"Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest... The origin of species — Darwin's problem — remains unsolved."
That is an excellent point. The real evidence in the fossil record and what is extrapolated and supposed from the fossil record and presented as evidence, are two entirely different things.
@ArcanaKnight Supposition and extrapolations drawn from microevolution(changes within a species as to adapt), is not evidence.Also,Ventner admits the tree of life is an artifact whose science isn't holding up. The reason why you won't list any solid evidence for random DNA mutations leading to an entirely different DNA structure (macroevolution)...is because there is no evidence for that.
@Frab2001 Ignoring the evidence confirming common descent doesn't just make it go away, nor does it make your Gaps arguments and denialism regarding evolution valid. Your understanding of speciation is also wrong. You couldn't even admit that you were wrong about Venter when his actual meaning was explained to you, so I highly doubt that any amount of evidence could possibly make you change your mind about evolution; you'll just ignore it or hand-wave it away.
show me any land animal's fingers to bat's wings.radyus,ulna exist but where is the first long-finger but no-wing animal? there are vast empty space between land animals and flying animals.and the photos do not show a transition at all.transition as i said (long-finger mamalia and bats) incredible spaces exist
Let's be clear: scientists have never witnessed random mutations to DNA lead to the creation of a new species with a new DNA structure (macro) Thus, scientists have never proven that a set of random mutations to DNA can lead to the creation of a new and improved DNA structure. In short, they have never seen macroevolution create a new species.
@ArcanaKnight Oh, you mean when they look at evidence for microevolution and EXTRAPOLATE evidence for maroevolution. In other words they assume because microevolution (changes within a species as to adapt) occurs, they can easily postulate that macroevolution occured. They can only postulate and suppose. Thats all. The tree of life is false.. It's an outdated artifact.
@Frab2001 I actually first told you almost a week ago, we have multiple independent genetic methods of determining ancestry, and they all confirm not only each other, but also what is found in the fossil record. You subsequently ignored it.
@ArcanaKnight "The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up...So there is not a tree of life." ~JCVenter
The tree of life is ridiculous and outdated. The End.
@Frab2001 "Those are his EXACT words" Yes, but again, Venter was talking about the metaphor of the tree not holding up, not common descent itself. In the part you ellipsed over, he actually says that "there may be a bush of life". He also goes on to say immediately afterward that there may be a very rare 4th domain of life, and then says around 18:20: "Even in the kind of life you’re talking about... is from the same tree of life". tinyurlDOTcom/86qlxkj
"We have multiple independently derived lines of evidence"
That is ALL you have said about evidence since we started this conversation..I just LOOKED!! How is that statement evidence!?!LOL!! "Common descent has been verified, and there's nothing which limits evolution from occurring on the "macro" scale."
Having nothing that limits macroevolution is not proof it HAPPENED!! OMG!! That's your proof!?! LOL! FAIL.
@ArcanaKnight He (ventner) called the tree of life a frickin bush!! He said it was an artifact that wasn't holding up! The tree of life is a bunch of bull, and he knows it. Dawkins nearly had a nervous breakdown, it was funny. The funny thing is, it wont be ammended because it only raises more questions for proponents of common decent and they cant have that! No Sir!
BTW, if you can provide proof of common decent without supposition and assuming, don't bother. Its funny...all you keep saying is "your lying, there is proof of common decent" independent confirmation etc.. However, saying "there is proof, your a liar!" (over and over) IS NOT PROOF! LOL!
@Frab2001 ""however, saying... is not proof" Except that I've been referencing specific lines of evidence, not just saying "there's proof"; you've just been ignoring it. Coming from someone who can't even understand the difference between someone disagreeing with the metaphor used to describe something and disagreeing with the concept itself, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that you don't understand the reference.
What evidence? Anything that isn't supposition and assuming? All you are saying is "we have evidence" but, you are not giving any evidence. I've looked at the so called evidence and it's nothing more than a hypothesis along with some really creative drawings. There is no proof, no matter how long you assert there is! Common Decent is a hypothesis...period. It can not be proven.Sorry, try again.
Not quote mining, dont even go there. I am sending you a link to the actual video of the convention where he made this statement. Dawkins was there and he was dumbfounded. Go ahead..check it out.
@ArcanaKnight "The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up...So there is not a tree of life."
~John Craig Venter (born October 14, 1946) is an American biologist and entrepreneur, most famous for his role in being one of the first to sequence the human genome.
"Macroevolution is just microevolution + time; there is not one proposed or proven mechanism that allows one while preventing the other."
I'll say it again....You say there is NO mechanism which allows microevolution while preventing macroevolution from happening. That doesn't mean macroevolution happend!! LOL!! Your saying because microevolution happened we can be certain macroevolution will happend!! Like the way you broke down that made up term called macroevolution. You seem to be very aw
@Frab2001 "That doesn't mean macroevolution happend!" All you've got to support your claim is denialism. Common descent has been verified, and there's nothing which limits evolution from occurring on the "macro" scale.
"Not quote mining, dont even go there." Except Venter's argument wasn't that there is no common descent, it was just that the "tree of life" is an outdated metaphorical representation of it; he favors more of a "bush of life".
You don't have proof of common decent. You have fossils which show small changes within their own species. From that you "suppose" and hypothesize the rest. That is all. What in the fossil record shows common decent? Changes within a species show adaptation to environment, not common decent.
@Frab2001 "You don't have proof of common decent" That's just an out-and-out lie; I literally just explained that not only do we have evidence of it, we also have independent confirmation of it, which is as close to absolute certainty that science gets. Your inability to understand the evidence doesn't devalue it in any way, nor does ignoring it's existence make it disappear.
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] ~Wikipedia
**You may want to notify wikipedia what they are describing here does not exist!** :)
The fossil record show spices appearing suddenly adapting within their genetic code and dieing off, not changing one into another with a different genetic code. That is what the fossil record shows, not what it supposes..what it SHOWS.
@Frab2001 "saying there is nothing to prevent something from happening..." Hand-waving nonsense.
"appearing suddenly adapting within their genetic code and dieing off, not changing one into another with a different genetic code" Actually, the fossil record alone says nothing about the different organisms' genetic code, because there isn't any left. Also, are you saying that you think god or aliens just poofed these creatures into existence?
Now, there will be examples not proven or I will be called a name of some sort. It's always the same. I am not saying evolution did not happen,IT DID!! I am only questiong the extent to which it happen. THATS ALL. Can these changes occur over time? Who knows? Too say that it will or won't is a guess....even an educated guess is still just a guess.
While there have been many lovely drawings depicting how creatures "may have" evolved into a totally different (macro) species. This is supposition, no matter how you say it or draw it....its a hypothesis at best. Maceoevolution can't be proven.. to say it has is a lie.
@Frab2001 "there is no evidence of macroevolution" "This is supposition..." Wrong on both counts. As I pointed out earlier, we have multiple, independently derived lines of evidence confirming common descent, and independent confirmation like that is as close as science gets to 100% certainty. Meanwhile, you have nothing but opinion and incredulity to support your claims about the supposed impossibility of "macroevolution".
Yeah, that's what atheist say. There is no evidence of macroevolution. All you can say is given enough time it will happen. How much time is necessary? Hmm..
Also, all terms are made up to describe something, its called language. A distinction had to be made so people would not be mislead as how EXTREME the changes were in the evolutionary process. So, yes the terms "macro" and "micro" were made to make it clear what the fossil record ACTUALLY shows...not what it supposes.
