Evidence for God from Science

If I were giving a class on evolution based on the fossil record, I would not begin by using horses, dinosaurs, whales or any of the big favourites. It is difficult, though not impossible, to reconstruct the story of, say, Pride And Prejudice, from a handful of pages randomly selected, even if those pages come in the right order. That is the task facing evolutionary specialists, and they make a variety of sensible, but not necessarily perfectly accurate guesses as to how the story goes in between the known pages. The fossil record, indeed, isn't always pretty, and characters do arrive on the scene without prior warning quite often.
But I would begin with a book for which most of the pages are present. Placing, say, thirty or forty ammonites in front of someone unfamiliar with evolution, and ask him to place them in order. Any order which seemed to him sensible. Remarkably, we would find that his order almost exactly matched the sequence of the strata in which they were found. We might then discuss possible reasons for this:
1) A whole succession of extinctions followed by re-creations of new species which only differed from the previous ones in detail
2) A succession of generations, with modification gradually occurring.
3) All the successive variations up to an arbitrary point were gradual modifications, but that at that point ammonites became extinct and were replaced by a new if almost identical spontaneous creation.
4) All these different kinds were created at the same time, but fell into their neat layers because of the currents generated by Noah's flood.

Of the four explanations I have given here, which one seems the most sensible? I maintain that descent with gradual modification would win hands down. I do not agree that "it takes more faith to accept evolution than it does the Genesis creation."

Having established the evidence for descent with modification from various marine strata (diatoms are another good one, and trilobites another) it would be sensible to inquire why not all animals show such a clear succession, and the reason behind the variable rate of modification among those for which there is a clear succession.

PaulSacramento wrote:Even if tomorrow, science would find indisputable fact that evolution is 100% guided and random

"Guided and random"? Does that mean something? Not to me...

it still would not eliminate God ( as Christians know God to be) from the equation.

Quite. That's what I've been saying all along.

"Guided and random"? Does that mean something? Not to me...

Opps, I meant UNGUIDED and random of course, sorry.

hughfarey wrote:If I were giving a class on evolution based on the fossil record, I would not begin by using horses, dinosaurs, whales or any of the big favourites. It is difficult, though not impossible, to reconstruct the story of, say, Pride And Prejudice, from a handful of pages randomly selected, even if those pages come in the right order. That is the task facing evolutionary specialists, and they make a variety of sensible, but not necessarily perfectly accurate guesses as to how the story goes in between the known pages. The fossil record, indeed, isn't always pretty, and characters do arrive on the scene without prior warning quite often.
But I would begin with a book for which most of the pages are present. Placing, say, thirty or forty ammonites in front of someone unfamiliar with evolution, and ask him to place them in order. Any order which seemed to him sensible. Remarkably, we would find that his order almost exactly matched the sequence of the strata in which they were found. We might then discuss possible reasons for this:
1) A whole succession of extinctions followed by re-creations of new species which only differed from the previous ones in detail
2) A succession of generations, with modification gradually occurring.
3) All the successive variations up to an arbitrary point were gradual modifications, but that at that point ammonites became extinct and were replaced by a new if almost identical spontaneous creation.
4) All these different kinds were created at the same time, but fell into their neat layers because of the currents generated by Noah's flood.

Of the four explanations I have given here, which one seems the most sensible? I maintain that descent with gradual modification would win hands down. I do not agree that "it takes more faith to accept evolution than it does the Genesis creation."

Having established the evidence for descent with modification from various marine strata (diatoms are another good one, and trilobites another) it would be sensible to inquire why not all animals show such a clear succession, and the reason behind the variable rate of modification among those for which there is a clear succession.

PaulSacramento wrote:Even if tomorrow, science would find indisputable fact that evolution is 100% guided and random

"Guided and random"? Does that mean something? Not to me...

it still would not eliminate God ( as Christians know God to be) from the equation.

Quite. That's what I've been saying all along.

Before we start looking at fossils from an evolution view point,we need to first know life evolves.This is where evolution science has dropped the ball.They look at all of the evidence including fossils from an evolution viewpoint when they don't even know if life evolves for sure. And every attempt to try to show life does evolve only proved and showed that life can adapt,and from this evidence everything else is assumed to be true,without knowing.It is faith science.

This is a serious problem that gets ignored by the majority.But take phycist and Nobel prize contender Carl Woese who claims that "early" organisms did not evolve vertically, a LA Darwin, by the magical acquisition of new genetic units from parents and ancestors - but horizontally by the donation of useful bits and pieces from other denezens of the microbial morrass,even other species.

