Alter2Ego wrote:Eldredge and Gould came up with the replacement theory of punctuated equilibrium after Charles Darwin's predictions failed. Darwin predicted that future scientists would find bones to fill in the gaps in the fossil record and show how creatures evolved from one another. According to one of Darwin's failed predictions, future paleontologists would find bones showing a whale on its way to becoming a bear and bones showing a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat. Guess how many bones they found to prove the aforementioned? I will give you a single guess.
Dear me. From some of your earlier posts I gained the impression that you had read a little about evolution, but I'm not sure now if that's the case. Bears are not evolved from whales, which is why there are no transitional fossils showing "a whale on its way to becoming a bear." Whales are evolved from creatures not unlike a modern hippopotamus, and there are a great many fossils showing "a hippo on its way to becoming a whale." Luckily, both hippos and whales are quite large animals, and their bones are relatively easy both to fossilise and to detect. Bats are small and delicate, and their fossils are indeed scarce. However a few transitional forms have been found, such as Onychonycteris finnyi, which show both bat-like characteristics (long thin fingers) and shrew like characteristics (claws on each finger).
Alter2Ego wrote:Look at those ridiculous dates. There is no credible dating method in existence that goes that far back. But that's the least of your problems. You stated above that the transition from fish to amphibians is Eusthenopteron foordi. Let's go back to the example that I gave hughfarey regarding the hypothetical creatures. It is because the fossils record consistently presents gaps aka missing links between every creature, that Gould and Eldridge decided to compensate by dreaming up punctuated equilibrium THEORY. And that's theory as in: "an attempt at explaining why a phenomena occurred" aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven."
No. Gould and Eldredge's theory predicts long series of fossils in a relatively unchanged state, followed by short series of fossils showing successive small differences, and then more long series. Their theory was of course based on what had been found before, but it has been confirmed by what has been found since, and although in 1980 their ideas were considered speculative by mainstream biologists, the last thirty years have borne out their predictions.
Alter2Ego wrote:According to punctuated equilibrium theory, species supposedly remained stable for a time, and then they simply jump from, for example, Creature A to Creature D with no requirement for transitional fossils of Creature B and Creature C (the gaps or missing links in the fossil record).
No, again. Creature B evolves over several thousand years from Creature A, and we both require, and find, transitional fossils demonstrating the case. You must remember that, to a geologist, several thousand years can be represented by a very thin layer indeed in the strata, which is why these transitional fossils are sparse compared to the millions of years worth of layers representing greater stability.
Alter2Ego wrote:Look at those ridiculous dates. There is no credible dating method in existence that goes that far back.
Wrong again. Of course I understand that if a person is locked in a particular paradigm, then all contrary opinion is 'incredible,' but I think that to a dispassionate observer, the Uranium-Lead radiometric dating method, for example, is highly credible.
Alter2Ego wrote:In this example, we will use Creature A to represent Eusthenopteron foordi fish, and we will use Creature C to represent amphibians (four-legged vertebrates which includes frogs, toads, salamanders, newts, mudpuppies, and caecilians). Although the extinct Eusthenopteron foordi fish might share similarities with present-day amphibians, one cannot conclude that amphibians (Creature C) evolved from Eusthenopteron foordi fish (Creature A). Here's why: There are no bones showing how Eusthenopteron foordi fish (Creature A) evolved and became Creature B, and no bones showing how Creature B then evolved into amphibians (Creature C). Why not? Because the bones of Creature C do not exist. That is what the paleontologists refer to as gaps in the fossils record or missing links. In other words, they are speculating aka giving their personal opinion when they claim Eusthenopteron foordi fish is the predecessor of amphibians.
Wikipedia is an excellent first step to exploring unfamiliar territory, but one must be careful to read more deeply into each subject before being able to use its information authoritatively. Eusthenopteron foordii is an interesting fish, with some amphibian characteristics, but is not generally considered to be an amphibian ancestor. Curiously, the problem with amphibian evolution is that in some ways we have too many transitional types, not too few. It seems that several different varieties of fish evolved air-breathing, land-walking characteristics, of which probably only one line evolved into the amphibians we see today. A great many of them have more or fewer than five digits on each foot, so finding a transitional fossil which looks like a fish but has pentadactyl legs would be a good intermediate. Luckily, we have Pederpes, which fits the bill rather well. Another characteristic of amphibians is their smooth skin. This seems to have been more recently developed than limbs, and it comes as a delightful confirmation of the transition between fish and amphibians to discover fossil amphibians with scales, such as Eogyrinus.
As you can see, evolutionary scientists have studied their subject in some detail, and are able to discuss minutiae, convincingly or not. To balance the discussion, I wonder if we can have a little more about creation. Even if it were literally true, Genesis 1 does not go into God's achievements at all thoroughly, and would not be accepted for publication as a scientific paper. As an abstract, or opening statement, it's fine, but we need a little more in the context of this forum, and this thread, if that's possible. So can you help us here? Were there six literal days? Were fruit trees created before the sun came out, and what did the first mosquito eat? What are 'kinds' of creatures? Creation scientists seem to differ quite drastically on some of these, so I would be most interested to hear your views. And if I disagree with them, I will explain carefully where, rather than announcing arbitrarily that they are impossible.
Its normally the usual case.