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!

The Missing Link

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Random, Sep 22, 2006.

  1. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,057
    Ratings:
    +694
    Charles Darwin, quoted in H. Enoch's Evolution or Creation (1866), said:

    So, to firmly convinced Evolutionists and of course anyone else with an opinion I ask, what is your response to the above problem?

    Why are we not digging up half-man/half-apes and half-reptile/half-birds? Why aren't the necessary transitional forms required for evolution to be true there to be found? Why is nature not in chaos but rather well-ordered if spontaneous random processes are ongoing?

    Please note that I believe some form of evolution occured, but am as mystified as most scientists as to the exact process by which it did.
     
  2. logician

    logician Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,890
    Ratings:
    +379
    "Why are we not digging up half-man/half-apes and half-reptile/half-birds?"

    Actually, we are , both in pre-human, and pre-bird. Archaeopteryx, for example,
    had characteristics of both bird and reptile. Several species like Neandertal clear back to the "Lucy" fossil show intermediate stages between ape and man. However, if you read SJ Gould or Eldridge regarding "punctuated equilibria", there's no question that speciation when it occurs, occurs quickly on a geological time scale, and intermediate forms would not be abundant. Intermediate species, however, are still being found quite often.
     
  3. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,057
    Ratings:
    +694
    Easy to say, but there are few definite examples. Where are they being "found quite often"? Why aren't these magnificent incontrovertible proofs of evolution being rammed down our throats daily, everywhere? Just because you're convinced its so, doesn't make it so I'm afraid.

    Speciation occurs quickly on a geological timescale? How convenient...ah, THAT's the reason no-one's found any remains of transitional forms! Of course...

    Archaeopteryx is the most primitve and earliest known species of bird, but it's debated to this day whether its characteristics have anything to do with reptiles.
     
  4. fantome profane

    fantome profane Keep safe, and keep your neighbours safe.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    13,049
    Ratings:
    +7,433
    A common technique used by many creationists is simply to ignore any scientific advancements that have occurred in that past hundred years. Using a quote from 1866 is an excellent example of this. Although this is a quote from Darwin himself, it is still 140 years out of date.
     
  5. spacemonkey

    spacemonkey Pneumatic Spiritualist

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    534
    Ratings:
    +53
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx
    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

    These links both seem to agree that they DO exhibit characteristics of reptiles, including a full set of teeth, flat sternum, and a long bony tail. The reason we do not find more transitionary phase fossils is the same reason why we don't find more fossils in general, it takes the right set of circumstances to create a fossil. The amount of fossils we have found isn't even a fraction of a percent of the amount of life forms that have lived and died on this planet. Besides that, there is no telling how many fossils have been found and ruined by mankind through out te course of antiquity. Stories of dragons and other mythical beasts had to come from some where.
     
  6. logician

    logician Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,890
    Ratings:
    +379
    I'm not even here to defend evolution, which is already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. There's as much hard evidence supporting evolution, as there is supporting the theories of "hard" sciences like physics and chemistry. The main subjects in evolution now are just how it took place, and of course the genetics behind it.
     
  7. Radar

    Radar Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    365
    Ratings:
    +30
    Because the researchers are not trying to save anyone from eternal damnation and are not caring if anyone believes the same way as they do. The religious are the ones that seem to want to shove their beliefs down others throats because they(the religious) have an agenda. The researchers are simply seaching for facts instead of blindly following ancient writtings from ancient man that were trying to explain something they could not or did not have the tools to do the proper research.
     
  8. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    Actually Neanderthal were fully human, just a different species of human.
    The Australopithecines are far more "ape-man" like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus

    I think you misunderstand fossilisation. For an animal or plant to be fossilised is an extremely rare event. They need to be in the right place at the right time, with the right weather and sea conditions to be fossilsed, and for the skeletal remains to stay in close proximity.

    Despite that we do have a clear progression from ape-like ancestors to modern man.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

    The evolution of birds from dinosaur ancestors is also quite clear. We have dinosaurs with feathers and birds with teeth. The similarities between bird and therapod skulls and hips is also striking.
    Next time you come across a bird, check out its legs and feet. You'll see scales and a therapod foot structure.

    There's also plentiful evidence of reptile to mammal evolution, we still even have some living members of those transitional species - the monotremes - mammals which lay eggs.

    The evidence is there Godlike, its just whether you're willing to see it that's the issue in hand.
     
  9. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,090
    Ratings:
    +37,748
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    How come most of the folks who are opposed to evolution cannot talk knowledgeably about it?
     
  10. Cynic

    Cynic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,437
    Ratings:
    +181
    I guess it's easier to oppose the things we misconceive.
     