So impressed is the New Scientist magazine in which they declare " Woese has done more for biology than any biologist in history,including even Darwin.
Well aware of the scientific sham and utter confusion in conventional evolutionary circles Woese himself comments : "It is a case of complacency ... Biologists were seduced by their own success into thinking they had found the final truth" as a result he adds they:neglected to study the most important problem in science - the nature of the evolutionary process... Most biologists following Francis Crick, simply supposed. What? They supposed and used evolution imagination,the faith that evolution happens. What Woese is admitting is the shocking fact that Darwin's theory has no credible mechanism for the evolution of any living organism at all.

They simply supposed it happened,then opened up their thasaurus of vague verbs to paper over the gaps in the fossil record without actually explaining anything in cause and effect detail - evolved,developed,acquired,learned,invented,etc. They just know it happened by faith,so let's not get too bothered about the details.Be creative! Use your imagination!

Whoese goes on to explain "Darwinian evolution simply cannot explain how such DNA code could arise." Then he adda " Nothing in the modern synthesis explains the most fundamental steps in early life." When it comes to "how evolution could have produced the genetic code and the basic genetic machinery used by all organisms." Woese then goes on to explain "Everyone has been thinking in terms of the wrong kind of evolution." With one of his evolution buddies adding "The process of evolution just isn't what most evolutionary biologists think it is.". Say what?

There are actually honest evolutionists that see the problems with evolution science and are honest enough to speak out,yet they always come up against conventional evolutionary thinking that seeks to stick to the status quo. This causes serious credibility problems I mentioned earlier.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Before we start looking at fossils from an evolution view point,we need to first know life evolves.

This is completely wrong, of course, and is perhaps the fundamental reason for abelcainsbrother's misunderstanding of almost everything concerning evolution. We should start without any preconceived ideas, and simply look at the fossil record, particularly at complete series of generations of marine strata covering millions of years, and ask ourselves what explanation there might be for the observations. Almost from the beginning of this observational branch of science, evolution became the increasingly more obvious simple explanation, and how it might have worked became the focus of continued study.

This is where evolution science has dropped the ball.They look at all of the evidence including fossils from an evolution viewpoint when they don't even know if life evolves for sure.

No. The opposite was true.

And every attempt to try to show life does evolve only proved and showed that life can adapt...

Adaptation is what evolution is.

...and from this evidence everything else is assumed to be true,without knowing.It is faith science.

No. The opposite is the case.

This is a serious problem that gets ignored by the majority.But take phycist and Nobel prize contender Carl Woese who claims that "early" organisms did not evolve vertically, a LA Darwin, by the magical acquisition of new genetic units from parents and ancestors - but horizontally by the donation of useful bits and pieces from other denezens of the microbial morrass,even other species.

Woese's discoveries about horizontal gene transfer were groundbreaking scientific advances in the understanding of how evolution works. He did not dispute evolution in any way.

Well aware of the scientific sham and utter confusion in conventional evolutionary circles Woese himself comments : "It is a case of complacency ... Biologists were seduced by their own success into thinking they had found the final truth" as a result he adds they:neglected to study the most important problem in science - the nature of the evolutionary process... Most biologists following Francis Crick, simply supposed. What? They supposed and used evolution imagination,the faith that evolution happens. What Woese is admitting is the shocking fact that Darwin's theory has no credible mechanism for the evolution of any living organism at all.

Neither Carl Woese nor Francis Crick would have agreed with any of this, and indeed would have been appalled at abelcainsbrother's absurd conclusion from their comments. Horizontal gene transfer had been discussed as an evolutionary process which Darwin could not have known about for many years without experimental evidence to support it, but as the evidence was found, so understanding of it improved. There are one or two other non-Darwinian processes still being investigated. None of them suggest that evolution is not an explanation for the development of life; quite the reverse, by improving the understanding of how it works they help to make it even more secure.

There are actually honest evolutionists that see the problems with evolution science and are honest enough to speak out,yet they always come up against conventional evolutionary thinking that seeks to stick to the status quo. This causes serious credibility problems I mentioned earlier.

These feeble attempts to characterise academic discussions about the mechanisms of evolution as any kind of disturbance to its general credibility are wholly unjustified. The evidence mounts inexorably, and the gates of incredulity shall not prevail against it.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Before we start looking at fossils from an evolution view point,we need to first know life evolves.

This is completely wrong, of course, and is perhaps the fundamental reason for abelcainsbrother's misunderstanding of almost everything concerning evolution. We should start without any preconceived ideas, and simply look at the fossil record, particularly at complete series of generations of marine strata covering millions of years, and ask ourselves what explanation there might be for the observations. Almost from the beginning of this observational branch of science, evolution became the increasingly more obvious simple explanation, and how it might have worked became the focus of continued study.

This is where evolution science has dropped the ball.They look at all of the evidence including fossils from an evolution viewpoint when they don't even know if life evolves for sure.

No. The opposite was true.

And every attempt to try to show life does evolve only proved and showed that life can adapt...