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] ~Wikipedia
Microevolution has been proven to everyones satisfaction for the most part.
@Frab2001 "Macroevolution" is just a term made up by creationists because they couldn't completely deny evolution, so they just made up a barrier beyond which they could continue to deny any evidence of evolution. Macroevolution is just microevolution + time; there is not one proposed or proven mechanism that allows one while preventing the other.
"Many of the animals dont exist and have strange features. Common decent is the only explanation for this."
Umm, actually it's called EXTINCTION and yes, it has happened alot according to the fossil record. I don't have to believe in common decent for that because it's called extinction.
I understand, but do you? You missed the point entirely. The process of fossilization is completely understood, and there is no disagreement between us (I think) as to why that happens.
However, fossils, as you say, represent "traces of animals". Many of those animals do not exist anymore. Some of them have very strange characteristics which don't make any sense unless you accept common descent as an explanation.
"Do you really think some magic man poofing them into existence is a better explanation..."
The fossil record has nothing to do with the origin of life. We are not discussing the prospect of Abiogenesis or Intelligent Design. We are discussing the validity of supposed transitional fossils and the distinction between transition within species and transition into an entirely different species.
The origin of life is irrelevant to the origin of THESE FOSSILS, which had parents, and unique characteristics, many of which are not found in species we see in the wild today. Why is that? You are looking at the fossils and asking if they prove evolution - this is ridiculous. Do they prove creation? Do they "prove" anything else?
The question is "which of these explanations is superior?", and it takes a lot of effort to not see which of them makes the most sense.
By using the term "transitional" for both distinctions you could show a picture of a fossil which is in transition within its own species while what you are implying is its in transition to another species ENTIRELY! This is misleading. The "proof" of some of these fossils in transition to an ENTIRELY different SPECIES is lacking.
The THEORY is that they are intermediates between species. The fossils themselves ARE the evidence. If you have a better explanation as to why "intermediate" FEATURES exist, I'm all ears.
Its important to distinguish whether you are saying the fossil you are displaying is in transition to another form within its OWN species as to adapt OR if its in transition to ANOTHER SPECIES ENTIRELY...these distinctions are most certainly not the same thing!! Of course the word "transitional" is used for both of these distinctions and THAT is misleading.
It would certainly be more convenient for proponents of the theory of evolution if defining "transitional" was not important, but it is very important! "Intermediate" can be used to describe transition into another species or family, which also implies common decent. People who are not aware of the distinction can get mislead as to what evidence we actually have. Nice try.
"transitional" and "intermediate" mean essentially the same thing. What "distinction" are you talking about that is so important?
However, those fossils exists - whether you call them "transitional", "intermediate" or just "extinct animals", they ARE there, and science demands an explanation as to why. Do you really think a magic man poofing them into existence is a better explanation than descent with modification and natural selection?
"That's exactly what I was asking myself.."whats the point?" Fact is, the thought just occured to me today. It really is pointless. Listen, evolution within a species as a means of adaptation has been proven. You would have to be a fool to dispute that! Evolution outside one's own species ...not so much. I agree with the theory of evolution up to a point. The theory of evolution does not disrupt my belief in God in any way. I do not belong to a religion. It was nice chatting, I
You seem like a nice person but, I just don't see all this "evidence" as clear. This arguement never goes anywhere and they usually end in insults on one's intelligence. I am honestly tired of the whole pointless debate. Your nice... lets just leave this arguement alone and say I respect you and you respect me but, our views aren't changing . That's okay, I have no problem with that.
@Frab2001 " I am honestly tired of the whole pointless debate." Then why visit these videos, and (especially) why comment on them?
I feel it should also be pointed out that common ancestry is supported by more than just the fossil record. We also have multiple independent genetic methods of determining ancestry, and they all confirm not only each other, but also what is found in the fossil record. Independent verification like that is about as close to absolute certainty that science gets.
@ArcanaKnight Do you think I am the only person who finds the "rather clear evidence of the evolutionary process" not clear at all? Showing me a picture of a fossil and pointing out an imprint of something barely visible and certainly not clear, and saying "You see! That is a femur beginning to form. It's evolving into an entirely new species!" Umm, No I dont see. Quite a few Paleontologist and Biologist have seen this "rather clear evidence" as not clear at all. Quite a few more are scared t
Sigh...shuck and jive, shuck and jive!!! It's always the same. BTW, creationist are guilty of the same shuck and jive, both sides are so slanted. I am not disputing evolution, I am disputing things which are called "facts"and "proof" when they are no such thing! I am disputing people who spew loads of BS and have the audacity to call you "stupid" for questioning explanations that are just ridiculous.
"Also, the discovery of transitional fossils doesn't preclude the possibility that all fossils are transitional." what!?
Ok, maybe we should just call it "the transitional fossil record" If all fossils are transitional then why keep proclaiming "Transitional Fossil Found! Undisputable proof!! Come on...really?
@Frab2001 "what!?" What's so hard to understand? A single fossil being transitional and all fossils being transitional are not mutually exclusive concepts.
"then why keep proclaiming..." Who exactly is proclaiming this? It matters because different sources would have different reasons for doing so.
Whenever you are talking about what "they" do, ask yourself who "they" are. Scientists don't talk about "indisputable proof" - that language is reserved for propagandists and sensationalist media types.
The only questions that are relevant are "what are the facts?" and "what is the best explanation for them?". Getting bogged down in the semantics of the word "transitional" doesn't help explain anything.
Well, I would expect them to show even the smallest demonstration of transition into anything outside of their own species. Oh, you're making the old "crocaduck" joke. Yawn...no, I don't expect a "crocaduck" type display in the fossil record. How about something even remotely convincing. I'm thinking of the fossil record from 150 years ago? You mean the one where exactly like the present view, exhibits no uncontestable transitional fossils?! Yeah, then I guess I am.
@Frab2001 "I would expect them to show even the smallest demonstration of transition into anything outside of their own species" Exactly what do you mean by that? And no, I wasn't making a crocaduck joke, I was sincerely asking what it is you expect transitional fossils to look like. I asked because even I could give you half a dozen fossil lines which show a rather clear evolutionary progression, and yet its apparently not good enough for you.
@ArcanaKnight Exactly, Darwin believed (hoped) transitional would be found eventually. Very few of the fossils found have been called transitional and the ones that scientist label "transitional" do not exhibit 100% proof that are in transition to anything....cont...
@Frab2001 "...do not exhibit 100% proof that are in transition to anything" What exactly are you expecting them to look like? Organisms with half-formed wings or half an eye? Also, the discovery of transitional fossils doesn't preclude the possibility that all fossils are transitional. In the end you're just trying to attack evolutionary theory as it was 150 years ago, not as it stands now (which is a fallacious argument).
@ArcanaKnight The truth is, if fossils had been found that show concrete proof of transition....nobody would be saying "all fossils are transitional" because we would have the transitional fossils!
So, Darwin's concern over locating transitional fossils was why?? He was perplexed as to why transitional fossils weren't found everywhere, that's a fact. I mean he came up with The Theory of Evolution and he forgot to mention something like... there are no transitional fossils because they are ALL transitional, they are all evolving and constantly in transition so what the heck was I worried about!? Hmmm.....
@Frab2001 Paleontology was still in its infancy in Darwin's time, and they had only discovered a fraction of the fossils that we have now. Darwin's comments were based on the evidence available at the time, and so isn't an accurate representation of the modern fossil record.
