Transitional / intermediate

[Audie]

*Sigh* Pity. He didn't last long....

Sic Semper Poe

[Audie]

The flood is a myth.

No -- no myth -- just a real happening.

And God's Word Tells us Why it happened.

NO chance at all that is just your chosen interpretation?

For lo, either thine god is a great deceiver, or that polar ice is not really there? Or what?


Not wise or honest to confuse one's opinion with the sacred word of Almighty God.

[Audie]

Well, polar ice and transitional / not fully formed are different topics.

I was hoping for some clarification, but oh well.

[crochet1949]

The flood is a myth.

No -- no myth -- just a real happening.

And God's Word Tells us Why it happened.

NO chance at all that is just your chosen interpretation?

For lo, either thine god is a great deceiver, or that polar ice is not really there? Or what?


Not wise or honest to confuse one's opinion with the sacred word of Almighty God.

Well -- God's Word Is truth -- AND gives everyone the reason For the world-wide flood happening. So - let's take another look at Genesis -- seems we've had this conversation before -- another thread. However - bears repeating -- and we can cover two birds with one book. Genesis 1:20 the 5th day of the week of creation living creatures in the water and the birds that were flying -- all within their kind so that they could reproduce. And the next day the land animals came into existence along with man who was created - in part- to have dominion over the animals. That was the 6th day. And the evening and the morning was the cutting off point of each day.

So - since various water and land animals were made a day apart -- it would be kind of hard for anything to transition from one 'form' to another one. And what Has been stated is that transitioning from one species to a different one Does NOT happen. Variety Within all the groups of fish, animals, yes. Because -- as has been observed in nature -- 'birds of a feather Do flock together". That which an animal / bird mates With Will become the next generation. And That is how life Works -- one generation at a time.

Now - on to the flood -- Chapter 6:5 "Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
vs 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart."

vs 7 "So the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

So - we can see that That is Why that flood happened in the first place. And Noah and his family were the only people alive who were righteous in God's eyes. So he and the animals that God saw fit to put into the ark were what started out the world Again.

vs 8 "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord."

vs 13"And God said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them, and behold, I will destroy them with the earth."

vs 14 "Make yourself an ark ....." and he is given instructions as to exactly how to build it.

[crochet1949]

hmmm -- something happened -- vs 8, 13, and 14 Should have gone Before the 'So' paragraph.

I'll add -- God Has allowed numerous flooding to occur in various geographical areas Since then. We can see how destructive flooding Can be in more localized settings. As are sunamies and earthquakes , etc. God Does try to get our attention.

[crochet1949]

Audie -- at least you Are acknowledging the existence of "the sacred Word of Almighty God." And, yes, you have said that you've read it at least a couple of times.

[Audie]

Audie -- at least you Are acknowledging the existence of "the sacred Word of Almighty God." And, yes, you have said that you've read it at least a couple of times.

I recognize that people believe in such things. I use the term for convenience, a litrrsry convention.

If there actually is such a thing as word of god , and this is my only point, what one reads in the bible, andwhat they decide to think it really means is not necessarily the same as "the word of god".

Checking one's reading against outside evidencd seems sensible, and a way to avoid the unseemly
arrogance of announcing that their chosen resding of the bible IS the word of god. Or God.

[crochet1949]

I've Not arrogantly announced Anything -- I've shared directly from Genesis -- it's there for Anyone - including You to read for yourself -- it's in English -- it says what it says. A person doesn't especially Like what it says, but it's still there.

[Audie]

I've Not arrogantly announced Anything -- I've shared directly from Genesis -- it's there for Anyone - including You to read for yourself -- it's in English -- it says what it says. A person doesn't especially Like what it says, but it's still there.

Then why dont all good Christians see it that way?

I dont much like your reading, but that is coz it makes the whole book a phony.
And I'd prefer that it isnt.

[crochet1949]

And How does 'my reading' make the whole book a phony? Cause I'm quoting God's Word -- not my own. That's what those quotation marks are indicating. As anyone who has a NJK version can verify.