Adaptation is what evolution is.

...and from this evidence everything else is assumed to be true,without knowing.It is faith science.

No. The opposite is the case.

This is a serious problem that gets ignored by the majority.But take phycist and Nobel prize contender Carl Woese who claims that "early" organisms did not evolve vertically, a LA Darwin, by the magical acquisition of new genetic units from parents and ancestors - but horizontally by the donation of useful bits and pieces from other denezens of the microbial morrass,even other species.

Woese's discoveries about horizontal gene transfer were groundbreaking scientific advances in the understanding of how evolution works. He did not dispute evolution in any way.

Well aware of the scientific sham and utter confusion in conventional evolutionary circles Woese himself comments : "It is a case of complacency ... Biologists were seduced by their own success into thinking they had found the final truth" as a result he adds they:neglected to study the most important problem in science - the nature of the evolutionary process... Most biologists following Francis Crick, simply supposed. What? They supposed and used evolution imagination,the faith that evolution happens. What Woese is admitting is the shocking fact that Darwin's theory has no credible mechanism for the evolution of any living organism at all.

Neither Carl Woese nor Francis Crick would have agreed with any of this, and indeed would have been appalled at abelcainsbrother's absurd conclusion from their comments. Horizontal gene transfer had been discussed as an evolutionary process which Darwin could not have known about for many years without experimental evidence to support it, but as the evidence was found, so understanding of it improved. There are one or two other non-Darwinian processes still being investigated. None of them suggest that evolution is not an explanation for the development of life; quite the reverse, by improving the understanding of how it works they help to make it even more secure.

There are actually honest evolutionists that see the problems with evolution science and are honest enough to speak out,yet they always come up against conventional evolutionary thinking that seeks to stick to the status quo. This causes serious credibility problems I mentioned earlier.

These feeble attempts to characterise academic discussions about the mechanisms of evolution as any kind of disturbance to its general credibility are wholly unjustified. The evidence mounts inexorably, and the gates of incredulity shall not prevail against it.

It always comes down to this idea that those of us who reject evolution don't understand it.I think this means we were not propagandized in evolution science.But this is not the case that those of us to reject evolution don't understand it.We can listen to how it is taught and then look at the evidence given and know the evidence does not back up what is taught.

You act like it does not matter that evolution has no credible mechanism for the evolution of any organism at all. You just skim over this like its no big deal. Yet we have scientists pushing a theory and yet they don't even know if life evolves and cannot and have not been able to demonstrate it. Then you claim adaptation is evolution and yet you fail to realize it was known life can adapt long before Darwin.As a matter of fact we did not need evolution scientists to demonstrate life adapts as we have examples out in the world around us.So millions of dollars have been wasted by scientists to show life can adapt. But this is not evolution and you know it.

I never implied Francis Crick or even Carl Woese were not evolutionists,they are,or were but still nothing Woese said was wrong about evolution,there is no credible mechanism for evolution.You just choose to believe life evolves and can choose to believe anything you choose to. But you still must believe by faith life evolves and believe this based on adaptation which is not evidence life evolves not even close. But then on top of this faith you have that life evolves you put this faith life evolves over faith in what the bible says in Genesis.

But you somehow think it is OK for scientists to push this evolution theory for years and not even have a credible mechanism for how life evolves based purely on evolution faith,it happens. You act like this is no big deal,but it is. They first need to know life evolves before they go looking at everything and just making up things as they go along.

This does cause serious credibility problems that you just skim over. You still don't even know for sure if life evolves evolves after 150 years of evolution. You just choose to believe it does based on adaptation. If adaptation is a mechanism of evolution then how come in every case of evidence life does not evolve after it adapted? You cannot claim that adaptation is a mechanism of evolution when you have no evidence to back it up. And yet it is taught adaptation is a mechanism of evolution,which is a myth. I cannot accept a theory where we are taught things and the evidence given does not confirm it. This is faith science and its only going to ruin science's credibility.

I'm truly sorry, Abelcainsbrother, but almost nothing of your comment above is true. I have not arbitrarily claimed that you do not understand anything about evolution; you have made it only too obvious over the last couple of weeks. Your claim above that there is "no credible mechanism for the evolution of any organism at all" is palpable nonsense, especially as you yourself brought up Carl Woese's work on horizontal gene transfer, which augments the hereditary mechanism already well understood.

Yes, I do indeed claim that "adaptation is evolution" or rather that evolution is adaptation. That's what it is; the gradual adaptation of successive generations of organisms to changing circumstances. Of course I "realize it was known life can adapt long before Darwin." Darwin's genius was to realise that this simple explanation could account for all variety, not just a few domestic cases such as pigeons and horses.

So millions of dollars have been wasted by scientists to show life can adapt.