Those are not transitional to anything. Well, unless you have a big imagination, I guess you could say everything is transitional. Oh, that's right they do say that.
@rockthecityatnight Everything is said to be a transitional form because evolution hasn't just stopped; the species around today are not the absolute pinnacles of the development.
Looks like urbman29 is looking for a transitional that resembles the crocoduck. Transitional fossils don't work that way dude. Technically, everything is a transitional because an organism is always after what came before it and before what is coming after it.
God made all of those similar creatures slightly different at the same time to see which ones would survive the best. Guess what they all died. 99% of everything that ever lived on this shit hole died and we are next as soon as a random asteroid hits us. There aint gonna be no GOD to push it out of the way you morons.
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
@AnnymsVoice Actually, it can and has been tested; the ancestry depicted by the fossil record has been confirmed by every one of the multiple independent genetic methods of determining ancestry that we have discovered.
Your presentation might be enhanced by following the progression of one evolutionary development by presenting its images showing the different fossils in the same size and orientation (similar to showing how someone's face developed through the years by keeping the eyes in the same location), unless the organism went through an evolution-driven change in size.
@earlysda Of course not. And, if there are no transitional fossils, that is irrefutable evidence that our TRUE and ONLY Lord is real, Master Jebus Thrist.
After all, if we don't know the answer for something, it can only mean a invisible god figure did it RIGHT? Just like the thunders, who come from Thor - and not that HERECTIC FAKE "zeus" that the cursed greeks came up with.
A "troll"? Yes, but not for me. I was sold out on EVOLUTION and FOSSILS some 50 years ago (1962) after a Geology course as an undergraduate, from a great self-confessed atheist professor. I am thinking of the masses that are still blinded by the DOGMAS of their CHURCHES, whom we should be HELPING so they can get over such heavy obstacles. Thanks for the lesson on "classical" music - I just feel that the Benny Hill slapstick tune is unappropiate for this delicate subject. Saludos desde México.
How appropriate that you play the Benny Hinn theme song with this humorous display of non-transitional fossils. Apparently you aren't understanding what Darwin anticipated in the way of transitionals.
@mcmanustony Thanks for chasing me down to make the correction. Yes, of course, it's the Benny Hill theme song, which is very appropriate for the humorous nature of the video.
Those damned Jews... how do they do it!? First, they monopolize the world's gold supply, then the banks, they take over all of the governments and media institutions of the world, and now I find out that they've been doing the same thing with science?
It's so hard to believe that such a small percentage of the earth's population is directly responsible for all of its problems, but it's obviously true if it means I can blame others for what "I" have done -- under Jew mind control.
@somecomputergeek 1: chimps and tobacco have the same number of cromosones so there is no logic to your argument. 2: Yep a pattern emerges they all have the same Creator.
1) My argument didn't involve chromosomes - it involved morphology. Do chimps and tobacco have the same morphology? Also, chromosomes are delineations of DNA which can increase as well as decrease, and the number alone says nothing.
2) Let's say you're right - how does having a creator doesn't explain the pattern? Inheritance and that passing on of traits explains the pattern pretty well. ( watch?v=Izl5BB2AkZE)
Everything that ever lived is a transition between what came before and what will come to be. Life IS a state of transition. We are but a snapshot in time, looking at a snapshot in time. In order to see the big picture, it has to all be woven into one long movie. That's what science is doing by piecing together snapshots in time from the past, based on available evidence.
It is ridiculous how misinformed the majority of people are. Anyone who takes a college level biology class will see how evolution is evidenced in every page. Evolution is the most fascinating aspect of life, and the fact that so many people want to deny its truth is just evidence that perhaps we are not yet evolved enough to fully accept the consequences of the most profound truth in the history of terrestrial life. I believe that one day we will be able to accept and understand this truth.
Look at his channel page. He's joking. "I don't see any of those fossils evolving..." is a joke, but you have to understand the basics of evolution (including understanding the concept that a single dead fossil doesn't evolve) to get it.
@no2religions i dont either..if it is a slow process,we should catch every little shot of what happend.All of these animals looked like they were just regular sea creatures.
@urbman29 hahaha!!! this was a joke. And so are you! They look like regular sea creatures because they are, just old ones. "we should catch every little shot of what happend" Absolutely not. That statement is proof positive that you are scientifically illiterate. Now do everyone a favor and deny evolution if you want, but don't pretend that there is ANY science on your side. There isn't. And your denial has nothing to do with the science.
He was being sarcastic. The statement "I don't see any of those fossils evolving" is an exaggeration of a common misconception that creationists have.
Imagine trying to prove to an idiot that gravity is the pull between two bodies of mass, and somebody says "well, I don't see everything in this room clumpin' together". It is so obviously ignorant that you could make fun of people who don't accept the theory of gravity by saying the same thing.
@somecomputergeek no,seriously..these look like original life forms.If i had the blueprints of all the bones,and what caused them to evolve,i might believe it
I don't understand. How is focusing on one group of species "misleading"? If I chronicled the evolution of homo sapiens, would you say that I was being "misleading" if I didn't include lizards?
@barbersahib You do know that the the "suddenly" of the Cambrian explosion is longer than from the extinction of the dinosaurs to modern time? And you do know that we have found thousands of fossils older than that? Many of them are we able to trace their evolutionary fossil record in great detail. That is hardly from nowhere (or "know where" as you call it).
@barbersahib: DUDE, look up something BEFORE making a stupid comment! The so called "Cambrian explosion" covers a period of 80 million years!!! EIGHTY! MILLION! Years! Talk about "misleading"...
@barbersahib You do know it's not called the Cambrian "Explosion" because it was sudden right? It's called an explosion because evolution sped up by an order of magnitude, hence "explosion". That's why I prefer to call it the Cambrian Radiation because too many dumb people mistake explosion for a short period of time, even though it lasted 70,000,000-80,000,000 years. For comparison, Homo sapiens are only 200,000 years old.
If my remains happen to fossilize, I will be a transitional fossil. So will you. When you understand how slowly and gradually evolution works, you understand that every fossil is a transitional fossil.
Use this illustration: imagine you took a picture of yourself once a day, everyday, for the entire course of your life. Now point at the one picture of when you went from being a boy to a man. Which single picture is the one in which you become a man?
The three greatest gods of atheism are: Darwin of fallacies, does natural selection select to the fittest or the fittest induce natural selection?. 2) The random of gaps, can the randomness do what natural laws can't do, it means, no matter how many attempts in the lab?. 3) Time of hope...less. They believe that sooner or later any event will become possible if we wait during billions of year, no matter results from experiments.
1) "Natural selection" is a term describing an OBSERVABLE PROCESS in which species who are the "fittest" in a particular environment are more likely to survive and reproduce.
2) Mutations may be random, but natural selection is not, and the effects CAN be observed in a lab.
3) You have it backwards. The chance of any event "happening" AFTER it happens is 1. Just because we can't predict the future deterministically doesn't mean we can't explain the past objectively.
@somecomputergeek : My results tell: 1) all selection process reduces the variance, does not increase it. 2) the natural events can't prove how they were originated, in contrary case, the science would be based on a circular argument, it means: the natural laws can explained existence of all thing but we can't prove it. The natural selection rules on the evolution despite we can study and evade the natural selection...
@somecomputergeek :Let me add: Why can we find defective individuals in the nature, such as adult frogs with a lot of legs? (Defective frogs are able to compete for food and space), why are there albino animals in the nature?, does natural selection works every now and then?.