[Nicki]

Well, polar ice and transitional / not fully formed are different topics.

I was hoping for some clarification, but oh well.

I made some comments in the other thread, but I think the idea is that there should be many more transitional forms (with very little change between them) in between the fairly different creatures that we have fossils for - we just have a 'fully formed' this or that animal with noticeable gaps from one to the next.

[hughfarey]

I think the idea is that there should be many more transitional forms (with very little change between them) in between the fairly different creatures that we have fossils for - we just have a 'fully formed' this or that animal with noticeable gaps from one to the next.

This is a valid point, the first one on this topic which makes some sense. If every animal is fully formed and adapted to its environment, how come we have dozens of fossils of land-dwelling, unfeathered, unflying "ancestors" of birds, and dozens of tree-dwelling, feathered, flying birds, but remarkably few fossils of animals adapted to environments intermediate between the land and the trees.

Actually putting it like that helps to explain the reason. There is a lot of land, and there are a lot of trees, but the ecological niches that require a reptile with feathers, or a bird with four claws, are few. There are some - even today we see the remarkable hoatzin - and before competition from other birds and mammals outperformed them there were more, but the evolutionary bottleneck, both environmentally and in time, meant that there really were fewer intermediate species between reptiles and birds, which consequently left fewer fossils.

Something similar can be seen with the organisms intermediate between fish and reptiles. There is a lot of water, and a lot of land, but rather less environment between the two, which is perhaps why there are many fewer riparian amphibians, even today, than fish or reptiles.

[Nicki]

I think the idea is that there should be many more transitional forms (with very little change between them) in between the fairly different creatures that we have fossils for - we just have a 'fully formed' this or that animal with noticeable gaps from one to the next.

This is a valid point, the first one on this topic which makes some sense. If every animal is fully formed and adapted to its environment, how come we have dozens of fossils of land-dwelling, unfeathered, unflying "ancestors" of birds, and dozens of tree-dwelling, feathered, flying birds, but remarkably few fossils of animals adapted to environments intermediate between the land and the trees.

Actually putting it like that helps to explain the reason. There is a lot of land, and there are a lot of trees, but the ecological niches that require a reptile with feathers, or a bird with four claws, are few. There are some - even today we see the remarkable hoatzin - and before competition from other birds and mammals outperformed them there were more, but the evolutionary bottleneck, both environmentally and in time, meant that there really were fewer intermediate species between reptiles and birds, which consequently left fewer fossils.

Something similar can be seen with the organisms intermediate between fish and reptiles. There is a lot of water, and a lot of land, but rather less environment between the two, which is perhaps why there are many fewer riparian amphibians, even today, than fish or reptiles.

That could be right, but I'm talking about even smaller changes. How many generations would it take for feathers to develop in a whole population? Quite a large number, I'd say - but as Audie has said before, most organisms die without being fossilized and there might be many fossils that haven't been found yet.

[Audie]

I think the idea is that there should be many more transitional forms (with very little change between them) in between the fairly different creatures that we have fossils for - we just have a 'fully formed' this or that animal with noticeable gaps from one to the next.

This is a valid point, the first one on this topic which makes some sense. If every animal is fully formed and adapted to its environment, how come we have dozens of fossils of land-dwelling, unfeathered, unflying "ancestors" of birds, and dozens of tree-dwelling, feathered, flying birds, but remarkably few fossils of animals adapted to environments intermediate between the land and the trees.

Actually putting it like that helps to explain the reason. There is a lot of land, and there are a lot of trees, but the ecological niches that require a reptile with feathers, or a bird with four claws, are few. There are some - even today we see the remarkable hoatzin - and before competition from other birds and mammals outperformed them there were more, but the evolutionary bottleneck, both environmentally and in time, meant that there really were fewer intermediate species between reptiles and birds, which consequently left fewer fossils.