Not at all. They knew that even before Darwin. The millions of dollars have been spent in finding out how life adapts, which is quite a different question.

Nothing Woese said was wrong about evolution,there is no credible mechanism for evolution.

This is simply untrue. Woese was adding to the mechanisms of evolution, not denying the ones already known.

You first need to know life evolves before you go looking at everything and just making up things as you go along.

No, again. this illustrates so well how little you understand science. "looking at everything" came first, and evolution was the most elegant way of accounting for it. Not the other way round.

This is faith science and its only going to ruin science's credibility.

I wouldn't bet on it.

hughfarey wrote:I'm truly sorry, Abelcainsbrother, but almost nothing of your comment above is true. I have not arbitrarily claimed that you do not understand anything about evolution; you have made it only too obvious over the last couple of weeks. Your claim above that there is "no credible mechanism for the evolution of any organism at all" is palpable nonsense, especially as you yourself brought up Carl Woese's work on horizontal gene transfer, which augments the hereditary mechanism already well understood.

Yes, I do indeed claim that "adaptation is evolution" or rather that evolution is adaptation. That's what it is; the gradual adaptation of successive generations of organisms to changing circumstances. Of course I "realize it was known life can adapt long before Darwin." Darwin's genius was to realise that this simple explanation could account for all variety, not just a few domestic cases such as pigeons and horses.

So millions of dollars have been wasted by scientists to show life can adapt.

Not at all. They knew that even before Darwin. The millions of dollars have been spent in finding out how life adapts, which is quite a different question.

Nothing Woese said was wrong about evolution,there is no credible mechanism for evolution.

This is simply untrue. Woese was adding to the mechanisms of evolution, not denying the ones already known.

You first need to know life evolves before you go looking at everything and just making up things as you go along.

No, again. this illustrates so well how little you understand science. "looking at everything" came first, and evolution was the most elegant way of accounting for it. Not the other way round.

This is faith science and its only going to ruin science's credibility.

I wouldn't bet on it.

Somehow you think that just because Woese accepts evolution we can ignore how he admitted evolution has no credible mechanism for evolution of any organism,talked about complacency amongst biologists that failed to study the most important problem in science -the nature of the evolutionary process and they have it all wrong and he has it right.

Getting back to Punctuated Equilibrium.. This is another example of scientists getting it wrong about evolution and having to be corrected.Punctuated equilibrium proved the fossil record does not show transition fossils but big gaps in the fossil record.This is why Guild came up with PE and he had to convince he was right and everything that had been taught in the textbooks was wrong!

The fact is the fossil record only shows fully formed and functioning creatures,that suddenly appear then dissapear,without zillions of transitional forms in between which Darwin insisted should and would be the case if his theory was true. The fact is evolution should have been rejected right here by science because Darwin said if we did not find transitional fossils we would have grounds to reject his theory,but it was'nt. The myth must go on.

This is why Stephen Guild and Niles Eldredge devised their modified theory PE. It was Guild who admitted,to his eternal regret that "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of Paleontology". and that "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips of their branches,the rest is inference, however reasonable,not the evidence of fossils.". Which is an astonishing admission. These people just make it up as they go along.

In seeking acceptance from the scientific establishment for their revolutionary new theory,which actually postulated gaps in the fossil record Ethredge and Guild lamented the impact of textbooks in molding the thought of new professionals,and the sad fact that intake by intake,a few classic tomes dispensed "normal science" I.e. orthodox views sometimes quite unfounded by fact,in particular that the fossil record showed gradual and continuous evolution. Ethredge and Guild continue "The theory dictates what one sees,cannot be stated too strongly." Astonishingly,what Ethredge and Guild are pointing out in selling PE is that these evolutionists were so keen to prove Darwin right that they actually falsified the facts of the fossil record,proving black is white,blinded by their belief into seeing only what they wanted to see - I.e. a gradual evolution of organisms,when what the record really showed were gaps! They proved the wrong thing! Would you buy a dinosaur from these men?

abelcainsbrother wrote:Punctuated equilibrium proved the fossil record does not show transition fossils but big gaps in the fossil record.

This here is the problem right there. How do you define a transitional fossil ACB? Are you, for example, expecting to find a fossil of a cat with no legs, then one, then 2, 3 & 4? This is a serious question but in all of the interactions with you, you keep making the same assertion over and over with regards to the fossil record and yet not once have you articulated what, to you, ought the fossil record look like for it to account for evolution. This is the time to do so.

Somehow you think that just because Woese accepts evolution we can ignore how he admitted evolution has no credible mechanism for evolution of any organism

But this is nonsense; he said no such thing. You are making this up.

talked about complacency amongst biologists that failed to study the most important problem in science -the nature of the evolutionary process [so far so good] and they have it all wrong and he has it right. [No! Wrong again!]