Because mutations are random, not all of them are "beneficial" to the survival of the species. In fact, most of them are neutral. Sometimes you get mutations that are harmful, and THOSE SPECIFIC MUTATIONS are not propagated through the gene pool. Some of them, however, ARE beneficial, and these specific beneficial mutations accumulate, 1 by 1, until we have a species built, over time, that is highly adapted to it's environmental niche.
@somecomputergeek : My viewpoint is simpler than what you're talking. How could natural selection select our intelligence, if our intelligence is able to study natural selection and evade it?, in consequence, if natural selection is not able to lead or control all kind of mutation, What does thing is selected by natural selection?. About albino animals: for creationist, this means: the creation is being destroyed gradually, the animals are losing genetic information.
"How could natural selection select our intelligence, if our intelligence is able to study natural selection and evade it?"
Natural selection selected intelligence BECAUSE our intelligence can evade PREDATORS and increase the chances of SURVIVAL. We can not "evade" natural selection - that doesn't even make sense.
If albanism is due to a "loss" of genetic information over, then there would be a greater percentage of albinos in a population that reproduces more frequently, right?
@somecomputergeek : I'm afraid this discussion is falling into vacuum. Albinos show that it's not perforce true that the natural selection is the path to upper organization levels of organisms as said by Darwin. It means, natural selection doesn't explain biodiversity.
Saying the discussion is "falling into a vacuum"? Sounds like something somebody would say when they are loosing an argument and trying to divert attention.
I'm not an expert in albinism. Could you please be more specific as to why albinism is shows that "it's not perforce true that the natural selection is the path to upper organization levels of organism"? You could start by explaining what you mean by "upper organization".
@somecomputergeek : In fact, it's really simple issue: according to Darwin natural selection drove life from the simplest life forms unto the most complex life forms, from bacteria to humans, however, any organism can lose genetic information and continues being viable, I mean: natural selection does not imply increasing of complexity.
Complexity is a side-effect of evolution, not a "goal". The only "goal" of evolution through natural selection is the survival of genes. You are right when you say that natural selection does not imply increasing of complexity. It ALLOWS FOR increasing complexity, but each new area of complexity has a cost associated with it. It might be very complex to have 30 arms, for instance, but you would need to eat more food. Natural selection would not select for it, despite its complexity.
@somecomputergeek : I think you already get my point, 1) Natural selection doesn't resolve the dilemma about what happens first. Does the Fittest induce competition and by implication induces natural selection?, or does natural selection induce the fittest apparition?. 2) The natural selection would not be a natural and statistic trend by itself. Evolutionists have forced the viewpoint by means of assuming that fittest always appears and survives regardless the time.
1) The further in time we go back, the less information fidelity we have. Just because we lack information about the very first (and furthest back) aspects of life DOES NOT MEAN that our observations TODAY are invalid, nor does it mean that the theory which explains a VAST BODY of high-confidence data is invalid.
2) The fittest do not "always" appear, nor do they "always" survive. The term "fittest" is relative to environment and other species, not some pre-conceived goal.
@somecomputergeek :1) Even from the evolutionist viewpoint, human intelligence shows that mutations capable to overcome natural selections occur, in fact, we study the natural mutation, then, What thing is selected by natural selections?, current evidence doesn't prove evolution.
2) The fittest is only a abstraction created by Darwin. Everywhere around there are factors which overcome surviving capacity of any organism, meteors, volcanoes, avalanches, human beings, tsunamis, and similar others.
@Leivinn20 2) Changes in the environment caused by rarely occurring natural disasters like those is not a mark against evolution, its just something that changes the environment that is being adapted to; such changes in the environment doesn't change the fact that the fittest survives, it just redefines what it means to be the fittest.
@ArcanaKnight : "the environment doesn't change the fact that the fittest survives", come on, starting the analysis from atheist viewpoint: life existence is only issue of luck, and that is not scientific argument, it doesn't' implies a real explanation of our origins. In short: "the fittest always survive no matter any surrounding factor because we are here"...- it's a circular argument.
@Leivinn20 "the fittest always survive no matter any surrounding factor" That is just a straw-man. A change in environmental conditions just changes the criteria of what it means to be the fittest, it doesn't change the underlying principle that the fittest will be the one to better pass on its genes to the next generation. Do you think there has to be some great plan? Some great reason why we're the dominant lifeform on the planet instead of something else? If so, why?
@Leivinn20 1) Our ability to control our environment, thereby limiting or even negating the impact of some evolutionary pressures, arose as a side-effect of our increasing intelligence, it wasn't the advantage that led to our intelligence increasing in the first place; even if it wasn't, nothing says that such advantages arising via natural selection would be impossible.
@ArcanaKnight : From the atheist viewpoint: existence of our intelligence implies that mutations occurs regardless natural selection because we can evade natural selection, therefore, What thing is selected by natural selection?, even we can alter evolution course...
@Leivinn20 "existence of our intelligence implies that mutations occurs regardless of natural selection" That's right, but not for the reason you seem to think. Mutation and natural selection are two different mechanisms, not a single one as you imply; the former gives rise to the traits that the latter affects. This means that mutations can arise even if there are no selective pressures (there are still pressures on humans btw, they're just mostly social instead of environmental).
@ArcanaKnight : From direct observation we can take: 1) The human intelligence is capable to analyze natural selection, therefore, it can't be selected by natural selection. 2) The human intelligence in able to drop a hydrogen bomb on any life form to exterminate it. It implies: natural selection doesn't control evolution process. There are "mutations" able to overcome natural selections control (even the evolution). Yes, I trust on God. conclusion: there is not conclusive proof for evolution.
@Leivinn20 "(human intelligence) can't be selected by natural selection" Actually it can. That's why people have steadily been getting smarter generation by generation. As I said, just because we're not subject to most environmental pressures (thanks to our ability to control our environment) doesn't mean that we're completely free of all NS pressures; there are still other pressures such as sexual selection that people are subject to.
@Leivinn20 Regarding your ridiculous H-bomb comment, one species being able to develop tools which are capable of wiping out massive amounts of life doesn't negate natural selection, regardless of what you think.
My concept of the fittest isn't circular. Being the fittest organism for its niche doesn't necessarily mean that its the one with the most traits or genetic information; different or less traits are mutations that can be selected for too if they suddenly become an advantage.
@ArcanaKnight : By the way, your concept about fittest is circular. According to you, fittest is just the life form which survived, you should be take account some times the survivor is this one which lost genetic information, i. e.: certain bacterias are resistant to antibiotics due to they can't feed well, therefore, they don't assimilate the antibiotic enough to die. In this case, the evidence would suggest we are not coming from bacterias.
The stratigraphic column doesn't exist on any site, except on paper of school books, where it constitutes a graphic-conceptual model...and one of sacred objects of atheist religion.
Technically there are no transitional forms... every form is complete from the troglobite to the blue whale! Every one is adapted to fit its changing enviroment.
Adaption is not Evolution, Evolution is a dead theory that Darwin hoped by now would have yelded the links between each species, it hasn't and it never will.
showing diffrent form of the same species and saying they are transitional is like showing diffrent breeds of cats and dogs and saying they too are transitional, wake up you psuedo intellects, you are so full of shit it's comical, Educated Fools make this world what it is, a shit pit full of crap !!
