain why there are literally billions of fossils in museums and millions of missing-limb and partially formed species on Earth now, but not in the record. It's not my intention to make an argument from silence but the silence is eloquent.

Again, with over 99% of all fossils today being marine fossils, the Bible record remains sterling.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes. You keep using the term "kind" in your arguments, but when asked to define the term you do everything you can to avoid defining it. That's a problem.


Well then you tell me.....what is the proper tactic when dealing with someone who keeps using terms that they cannot define, and absolutely refuse to define?


I agree. So since we both agree that defining one's terms is a good thing to do, please define the term "kind".


Post your definition and we'll go from there. But notice how once again, you respond to me without actually defining the term. You talk all about me, how I post, what may or may not happen if you define the term, try and get me to define your term.........everything except posting a definition.

Why?


?????????????? Why would I need to define a term that is central to your argument? This isn't that difficult.....either you can define the term or you can't. That you've spent weeks now doing everything you can to avoid defining it strongly suggests that you can't. But for some reason it also seems you can't admit it either.

Why is this so difficult for you? Either define the term or just admit you can't. What's so hard about that?

Creationists don't always agree on the meaning of bara from the Hebrew. It is commonly taken to mean at the level of order or family in the old school classification system I grew up with (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species).

I'm open-minded if you have a different meaning here. Certainly. I don't mean to aggravate you. We should have a common, shared term before proceeding further.

Thanks for your patience with me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes you did. In post #489 you stated "There is NO small change that you can see in the record or creationism would be null and void."

Both Sayak and I posted examples of small, incremental changes in the fossil record. Therefore, according to your own criterion creationism has been rendered null and void.


First, both Sayak and I posted examples of that. Did you read the material?

Second, why are you moving the goalposts? First you say that merely showing "small change" in the fossil record is all it takes to render creationism null and void. But then once examples of small change are posted, suddenly this new criterion pops up.

Do you understand how such behavior can be seen as rather dishonest on your part?

Yes, I do, and I apologize. There are no small, incremental cases in the fossil record IMO. An analogy, if I may?

I show you a Lexus and a Mercedes, discovered frozen in amber (big mosquitoes, you know!). They both have four wheels on the ground and steering wheels. I say they show small evolved changes but from mechanistic processes without intelligent designers.

I can do the same with fossils. Where is the DNA evidence of a small change in the fossil record? Now, we can certainly see new species and small changes today--even new changes occurring today. But I think there is good reason to reject apes becoming people over time and so on.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I challenge you to conclusively demonstrate that you were born from your mother. All you have are other people's memories, birth certificate, some DNA similarity and cute pictures. They prove nothing!!

You made a smiley face, so I'm unsure if you are joking. There are paternity tests for genetics on my father's side and an in-depth look at mother's genetics can be done.

My point is that we have the fossilized remains of presumed species. We don't even know if fossils are the sculptures of the ancient Atlanteans.

Paleontologists, however, know this. They fully realize that we find three or four bones and reconstruct a skeleton in the lab from those bones, and even make colors of skin or feathers and put these presumed creatures in museums--you know--to indoctrinate the youth.

In a court of law, showing pictures of me and dad at my current age are far less persuasive than a paternity test. I find fossils rather compelling, as do you, but for different reasons:

1) They show the very mass extinctions (yes, more than one catastrophe) that the Bible indicates, and the science matches the pre- and post-Flood record well.

2) They show only fully formed species, and match the presumed lifespans well (people lived longer per the Bible, so reptiles would grow to astonishing sizes. The atmosphere was likely different, thus we have creatures flying and gliding that scientists struggle to make airborne as uniformitarians regarding the atmosphere and its composition and density).

I'm not a biologist or paleontologists, but neither am I a complete ignoramus. I was an evolutionist when I got saved by Jesus Christ, afterward I reviewed the Bible texts, the sciences, and what people on BOTH sides had to say about BOTH. I find some things about Evolution innocuous and some rather concerning.

 

[Jose Fly]

Creationists don't always agree on the meaning of bara from the Hebrew. It is commonly taken to mean at the level of order or family in the old school classification system I grew up with (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species).

If that's the case, then are you ok with humans being in the same "kind" as other members of the family Hominidae?

I'm open-minded if you have a different meaning here.

In my experience with creationists, "kind" usually seems to correspond to "whatever level of evolution I think you can't provide evidence for".

Certainly. I don't mean to aggravate you. We should have a common, shared term before proceeding further.

Thanks for your patience with me.

Let's proceed.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, I do, and I apologize.

Ok.

There are no small, incremental cases in the fossil record IMO.

You've been presented with multiple, independent, documented examples of "small incremental changes in the fossil record". Do you understand how your response to that data is not the slightest bit compelling? I mean, it's basically on the same level as "Nuh uh".

An analogy, if I may?

I show you a Lexus and a Mercedes, discovered frozen in amber (big mosquitoes, you know!). They both have four wheels on the ground and steering wheels. I say they show small evolved changes but from mechanistic processes without intelligent designers.

I can do the same with fossils. Where is the DNA evidence of a small change in the fossil record? Now, we can certainly see new species and small changes today--even new changes occurring today. But I think there is good reason to reject apes becoming people over time and so on.

Thanks.

You're not making any sense.

It's funny......when creationists are shown examples of observed evolution they reject it because "they're still bacteria/fruit flies/finches/etc." IOW, creationists argue they don't count because they don't show sufficient amounts of evolutionary change. But then when creationists are shown examples of large-scale change in the fossil record, suddenly the script flips and those examples are rejected because they don't show "small incremental change". IOW, heads you win, tails we lose.

So given that, let me ask you a question. Are you at all open to the possibility that evolutionary theory is an accurate description of the history of life on earth?

 

[ratiocinator]

There are paternity tests for genetics on my father's side and an in-depth look at mother's genetics can be done.

In much the same way as there are genetic tests that can show how species are related to each other and confirm the theory of evolution.