Let's face it, abelcaisbrother, you haven't actually read anything Carl Woese wrote, have you? You are grabbing selective quotes from some Creationist website or other without any idea what they mean or where they come from.

It also seems that you know little or nothing about punctuated equilibrium. The emergence of the idea was built, of course, on evidence, which by the time Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge arrived on the scene was becoming so complete that it was apparent that a steady rate of evolution did not fit fossil morphology well, but that transitions from one state to another were often relatively abrupt - I say relatively as abruptness, to a geologist, can last at least 100 000 years, and often 1000 000 years or more. There was no suggestion that the later species were not very similar to the earlier ones, clearly demonstrating common ancestry. Gould and Eldridge's new idea, that the rate of evolution matches the rate of environmental change, which may not be constant, was remarkable in its day, but, like other aspects of evolution, has blended with other evidence so that it now forms part of a wide-ranging but coherent whole.

Byblos wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Punctuated equilibrium proved the fossil record does not show transition fossils but big gaps in the fossil record.

This here is the problem right there. How do you define a transitional fossil ACB? Are you, for example, expecting to find a fossil of a cat with no legs, then one, then 2, 3 & 4? This is a serious question but in all of the interactions with you, you keep making the same assertion over and over with regards to the fossil record and yet not once have you articulated what, to you, ought the fossil record look like for it to account for evolution. This is the time to do so.

What I mean by transitional fossils are in between one species as it evolves into another species.It is the same thing Darwin meant by transitional fossils.It is not just making up stuff that does not pertain to evolution out of a lack of understanding of evolution. There should've been transitional fossils in between species as they evolved into other species.

But actually it is evolutionists who make glib assertions that fins evolved into legs and then wings. Oh really? How did that happen? How does that work? How does DNA do that?

Take Tiktaalik for example if you read wikipedia it acquired fins/legs with basic wrist bones and simple fingers,showing that they were weight bearing,but probably not used for walking.The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets.suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint.

How did those several connected and coordinated finger and wrist bones,with their ability to flex,along with muscles and tendons,ligaments,cartilage,nerves and skin covering arise from fins by accidental DNA copying errors,or cleverly coordinated mutations? And if they did where are the zillions of unfit and uncoordinated forms with malformed parts? How did the various tendons take shape and attach themselves to the bones,and at just the right position?

Wikipedia continues : Tiktaalik had front fins featuring arm-like skeletal structures more akin to a crocodile...It had rows of sharp teeth of a predator fish,and its neck was able to move independently of its body,which is not possible in other fish. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck.This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Please explain how the accumulation of random DNA copying errors created the specialized array of teeth of a predator fish,upper and lower,and aligned them and attached them to the jaws,and also formed the neck ,and why in this lone survivor?

Notice here the infantile attempt to try to justify these miraculous developments by suggesting that they would give the creature more freedom to hunt prey - a typical Darwinian argument that explains absolutely nothing at all. Most fit? Then where are the zillions of un-fit transitional forms,both ancestors and descendants?

hughfarey wrote:

Somehow you think that just because Woese accepts evolution we can ignore how he admitted evolution has no credible mechanism for evolution of any organism

But this is nonsense; he said no such thing. You are making this up.

talked about complacency amongst biologists that failed to study the most important problem in science -the nature of the evolutionary process [so far so good] and they have it all wrong and he has it right. [No! Wrong again!]

Let's face it, abelcaisbrother, you haven't actually read anything Carl Woese wrote, have you? You are grabbing selective quotes from some Creationist website or other without any idea what they mean or where they come from.

It also seems that you know little or nothing about punctuated equilibrium. The emergence of the idea was built, of course, on evidence, which by the time Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge arrived on the scene was becoming so complete that it was apparent that a steady rate of evolution did not fit fossil morphology well, but that transitions from one state to another were often relatively abrupt - I say relatively as abruptness, to a geologist, can last at least 100 000 years, and often 1000 000 years or more. There was no suggestion that the later species were not very similar to the earlier ones, clearly demonstrating common ancestry. Gould and Eldridge's new idea, that the rate of evolution matches the rate of environmental change, which may not be constant, was remarkable in its day, but, like other aspects of evolution, has blended with other evidence so that it now forms part of a wide-ranging but coherent whole.

No.It comes from doing research on evolution and I do not just make up stuff.I have very legitimate reasons why I reject evolution and much of it is based on honest evolutionists and former evolutionists.

abelcainsbrother wrote:No.It comes from doing research on evolution and I do not just make up stuff.I have very legitimate reasons why I reject evolution and much of it is based on honest evolutionists and former evolutionists.