Which species was that, and what images were of the same species? All of them? This entire video was just one long sequence of the same species showing some adaptation?
"Educated Fools"
How is this any different than saying "people who are educated are not educated"?
Being cut short in the evolutionary process doesn't mean that an organism's evolutionary process was complete, it just means that it was never able to develop any further. They could just as easily have been the ones to continue on if conditions had been a bit different; giant dinosaurs would probably still rule the earth if a few falling space rocks hadn't drastically changed the environment.
Why waste peoples' time obfuscating? It'd be more interesting if you'd actually point out that your definition of transitional fossil is different than the accepted definition. Then you could explain your definition and apply it to all these fossils.
@Tigerpawzs No it's not. Otherwise there'd be no such term, and everyone would just say fossil. Come on man, is that all you got? SCIENTIFIC in all caps? It's cute wordplay, but other than that, it's a big nothing burger.
@cosmicharlie1970 Well, since all fossilized creatures were transitional species, it's a pretty simple conclusion that all fossils are transitional fossils. Granted that's rather redundant and probably why paleontologists generally just call them 'fossils.'
@Tigerpawzs What about the creatures that died out? They weren't transitional, were they? They were final. If all fossilized creatures are transitional, and all fossils are transitional, why the debate over transitional fossils? You're playing semantic games, that's why.
@cosmicharlie1970 They would still be defined as transitional since they were in the process of evolving. There isn't a debate over this in the scientific community, it's pretty well accepted. Some ignorant and uneducated evangelists argue against this since they have no education of it and that hardly qualifies as a debate. Head on down to your local university and pick up a few biology classes, maybe it will help clear a few things up for you.
some really good stuff here
TheSpikeystuff 1 week ago
i enjoyed this vid
jessyjessy4 1 week ago
"Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest... The origin of species — Darwin's problem — remains unsolved."
― Scott F. Gilbert
Frab2001 2 weeks ago
@Frab2001
"Quote mining is pathetic and intellectually lazy"
-me
somecomputergeek 2 weeks ago
@Frab2001 You must be a complete retard not to understand how large scale evolution works.
Eric101point101 3 days ago
@esraretin
That is an excellent point. The real evidence in the fossil record and what is extrapolated and supposed from the fossil record and presented as evidence, are two entirely different things.
Frab2001 2 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight Supposition and extrapolations drawn from microevolution(changes within a species as to adapt), is not evidence.Also,Ventner admits the tree of life is an artifact whose science isn't holding up. The reason why you won't list any solid evidence for random DNA mutations leading to an entirely different DNA structure (macroevolution)...is because there is no evidence for that.
Frab2001 2 weeks ago
@Frab2001 Ignoring the evidence confirming common descent doesn't just make it go away, nor does it make your Gaps arguments and denialism regarding evolution valid. Your understanding of speciation is also wrong. You couldn't even admit that you were wrong about Venter when his actual meaning was explained to you, so I highly doubt that any amount of evidence could possibly make you change your mind about evolution; you'll just ignore it or hand-wave it away.
ArcanaKnight 2 weeks ago
show me any land animal's fingers to bat's wings.radyus,ulna exist but where is the first long-finger but no-wing animal? there are vast empty space between land animals and flying animals.and the photos do not show a transition at all.transition as i said (long-finger mamalia and bats) incredible spaces exist
esraretin 2 weeks ago
Let's be clear: scientists have never witnessed random mutations to DNA lead to the creation of a new species with a new DNA structure (macro) Thus, scientists have never proven that a set of random mutations to DNA can lead to the creation of a new and improved DNA structure. In short, they have never seen macroevolution create a new species.
Frab2001 2 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight Oh, you mean when they look at evidence for microevolution and EXTRAPOLATE evidence for maroevolution. In other words they assume because microevolution (changes within a species as to adapt) occurs, they can easily postulate that macroevolution occured. They can only postulate and suppose. Thats all. The tree of life is false.. It's an outdated artifact.
Frab2001 2 weeks ago
me: "What proof do we have of common decent?"
ArcanaKnight: "The proof of common decent is the evidence"
me: "What is the evidence?"
ArcanaKnight: "Independent lines of conformation of evidence is the proof!"
me: "what is the evidence which proves common decent?"
ArcanaKnight: "I just told you! It's not my fault you can't follow evidence!"
And repeat.....ROTFL!!
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001 I actually first told you almost a week ago, we have multiple independent genetic methods of determining ancestry, and they all confirm not only each other, but also what is found in the fossil record. You subsequently ignored it.
ArcanaKnight 2 weeks ago
sorry for the double post...it was an accident.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight "The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up...So there is not a tree of life." ~JCVenter
The tree of life is ridiculous and outdated. The End.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight "The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up..there is no tree of life." ~ Ventner
WATCH THE VIDEO!! Those are his EXACT words. Jeez..
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001 "Those are his EXACT words" Yes, but again, Venter was talking about the metaphor of the tree not holding up, not common descent itself. In the part you ellipsed over, he actually says that "there may be a bush of life". He also goes on to say immediately afterward that there may be a very rare 4th domain of life, and then says around 18:20: "Even in the kind of life you’re talking about... is from the same tree of life". tinyurlDOTcom/86qlxkj
ArcanaKnight 2 weeks ago
"We have multiple independently derived lines of evidence"
That is ALL you have said about evidence since we started this conversation..I just LOOKED!! How is that statement evidence!?!LOL!! "Common descent has been verified, and there's nothing which limits evolution from occurring on the "macro" scale."
Having nothing that limits macroevolution is not proof it HAPPENED!! OMG!! That's your proof!?! LOL! FAIL.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight He (ventner) called the tree of life a frickin bush!! He said it was an artifact that wasn't holding up! The tree of life is a bunch of bull, and he knows it. Dawkins nearly had a nervous breakdown, it was funny. The funny thing is, it wont be ammended because it only raises more questions for proponents of common decent and they cant have that! No Sir!
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
"If you can't provide" first sentence below the can should say can't... typo.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight
BTW, if you can provide proof of common decent without supposition and assuming, don't bother. Its funny...all you keep saying is "your lying, there is proof of common decent" independent confirmation etc.. However, saying "there is proof, your a liar!" (over and over) IS NOT PROOF! LOL!
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001 ""however, saying... is not proof" Except that I've been referencing specific lines of evidence, not just saying "there's proof"; you've just been ignoring it. Coming from someone who can't even understand the difference between someone disagreeing with the metaphor used to describe something and disagreeing with the concept itself, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that you don't understand the reference.
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight
What evidence? Anything that isn't supposition and assuming? All you are saying is "we have evidence" but, you are not giving any evidence. I've looked at the so called evidence and it's nothing more than a hypothesis along with some really creative drawings. There is no proof, no matter how long you assert there is! Common Decent is a hypothesis...period. It can not be proven.Sorry, try again.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight
Not quote mining, dont even go there. I am sending you a link to the actual video of the convention where he made this statement. Dawkins was there and he was dumbfounded. Go ahead..check it out.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight "The tree of life is an artifact of some early scientific studies that aren't really holding up...So there is not a tree of life."
~John Craig Venter (born October 14, 1946) is an American biologist and entrepreneur, most famous for his role in being one of the first to sequence the human genome.
No Common Decent!!
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
"Macroevolution is just microevolution + time; there is not one proposed or proven mechanism that allows one while preventing the other."