Something similar can be seen with the organisms intermediate between fish and reptiles. There is a lot of water, and a lot of land, but rather less environment between the two, which is perhaps why there are many fewer riparian amphibians, even today, than fish or reptiles.

We do see that there will be a lot of specimens of some life form, and then
there will be a lot of specimens of another similar one with certain modifications.

And yes there is generally a lack of a perfect gradual sequence of intermediates.

The gaps in the fossil record are of course enigmatic, leading to the "punctuated equilibrium" or "progressive creation" ideas to explain it.

We do have a succession of changes that show up as a scatter of data points. I think ToE best connects them. We dont have a smooth line. Data sets generally dont.

I am inclined to think that a reason is that a good successful "model"
will be replicated in large numbers and last for a long time. The american possum has been around more or less forever, for example.

To digress on that for a bit, the possum is a generalist, not especially good at anything, as in not specialized for anything in particular. Jack of all trades, master of none, perhaps. But there is a place for that. Rats are another such.

Now, IF one moved rats, or possums to a virgin continent with no other mammals, my opinion is that in time one would see small burrowing possums, squrrel like possums, tall fast predatory possums, etc. Same with rats, there' be big cow like "rats", squirrel- like rats.

Anyway..In Darwin's day there was the war of the gradualists and the catastrophists. Some creationists are still at it.

It is rather obvious that both types of process occur, with all manner of gradation between.

It seems to me that there must be times of great stress that lead to rapid
evolution, leaving for the most part few traces, just for statistical reasons.

When things stabilize, there is much more gradual change.

When proto-amphibian fish were first venturing onto land, they were the biggest baddest things on land. No competition. Equally at home in land and water. A sort of golden age, perhaps. ( I say this by way of disagreement with some in bold in your post)

I think you are wrong about the reason..the amphibian / fish of devonian days were generalists, with no competition.

It is really something that there are even today some fish that manage to find a niche for leaving the water. The competition for any niche on land, not to mention the highly capable predators waiting for any foolish fish
that ventures out on clumsy legs! "Yet still they come"

Later,as more capable land dwellers developed, the early generalist
amphibians would have been crowded out.

Im being kind of discursive. One more thought, on the completeness of the fossil record.

A lot of species are known from only one specimen, often only a small piece of one specimen. Let the money flow to paleontology, there will be more data.

[Audie]

I think the idea is that there should be many more transitional forms (with very little change between them) in between the fairly different creatures that we have fossils for - we just have a 'fully formed' this or that animal with noticeable gaps from one to the next.

This is a valid point, the first one on this topic which makes some sense. If every animal is fully formed and adapted to its environment, how come we have dozens of fossils of land-dwelling, unfeathered, unflying "ancestors" of birds, and dozens of tree-dwelling, feathered, flying birds, but remarkably few fossils of animals adapted to environments intermediate between the land and the trees.

Actually putting it like that helps to explain the reason. There is a lot of land, and there are a lot of trees, but the ecological niches that require a reptile with feathers, or a bird with four claws, are few. There are some - even today we see the remarkable hoatzin - and before competition from other birds and mammals outperformed them there were more, but the evolutionary bottleneck, both environmentally and in time, meant that there really were fewer intermediate species between reptiles and birds, which consequently left fewer fossils.

Something similar can be seen with the organisms intermediate between fish and reptiles. There is a lot of water, and a lot of land, but rather less environment between the two, which is perhaps why there are many fewer riparian amphibians, even today, than fish or reptiles.

That could be right, but I'm talking about even smaller changes. How many generations would it take for feathers to develop in a whole population? Quite a large number, I'd say - but as Audie has said before, most organisms die without being fossilized and there might be many fossils that haven't been found yet.

In a whole population..like if everyone on earth started having babies who were part of a genetic change to, say, feathers?

It doesnt work that way.

Think of the fly that was resistant to DDT. After a bit, all flies would be descendants of the resistant strain. The whole population didnt develop it, they inherited it.