I know this will seem harsh, but perhaps it is inevitable. I don't believe you have done any research on evolution (apart perhaps from a cursory glance at a few Wikipedia articles), nor read the books and papers of any evolutionists. You have quoted no evidence. You have consistently claimed that evolutionary ideas came before the examination of the evidence. You have 'quoted' things from scientists that they did not say. These are not "legitimate" reasons to reject evolution. Bear in mind that I have no quarrel with those who reject evolution without any reasons. I have no quarrel with your rejection of evolution. To each his own. But to pretend evidence when there isn't, or to deny evidence when there is - that's what I will firmly, persistently, unremittingly, but I hope politely, attack with all guns.

Take your discussion about Tiktaalik for example. You begin: "What I mean by transitional fossils are in between one species as it evolves into another species." OK. Pikaia is an example of an 'inbetween' species between an annelid and a fish. Tiktaalik is an example of an 'inbetween' species between a fish and a reptile. Archaeopteryx is an 'inbetween' species between a reptile and a bird. These are great classics of their kinds, but there are countless other 'inbetweens' discovered in the last 200 years. Now you will immediately reply that these animals were all fully formed creatures, and indeed they were. They had no idea of what their offspring would eventually become, nor would we, had we been able to observe them, have been able to guess. they simply fitted their environment sufficiently well to pass on their genes, albeit slightly modified, to their offspring, some of whom chose a slightly different lifestyle, for which their slightly different genetic make-up made them slightly better adapted.

There should've been transitional fossils in between species as they evolved into other species.

There are. Hundreds of examples.

But actually it is evolutionists who make glib assertions that fins evolved into legs and then wings. Oh really? How did that happen? How does that work? How does DNA do that?

If you had in fact read anything at all about evolution, even the Wikipedia article, you would know the answer to these questions.

Take Tiktaalik for example if you read wikipedia it acquired fins/legs with basic wrist bones and simple fingers,showing that they were weight bearing,but probably not used for walking.The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets.suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint.

Tiktaalik did not acquire fins with wrist bones, nor does Wikipedia say that it did. It was born with them. Its mother, grandmother, and even great grandmother also had fins with wrist bones. A million years prior to Tiktaalik, some fish living near the shores of Greenland, whose fins did not have wrist-bones of any kind, occasionally had young with an unusual deformity - their fins were hardened in some places. These young were less active swimmers, found feeding and escaping from predators less easy, and rarely survived to have any offspring of their own. However, some of them found themselves in very shallow water, where their 'normal' friends rarely ventured, and to their delight found that they could manoevre better in these conditions than their normal friends. The abundance of food meant that these creatures prospered, and found mates, and produced some off-spring similar to themselves, some of whom had even stronger hardening of the fins, and could venture into even shallower water. After half a million years, the population of this species of fish had more or less separated into the ones which lived in the shallow waters, and the ones which lived in the deep, the bony fins being unsuited to deep water, and unbony ones unsuited to shallow water. They were varieties of the same species, and occasionally interbred. After another half million years, they were no longer able to interbreed, and we can say that the two populations were now two distinct species. And all this could have come about via a single genetic mutation, exploited by other genes controlling its activation which were there already. As it happens, various other deformities useful to shallow water scavenging were being developed at the same time.

How did those several connected and coordinated finger and wrist bones,with their ability to flex,along with muscles and tendons,ligaments,cartilage,nerves and skin covering arise from fins by accidental DNA copying errors,or cleverly coordinated mutations?

Trying actually doing some of the research you keep claiming you've done, and you'll find out. Begin with http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_04, and then look up some papers on Google Scholar

And if they did where are the zillions of unfit and uncoordinated forms with malformed parts?

They died young, and were eaten by predators.

How did the various tendons take shape and attach themselves to the bones,and at just the right position?

Try research.

Please explain how the accumulation of random DNA copying errors created the specialized array of teeth of a predator fish,upper and lower,and aligned them and attached them to the jaws,and also formed the neck ,and why in this lone survivor?

Start with http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0226.htm. You won't, will you? Still, I tried.

Notice here the infantile attempt to try to justify these miraculous developments by suggesting that they would give the creature more freedom to hunt prey - a typical Darwinian argument that explains absolutely nothing at all.

Really? Do say why. It explains quite a lot to me.

Most fit? The where are the zillions of un-fit transitional forms,both ancestors and descendants?

The unfit forms are mostly weeded out in youth, and do not survive to breed. That's what 'unfit' means.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Byblos wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Punctuated equilibrium proved the fossil record does not show transition fossils but big gaps in the fossil record.

This here is the problem right there. How do you define a transitional fossil ACB? Are you, for example, expecting to find a fossil of a cat with no legs, then one, then 2, 3 & 4? This is a serious question but in all of the interactions with you, you keep making the same assertion over and over with regards to the fossil record and yet not once have you articulated what, to you, ought the fossil record look like for it to account for evolution. This is the time to do so.