I'll say it again....You say there is NO mechanism which allows microevolution while preventing macroevolution from happening. That doesn't mean macroevolution happend!! LOL!! Your saying because microevolution happened we can be certain macroevolution will happend!! Like the way you broke down that made up term called macroevolution. You seem to be very aw
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001 "That doesn't mean macroevolution happend!" All you've got to support your claim is denialism. Common descent has been verified, and there's nothing which limits evolution from occurring on the "macro" scale.
"Not quote mining, dont even go there." Except Venter's argument wasn't that there is no common descent, it was just that the "tree of life" is an outdated metaphorical representation of it; he favors more of a "bush of life".
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight
You don't have proof of common decent. You have fossils which show small changes within their own species. From that you "suppose" and hypothesize the rest. That is all. What in the fossil record shows common decent? Changes within a species show adaptation to environment, not common decent.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001 "You don't have proof of common decent" That's just an out-and-out lie; I literally just explained that not only do we have evidence of it, we also have independent confirmation of it, which is as close to absolute certainty that science gets. Your inability to understand the evidence doesn't devalue it in any way, nor does ignoring it's existence make it disappear.
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] ~Wikipedia
**You may want to notify wikipedia what they are describing here does not exist!** :)
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
The fossil record show spices appearing suddenly adapting within their genetic code and dieing off, not changing one into another with a different genetic code. That is what the fossil record shows, not what it supposes..what it SHOWS.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
Also, saying there is nothing to prevent something from happening is not the same thing as it ACTUALLY happening. Come on...
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001 "saying there is nothing to prevent something from happening..." Hand-waving nonsense.
"appearing suddenly adapting within their genetic code and dieing off, not changing one into another with a different genetic code" Actually, the fossil record alone says nothing about the different organisms' genetic code, because there isn't any left. Also, are you saying that you think god or aliens just poofed these creatures into existence?
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
Now, there will be examples not proven or I will be called a name of some sort. It's always the same. I am not saying evolution did not happen,IT DID!! I am only questiong the extent to which it happen. THATS ALL. Can these changes occur over time? Who knows? Too say that it will or won't is a guess....even an educated guess is still just a guess.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight
While there have been many lovely drawings depicting how creatures "may have" evolved into a totally different (macro) species. This is supposition, no matter how you say it or draw it....its a hypothesis at best. Maceoevolution can't be proven.. to say it has is a lie.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001 "there is no evidence of macroevolution" "This is supposition..." Wrong on both counts. As I pointed out earlier, we have multiple, independently derived lines of evidence confirming common descent, and independent confirmation like that is as close as science gets to 100% certainty. Meanwhile, you have nothing but opinion and incredulity to support your claims about the supposed impossibility of "macroevolution".
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight
Yeah, that's what atheist say. There is no evidence of macroevolution. All you can say is given enough time it will happen. How much time is necessary? Hmm..
Also, all terms are made up to describe something, its called language. A distinction had to be made so people would not be mislead as how EXTREME the changes were in the evolutionary process. So, yes the terms "macro" and "micro" were made to make it clear what the fossil record ACTUALLY shows...not what it supposes.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3] ~Wikipedia
Microevolution has been proven to everyones satisfaction for the most part.
Macroevolution has not.
BIG DIFFERENCE!!
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001 "Macroevolution" is just a term made up by creationists because they couldn't completely deny evolution, so they just made up a barrier beyond which they could continue to deny any evidence of evolution. Macroevolution is just microevolution + time; there is not one proposed or proven mechanism that allows one while preventing the other.
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
"Many of the animals dont exist and have strange features. Common decent is the only explanation for this."
Umm, actually it's called EXTINCTION and yes, it has happened alot according to the fossil record. I don't have to believe in common decent for that because it's called extinction.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
"Fossils exist, they are there and science demands an explanation."
Fossils are the preserved remains or traces of animals. That is the explanation. Jeez..
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001
I understand, but do you? You missed the point entirely. The process of fossilization is completely understood, and there is no disagreement between us (I think) as to why that happens.
However, fossils, as you say, represent "traces of animals". Many of those animals do not exist anymore. Some of them have very strange characteristics which don't make any sense unless you accept common descent as an explanation.
This time, WATCH THE VIDEO.
watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU
somecomputergeek 3 weeks ago 3
@somecomputergeek
"Do you really think some magic man poofing them into existence is a better explanation..."
The fossil record has nothing to do with the origin of life. We are not discussing the prospect of Abiogenesis or Intelligent Design. We are discussing the validity of supposed transitional fossils and the distinction between transition within species and transition into an entirely different species.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001
The origin of life is irrelevant to the origin of THESE FOSSILS, which had parents, and unique characteristics, many of which are not found in species we see in the wild today. Why is that? You are looking at the fossils and asking if they prove evolution - this is ridiculous. Do they prove creation? Do they "prove" anything else?
The question is "which of these explanations is superior?", and it takes a lot of effort to not see which of them makes the most sense.
somecomputergeek 3 weeks ago
@somecomputergeek
By using the term "transitional" for both distinctions you could show a picture of a fossil which is in transition within its own species while what you are implying is its in transition to another species ENTIRELY! This is misleading. The "proof" of some of these fossils in transition to an ENTIRELY different SPECIES is lacking.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001
"you could show a picture of a fossil which is in transition within its own species "
OF COURSE IT IS!!!!
Your FATHER is a "transition" between YOU and your GRANDFATHER, and you are all the same species.
Why the HELL is this so difficult to understand????
somecomputergeek 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001
The THEORY is that they are intermediates between species. The fossils themselves ARE the evidence. If you have a better explanation as to why "intermediate" FEATURES exist, I'm all ears.
somecomputergeek 3 weeks ago
@somecomputergeek
Its important to distinguish whether you are saying the fossil you are displaying is in transition to another form within its OWN species as to adapt OR if its in transition to ANOTHER SPECIES ENTIRELY...these distinctions are most certainly not the same thing!! Of course the word "transitional" is used for both of these distinctions and THAT is misleading.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
It would certainly be more convenient for proponents of the theory of evolution if defining "transitional" was not important, but it is very important! "Intermediate" can be used to describe transition into another species or family, which also implies common decent. People who are not aware of the distinction can get mislead as to what evidence we actually have. Nice try.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001
"transitional" and "intermediate" mean essentially the same thing. What "distinction" are you talking about that is so important?
However, those fossils exists - whether you call them "transitional", "intermediate" or just "extinct animals", they ARE there, and science demands an explanation as to why. Do you really think a magic man poofing them into existence is a better explanation than descent with modification and natural selection?
watch?v=Qfoje7jVJpU
somecomputergeek 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight
"That's exactly what I was asking myself.."whats the point?" Fact is, the thought just occured to me today. It really is pointless. Listen, evolution within a species as a means of adaptation has been proven. You would have to be a fool to dispute that! Evolution outside one's own species ...not so much. I agree with the theory of evolution up to a point. The theory of evolution does not disrupt my belief in God in any way. I do not belong to a religion. It was nice chatting, I
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight
You seem like a nice person but, I just don't see all this "evidence" as clear. This arguement never goes anywhere and they usually end in insults on one's intelligence. I am honestly tired of the whole pointless debate. Your nice... lets just leave this arguement alone and say I respect you and you respect me but, our views aren't changing . That's okay, I have no problem with that.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001 " I am honestly tired of the whole pointless debate." Then why visit these videos, and (especially) why comment on them?