  11. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,057
    Ratings:
    +694
    Rubbish, I've been in quite a few more serious debates with people far more knowlegable about the subject than you, sir.

    As I said, you obviously didn't read my OP, I am not opposed to Evolution, I just beleive it forms a false dichotomy with Creationism: the two are more complimentary than opposites. You cannot insult my intelligence with nonsense like the above just because I question something and challenge it's premise.

    What is the need here to make this personal? I started a thread to pose a question. Isn't that what the RF is for? I am very angry writing this, but I'll refrain from attacking you back Sunstone.

    I can talk quite knowlegably about virtually any subject, you will find, in point of fact.
     
  12. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,090
    Ratings:
    +37,748
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    My apologies for offending you, Godlike. It was not my intention that my post be taken as specifically referring to you. Rather, I was thinking at the time of all the other threads on RF about this subject and the, in some cases, abysmal ignorance of evolution that those threads revealed. To be frank, I did not take a close look at your OP, but was just reacting to the general trend of such threads as these. Now that I've looked at your OP, I think you have a better understanding of evolution than the people I was referring to. There are only certain points you've made that I would have quibbles with. Again, my apologies for lumping you in with everyone else.
     
  13. Random

    Random Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,057
    Ratings:
    +694
    No problem. To be honest, I don't entirely agree with having forums titled "Science vs. Religion" and "Evolution vs. Creationism" because the people who don't accept them as opposites get forcibly lumped into one or the other category by those who won't accept the middle-way, so to speak. Perhaps this is something worth bringing up on Site Feedback, I don't know...if they were called "Science AND Religion" and "Evolution AND Creation" they might generate a different kind of much less confrontational debate, where argument for arguments sake isn't a staple.
     
  14. JerryL

    JerryL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,601
    Ratings:
    +311
    We do indeed find many transitions between both of those group-pairs.

    Your question is based on the false premise that we do not.

    Few creatures fossilize, so the likelyhood of there being and us finding the fossil remains of every generation in a line of evolution are staggeringly unlikely.

    There are several false premises here.

    You ask why nature is not in chaos: Nature is chaotic.
    You ask why the existance of random processes does not prevent order: Processes are not random.

    ftp://ftp.winitzer-family.net/Htdocs/Jerry/images/hominids2_big.jpg

    In the ground

    No money in it. They are redily available to anyone that looks.

    No, but because the ecidence clearly proves it so is why I'm convinced.

    No, speciation is observed on record:

    Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292

    Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

    Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

    page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

    Goatsbeard ("Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.")

    Then there's our wolf-turned-parasite.

    False premise. Everthing ever found is a transistional form (unless it had no offspring).

    That's not true either. Some distinclty reptile features of archaeopteryx:

    Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered
    Trunk region vertebra are free.
    Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section
    Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it.
    Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.
    Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets.
    Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle).
    Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth.
    Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum.
    Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above)
    The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra.
    Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible.
    Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole).
    Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.
    Claws on 3 unfused digits.
    The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.
    Metatarsals (foot bones) free.
    Gastralia present.

    There's about 22 features not found in birds taht are foudn in both reptiles and arch.

    This is simple posturing. Your posts show a distinct ignorance to the basic facts being discussed. Almost every point in them is based on a demonstrably incorrect premise (as I've expanded on in this post here).
     
  15. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,892
    Ratings:
    +3,251
    People who don't understand that science is the precise opposite of revealed religion are simply not paying attention. Science demands that we gather and consider the evidence before forming beliefs about reality, and also demands that we be prepared to change our beliefs when new evidence becomes available. Revealed religion demands that we receive certain propositions as final and absolute Truth without any evidence whatsoever.
     
  16. Ramacharaka

    Ramacharaka Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2006
    Messages:
    98
    Ratings:
    +7
    the differance between where animals are and where humans are is the road less travelled. hUmans are where they are now from spiraling up perfectly and alien intervention can never be ruled out. There was a legend that the neandrathals fell to opium 30,000 years ago. were we made to grow in capacity immensly during a period of alien intervention when the species were duly seperated? how did the pyridine sit? (pyridines seperate the living from the nonliving and are geometric chemical compounds, as opposed to the assymetric molecules of organic chemistry.)
     
  17. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,178
    Ratings:
    +14,249
    Religion:
    Judaism
    :clap OUTSTANDING :clap
     
  18. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,178
    Ratings:
    +14,249
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I suspect that you are far, far more mystified than most scientists.
     
  19. DeepShadow

    DeepShadow White Crow

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,924
    Ratings:
    +333
    Religion:
    Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
    Not all religions do this. I personally wouldn't subscribe to a religion that behaved this way.
     
  20. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,178
    Ratings:
    +14,249
    Religion:
    Judaism
    What do you think is meant by "revealed religion"?
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...