What I mean by transitional fossils are in between one species as it evolves into another species.It is the same thing Darwin meant by transitional fossils.It is not just making up stuff that does not pertain to evolution out of a lack of understanding of evolution. There should've been transitional fossils in between species as they evolved into other species.

You keep asserting that and what I'm asking you to do is to actually define what this so-called transitional form looks like.

abelcainsbrother wrote:But actually it is evolutionists who make glib assertions that fins evolved into legs and then wings. Oh really? How did that happen? How does that work? How does DNA do that?

Take Tiktaalik for example if you read wikipedia it acquired fins/legs with basic wrist bones and simple fingers,showing that they were weight bearing,but probably not used for walking.The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets.suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint.

How did those several connected and coordinated finger and wrist bones,with their ability to flex,along with muscles and tendons,ligaments,cartilage,nerves and skin covering arise from fins by accidental DNA copying errors,or cleverly coordinated mutations?

The theory of evolution actually has an answer for that, natural selection, mutation and adaptation. In the absence of another competing theory, or unless and until it is falsified, we must affirm it (or at a minimum not deny it).

abelcainsbrother wrote:And if they did where are the zillions of unfit and uncoordinated forms with malformed parts?

The fossilization process is not precise nor is even common. It is a rare occurrence which gives a brief glimpse of what life (not transitional but actual life) was like. By lining up the different fossils from different eras we are able to compare and contrast, thereby surmise the differences, and more importantly, the similarities.

abelcainsbrother wrote:How did the various tendons take shape and attach themselves to the bones,and at just the right position?

I have no clue and neither do you. But evolution gives us a plausible method.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Wikipedia continues : Tiktaalik had front fins featuring arm-like skeletal structures more akin to a crocodile...It had rows of sharp teeth of a predator fish,and its neck was able to move independently of its body,which is not possible in other fish. This makes Tiktaalik the earliest known fish to have a neck.This would give the creature more freedom in hunting prey either on land or in the shallows.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Please explain how the accumulation of random DNA copying errors created the specialized array of teeth of a predator fish,upper and lower,and aligned them and attached them to the jaws,and also formed the neck ,and why in this lone survivor?

Once again evolution actually has a plausible answer, natural selection, mutation and adaptation. As to the exact biological pathways, I haven't the slightest idea.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Notice here the infantile attempt to try to justify these miraculous developments by suggesting that they would give the creature more freedom to hunt prey - a typical Darwinian argument that explains absolutely nothing at all. Most fit? Then where are the zillions of un-fit transitional forms,both ancestors and descendants?

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the fossilization process or even what a "transitional" form is. You really ought to step away from such terminology because it is painting you in a very uneducated picture. I mean that sincerely. You are attacking a strawman when you ask where the "transitional" fossils are. The fact is that not only all fossils are transitional, but all fossils are also fully formed. That's not a contradiction ACB, And you're not gonna get a linear fossil record for every single transition, that's just not how the process works in nature. It is a very rare process and we're lucky we have what we have.

hughfarey wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:No.It comes from doing research on evolution and I do not just make up stuff.I have very legitimate reasons why I reject evolution and much of it is based on honest evolutionists and former evolutionists.

I know this will seem harsh, but perhaps it is inevitable. I don't believe you have done any research on evolution (apart perhaps from a cursory glance at a few Wikipedia articles), nor read the books and papers of any evolutionists. You have quoted no evidence. You have consistently claimed that evolutionary ideas came before the examination of the evidence. You have 'quoted' things from scientists that they did not say. These are not "legitimate" reasons to reject evolution. Bear in mind that I have no quarrel with those who reject evolution without any reasons. I have no quarrel with your rejection of evolution. To each his own. But to pretend evidence when there isn't, or to deny evidence when there is - that's what I will firmly, persistently, unremittingly, but I hope politely, attack with all guns.

Take your discussion about Tiktaalik for example. You begin: "What I mean by transitional fossils are in between one species as it evolves into another species." OK. Pikaia is an example of an 'inbetween' species between an annelid and a fish. Tiktaalik is an example of an 'inbetween' species between a fish and a reptile. Archaeopteryx is an 'inbetween' species between a reptile and a bird. These are great classics of their kinds, but there are countless other 'inbetweens' discovered in the last 200 years. Now you will immediately reply that these animals were all fully formed creatures, and indeed they were. They had no idea of what their offspring would eventually become, nor would we, had we been able to observe them, have been able to guess. they simply fitted their environment sufficiently well to pass on their genes, albeit slightly modified, to their offspring, some of whom chose a slightly different lifestyle, for which their slightly different genetic make-up made them slightly better adapted.

There should've been transitional fossils in between species as they evolved into other species.