I feel it should also be pointed out that common ancestry is supported by more than just the fossil record. We also have multiple independent genetic methods of determining ancestry, and they all confirm not only each other, but also what is found in the fossil record. Independent verification like that is about as close to absolute certainty that science gets.
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight Do you think I am the only person who finds the "rather clear evidence of the evolutionary process" not clear at all? Showing me a picture of a fossil and pointing out an imprint of something barely visible and certainly not clear, and saying "You see! That is a femur beginning to form. It's evolving into an entirely new species!" Umm, No I dont see. Quite a few Paleontologist and Biologist have seen this "rather clear evidence" as not clear at all. Quite a few more are scared t
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
Sigh...shuck and jive, shuck and jive!!! It's always the same. BTW, creationist are guilty of the same shuck and jive, both sides are so slanted. I am not disputing evolution, I am disputing things which are called "facts"and "proof" when they are no such thing! I am disputing people who spew loads of BS and have the audacity to call you "stupid" for questioning explanations that are just ridiculous.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight
"Also, the discovery of transitional fossils doesn't preclude the possibility that all fossils are transitional." what!?
Ok, maybe we should just call it "the transitional fossil record" If all fossils are transitional then why keep proclaiming "Transitional Fossil Found! Undisputable proof!! Come on...really?
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001 "what!?" What's so hard to understand? A single fossil being transitional and all fossils being transitional are not mutually exclusive concepts.
"then why keep proclaiming..." Who exactly is proclaiming this? It matters because different sources would have different reasons for doing so.
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001
Whenever you are talking about what "they" do, ask yourself who "they" are. Scientists don't talk about "indisputable proof" - that language is reserved for propagandists and sensationalist media types.
The only questions that are relevant are "what are the facts?" and "what is the best explanation for them?". Getting bogged down in the semantics of the word "transitional" doesn't help explain anything.
somecomputergeek 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight
Well, I would expect them to show even the smallest demonstration of transition into anything outside of their own species. Oh, you're making the old "crocaduck" joke. Yawn...no, I don't expect a "crocaduck" type display in the fossil record. How about something even remotely convincing. I'm thinking of the fossil record from 150 years ago? You mean the one where exactly like the present view, exhibits no uncontestable transitional fossils?! Yeah, then I guess I am.
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Frab2001 "I would expect them to show even the smallest demonstration of transition into anything outside of their own species" Exactly what do you mean by that? And no, I wasn't making a crocaduck joke, I was sincerely asking what it is you expect transitional fossils to look like. I asked because even I could give you half a dozen fossil lines which show a rather clear evolutionary progression, and yet its apparently not good enough for you.
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight Exactly, Darwin believed (hoped) transitional would be found eventually. Very few of the fossils found have been called transitional and the ones that scientist label "transitional" do not exhibit 100% proof that are in transition to anything....cont...
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
@Frab2001 "...do not exhibit 100% proof that are in transition to anything" What exactly are you expecting them to look like? Organisms with half-formed wings or half an eye? Also, the discovery of transitional fossils doesn't preclude the possibility that all fossils are transitional. In the end you're just trying to attack evolutionary theory as it was 150 years ago, not as it stands now (which is a fallacious argument).
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
@ArcanaKnight The truth is, if fossils had been found that show concrete proof of transition....nobody would be saying "all fossils are transitional" because we would have the transitional fossils!
Frab2001 3 weeks ago
So, Darwin's concern over locating transitional fossils was why?? He was perplexed as to why transitional fossils weren't found everywhere, that's a fact. I mean he came up with The Theory of Evolution and he forgot to mention something like... there are no transitional fossils because they are ALL transitional, they are all evolving and constantly in transition so what the heck was I worried about!? Hmmm.....
Frab2001 4 weeks ago
@Frab2001 Paleontology was still in its infancy in Darwin's time, and they had only discovered a fraction of the fossils that we have now. Darwin's comments were based on the evidence available at the time, and so isn't an accurate representation of the modern fossil record.
ArcanaKnight 3 weeks ago
Funny!! I love the Benny Hill music with it! Very appropriate. Silly stuff.
Frab2001 1 month ago
Anyone who says there are no transitional fossils is either ignorant about the fossil record or is lying through their teeth.
ZacharyG89 2 months ago
Those are not transitional to anything. Well, unless you have a big imagination, I guess you could say everything is transitional. Oh, that's right they do say that.
rockthecityatnight 4 months ago
@rockthecityatnight Everything is said to be a transitional form because evolution hasn't just stopped; the species around today are not the absolute pinnacles of the development.
ArcanaKnight 3 months ago
Looks like urbman29 is looking for a transitional that resembles the crocoduck. Transitional fossils don't work that way dude. Technically, everything is a transitional because an organism is always after what came before it and before what is coming after it.
TechnicallyTechnical 5 months ago
God made all of those similar creatures slightly different at the same time to see which ones would survive the best. Guess what they all died. 99% of everything that ever lived on this shit hole died and we are next as soon as a random asteroid hits us. There aint gonna be no GOD to push it out of the way you morons.
baxtar1963 5 months ago
Just because YOU don't understand something doesn't mean nobody else does.
mrwilliamwonder 6 months ago
To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
—Henry Gee
AnnymsVoice 6 months ago
@AnnymsVoice Actually, it can and has been tested; the ancestry depicted by the fossil record has been confirmed by every one of the multiple independent genetic methods of determining ancestry that we have discovered.
ArcanaKnight 6 months ago
Folks,
Your presentation might be enhanced by following the progression of one evolutionary development by presenting its images showing the different fossils in the same size and orientation (similar to showing how someone's face developed through the years by keeping the eyes in the same location), unless the organism went through an evolution-driven change in size.
TheLookingOne 6 months ago
Ummm, still no transitional fossils.....
earlysda 6 months ago
@earlysda then what were those fossils to you
jandkas 6 months ago
@earlysda Of course not. And, if there are no transitional fossils, that is irrefutable evidence that our TRUE and ONLY Lord is real, Master Jebus Thrist.
After all, if we don't know the answer for something, it can only mean a invisible god figure did it RIGHT? Just like the thunders, who come from Thor - and not that HERECTIC FAKE "zeus" that the cursed greeks came up with.
URTemplar 6 months ago
@earlysda Some other Species that possess transitional features: Epidexipteryx hui, Protoavis, Protarchaeopteryx, Archeopteryx, Avimimus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Rahonavis, Shuvuuia, Sinornithosaurus, Beipiasaurus, Microraptor, Nomingia, Tiktaalik, Epidendrosaurus, Cryptovolans, Scansoriopteryx, Yixianosaurus, Dilong, Pedopenna, Jinfengopteryx, Sinocalliopteryx, Sinornis, Ambiortus, Hesperornis, Ichthyornis
gregrutz 6 months ago
A very good series of images. I prefer the title: "Some transitional fossils". And a piece of classical music to go with it.
wkboonec 7 months ago
@wkboonec
"There are no transitional fossils" is too much of a troll for you? Yakaty sax IS classical music.
somecomputergeek 6 months ago
A "troll"? Yes, but not for me. I was sold out on EVOLUTION and FOSSILS some 50 years ago (1962) after a Geology course as an undergraduate, from a great self-confessed atheist professor. I am thinking of the masses that are still blinded by the DOGMAS of their CHURCHES, whom we should be HELPING so they can get over such heavy obstacles. Thanks for the lesson on "classical" music - I just feel that the Benny Hill slapstick tune is unappropiate for this delicate subject. Saludos desde México.
wkboonec 6 months ago
How appropriate that you play the Benny Hinn theme song with this humorous display of non-transitional fossils. Apparently you aren't understanding what Darwin anticipated in the way of transitionals.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
I think you'll find it's Benny Hill. Hinn is a lying christian "healer" who steals money from the sick and the vulnerable.
mcmanustony 7 months ago
@mcmanustony Thanks for chasing me down to make the correction. Yes, of course, it's the Benny Hill theme song, which is very appropriate for the humorous nature of the video.
