1. 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!

Featured The Best Evidence for Evolution (Challenge to all Creationists)

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Hubert Farnsworth, Jul 30, 2017.

  1. DavidFirth

    DavidFirth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2017
    Messages:
    6,811
    Ratings:
    +1,322
    Religion:
    Christian
    See Genesis 7:1-4
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Socratic Berean

    Socratic Berean Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +50
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  3. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,548
    Ratings:
    +2,718
    Religion:
    None
    What's to "elaborate?" It is patently obvious.
     
  4. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    48,887
    Ratings:
    +13,216
    That was completely useless....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Sapiens

    Sapiens Polymathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2014
    Messages:
    5,548
    Ratings:
    +2,718
    Religion:
    None
    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?
     
    #105 Sapiens, Aug 2, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2017
  6. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,022
    Ratings:
    +4,835
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Socratic Berean

    Socratic Berean Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +50
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  8. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,022
    Ratings:
    +4,835
    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.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Socratic Berean

    Socratic Berean Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +50
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  10. Socratic Berean

    Socratic Berean Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +50
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  11. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    6,022
    Ratings:
    +4,835
    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.

    Again you illustrate my point. You're approaching this as a challenge to me, rather than an opportunity for you to learn. Oh well.
     
    #111 Jose Fly, Aug 2, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2017
  12. Socratic Berean

    Socratic Berean Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Messages:
    153
    Ratings:
    +50
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  13. Hubert Farnsworth

    Hubert Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,844
    Ratings:
    +2,527
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    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).
     
  14. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    12,322
    Ratings:
    +10,068
    Religion:
    Humanist
    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.
     
  15. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    6,011
    Ratings:
    +6,625
    Religion:
    None
    Fail.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Misunderstood

    Misunderstood Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2015
    Messages:
    380
    Ratings:
    +315
    Religion:
    Christian
    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.
     
  17. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,053
    Ratings:
    +11,922
    Religion:
    Atheist
    And BIG TIME.



    .
     
  18. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,194
    Ratings:
    +4,145
    Religion:
    ?
    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?

    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?

    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.

    I dare you to say that again with a straight face.
     
    #118 A Vestigial Mote, Aug 3, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2017
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,194
    Ratings:
    +4,145
    Religion:
    ?
    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."

    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?"
     
    #119 A Vestigial Mote, Aug 3, 2017
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2017
  20. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    19,721
    Ratings:
    +23,195
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    How about dingos? wolves?

    How about tigers and lions? Cheetahs?

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

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

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

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...