There are. Hundreds of examples.

But actually it is evolutionists who make glib assertions that fins evolved into legs and then wings. Oh really? How did that happen? How does that work? How does DNA do that?

If you had in fact read anything at all about evolution, even the Wikipedia article, you would know the answer to these questions.

Take Tiktaalik for example if you read wikipedia it acquired fins/legs with basic wrist bones and simple fingers,showing that they were weight bearing,but probably not used for walking.The bones of the fore fins show large muscle facets.suggesting that the fin was both muscular and had the ability to flex like a wrist joint.

Tiktaalik did not acquire fins with wrist bones, nor does Wikipedia say that it did. It was born with them. Its mother, grandmother, and even great grandmother also had fins with wrist bones. A million years prior to Tiktaalik, some fish living near the shores of Greenland, whose fins did not have wrist-bones of any kind, occasionally had young with an unusual deformity - their fins were hardened in some places. These young were less active swimmers, found feeding and escaping from predators less easy, and rarely survived to have any offspring of their own. However, some of them found themselves in very shallow water, where their 'normal' friends rarely ventured, and to their delight found that they could manoevre better in these conditions than their normal friends. The abundance of food meant that these creatures prospered, and found mates, and produced some off-spring similar to themselves, some of whom had even stronger hardening of the fins, and could venture into even shallower water. After half a million years, the population of this species of fish had more or less separated into the ones which lived in the shallow waters, and the ones which lived in the deep, the bony fins being unsuited to deep water, and unbony ones unsuited to shallow water. They were varieties of the same species, and occasionally interbred. After another half million years, they were no longer able to interbreed, and we can say that the two populations were now two distinct species. And all this could have come about via a single genetic mutation, exploited by other genes controlling its activation which were there already. As it happens, various other deformities useful to shallow water scavenging were being developed at the same time.

How did those several connected and coordinated finger and wrist bones,with their ability to flex,along with muscles and tendons,ligaments,cartilage,nerves and skin covering arise from fins by accidental DNA copying errors,or cleverly coordinated mutations?

Trying actually doing some of the research you keep claiming you've done, and you'll find out. Begin with http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_04, and then look up some papers on Google Scholar

And if they did where are the zillions of unfit and uncoordinated forms with malformed parts?

They died young, and were eaten by predators.

How did the various tendons take shape and attach themselves to the bones,and at just the right position?

Try research.

Please explain how the accumulation of random DNA copying errors created the specialized array of teeth of a predator fish,upper and lower,and aligned them and attached them to the jaws,and also formed the neck ,and why in this lone survivor?

Start with http://www.ijbs.com/v05p0226.htm. You won't, will you? Still, I tried.

Notice here the infantile attempt to try to justify these miraculous developments by suggesting that they would give the creature more freedom to hunt prey - a typical Darwinian argument that explains absolutely nothing at all.

Really? Do say why. It explains quite a lot to me.

Most fit? The where are the zillions of un-fit transitional forms,both ancestors and descendants?

The unfit forms are mostly weeded out in youth, and do not survive to breed. That's what 'unfit' means.

No it is you that never gives evidence like I do and have.You just deny it,claim I don't know about evolution andf you just preach evolution is true. Then you say I'm just making up things,which I am not doing. Then you ignore that Darwin acknowledged the lack of transitional fossils but insisted they would be found and many of them althroughout the strata and yet you totally overlook that Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed because of large gaps in the fossil record. You ignore that Darwin's prediction that there should be all kinds of transitional fossils that show transition between one species to another,but you ignore that Darwin was wrong. There are not as many transitional fossils today Darwin said should be found if his theory was true. But now you claim they were eaten up by predators as an excuse. This prediction from Darwin was wrong,so evolutionists cover it up with PE and by saying the fossils were found in the layer of strata they were supposed to be found claiming it was a prediction,then you make up excuses why there are not many transitional fossils like Darwin said would be found if his theory was true. But they carried on with evolution when it should have been rejected based on Darwin's prediction of finding all kinds of transitional fossils confirming evolution.which were not found.

There is not hundreds of transitional fossil either. None of them show transition from one kind of species to another. There were supposed to be fossils found that shows clear evolution based on transitional fossils,which the fossil evidence does not show. It was not supposed to be just one transitional fossil between,but many showing clear transition from one species to another.They are all fully formed life forms like I have been saying,but yes evolutionists have grouped them together to make them look like transitional fossils but they are not. None show clear transition from one kind of species to another,only if you use evolution imagination,I guess.

Tiktaalik is said to be a transitional fossil and yet there are no transitional fossils not even one in between fish and reptiles. Neither with Archy either between dinosaurs and birds.Also yes wikipedia is implying it acquired the wrist bones and all of the other features by suggesting that they would give the creature more freedom for hunting prey.