MorganMarvinson 7 months ago
@MorganMarvinson
yakety sax
somecomputergeek 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You have to have a lot of faith to believe in the Theory of evolution.
luminosity2083 7 months ago
Actually, ALL forms are transitional.
howamusing1 7 months ago
fossils are just something the Jews buried in 1924
JuiceBoxheero 8 months ago
@JuiceBoxheero
Those damned Jews... how do they do it!? First, they monopolize the world's gold supply, then the banks, they take over all of the governments and media institutions of the world, and now I find out that they've been doing the same thing with science?
It's so hard to believe that such a small percentage of the earth's population is directly responsible for all of its problems, but it's obviously true if it means I can blame others for what "I" have done -- under Jew mind control.
somecomputergeek 8 months ago 3
@JuiceBoxheero hahaha nice one
icsvortex665 7 months ago
good choice on the music
bioparahti 8 months ago
Evolution!...what a miracle
kdcox1205 8 months ago
@somecomputergeek 1: chimps and tobacco have the same number of cromosones so there is no logic to your argument. 2: Yep a pattern emerges they all have the same Creator.
piqlol 8 months ago
@piqlol
1) My argument didn't involve chromosomes - it involved morphology. Do chimps and tobacco have the same morphology? Also, chromosomes are delineations of DNA which can increase as well as decrease, and the number alone says nothing.
2) Let's say you're right - how does having a creator doesn't explain the pattern? Inheritance and that passing on of traits explains the pattern pretty well. ( watch?v=Izl5BB2AkZE)
somecomputergeek 8 months ago
@piqlol : Yes they were both created by the conditions in Planet Earth
No Imaginary God required :D
rgtrab 7 months ago
nice video! my video has a named list of 60 if there are still any doubters in the audience :P
bassetts1899 8 months ago
Everything that ever lived is a transition between what came before and what will come to be. Life IS a state of transition. We are but a snapshot in time, looking at a snapshot in time. In order to see the big picture, it has to all be woven into one long movie. That's what science is doing by piecing together snapshots in time from the past, based on available evidence.
JamesMorlan 8 months ago
Jelubaful 8 months ago
Jelubaful 8 months ago
Jelubaful 8 months ago
Jelubaful 8 months ago
It is ridiculous how misinformed the majority of people are. Anyone who takes a college level biology class will see how evolution is evidenced in every page. Evolution is the most fascinating aspect of life, and the fact that so many people want to deny its truth is just evidence that perhaps we are not yet evolved enough to fully accept the consequences of the most profound truth in the history of terrestrial life. I believe that one day we will be able to accept and understand this truth.
Rael0505 8 months ago
yea that seems to be crationists only argument but its like "hey there over here"
stupid creationists
hiks45 8 months ago
Good video.
kailabreece 8 months ago
I don't see any of those fossils evolving...
no2religions 9 months ago 11
@no2religions
you best be trollin'
somecomputergeek 9 months ago
@somecomputergeek hehehe... ya :)
no2religions 9 months ago
@no2religions me either.evolutionists have a very wild imagination.wilder than the creationists
icsvortex665 8 months ago
@icsvortex665
Look at his channel page. He's joking. "I don't see any of those fossils evolving..." is a joke, but you have to understand the basics of evolution (including understanding the concept that a single dead fossil doesn't evolve) to get it.
somecomputergeek 8 months ago
@icsvortex665 umm... you realise I was joking, right?
no2religions 8 months ago
@icsvortex665 Hahahahahahahhahah way to make a massive fool of yourself. Retarded fuck.
bar9001 7 months ago
@bar9001 suck my balls.you re gonna burn in hell and satan is gonna have your ass for eternity >:) hahahaha
icsvortex665 7 months ago
@no2religions i dont either..if it is a slow process,we should catch every little shot of what happend.All of these animals looked like they were just regular sea creatures.
urbman29 5 months ago
@urbman29 hahaha!!! this was a joke. And so are you! They look like regular sea creatures because they are, just old ones. "we should catch every little shot of what happend" Absolutely not. That statement is proof positive that you are scientifically illiterate. Now do everyone a favor and deny evolution if you want, but don't pretend that there is ANY science on your side. There isn't. And your denial has nothing to do with the science.
no2religions 5 months ago
@urbman29
He was being sarcastic. The statement "I don't see any of those fossils evolving" is an exaggeration of a common misconception that creationists have.
Imagine trying to prove to an idiot that gravity is the pull between two bodies of mass, and somebody says "well, I don't see everything in this room clumpin' together". It is so obviously ignorant that you could make fun of people who don't accept the theory of gravity by saying the same thing.
somecomputergeek 5 months ago
@somecomputergeek no,seriously..these look like original life forms.If i had the blueprints of all the bones,and what caused them to evolve,i might believe it
urbman29 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@no2religions ''I don't see any of those fossils evolving...''
No shit, creatard.
gregrutz 3 months ago
Cambrian explosion, i think there was a lot of species suddenly came from know where,but you only showed one or two,how misleading
barbersahib 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@barbersahib "i think there was a lot of species suddenly came from know where".
Then you think wrong. Unless you consider 40 million years to be "suddenly".
Vasana4 9 months ago
@barbersahib
I don't understand. How is focusing on one group of species "misleading"? If I chronicled the evolution of homo sapiens, would you say that I was being "misleading" if I didn't include lizards?
somecomputergeek 9 months ago
@barbersahib You do know that the the "suddenly" of the Cambrian explosion is longer than from the extinction of the dinosaurs to modern time? And you do know that we have found thousands of fossils older than that? Many of them are we able to trace their evolutionary fossil record in great detail. That is hardly from nowhere (or "know where" as you call it).
greyman000 8 months ago
@barbersahib: DUDE, look up something BEFORE making a stupid comment! The so called "Cambrian explosion" covers a period of 80 million years!!! EIGHTY! MILLION! Years! Talk about "misleading"...
stojadinovicp 8 months ago
@barbersahib You do know it's not called the Cambrian "Explosion" because it was sudden right? It's called an explosion because evolution sped up by an order of magnitude, hence "explosion". That's why I prefer to call it the Cambrian Radiation because too many dumb people mistake explosion for a short period of time, even though it lasted 70,000,000-80,000,000 years. For comparison, Homo sapiens are only 200,000 years old.
Willgtl 7 months ago
If my remains happen to fossilize, I will be a transitional fossil. So will you. When you understand how slowly and gradually evolution works, you understand that every fossil is a transitional fossil.
Use this illustration: imagine you took a picture of yourself once a day, everyday, for the entire course of your life. Now point at the one picture of when you went from being a boy to a man. Which single picture is the one in which you become a man?
logsdonj 9 months ago
The three greatest gods of atheism are: Darwin of fallacies, does natural selection select to the fittest or the fittest induce natural selection?. 2) The random of gaps, can the randomness do what natural laws can't do, it means, no matter how many attempts in the lab?. 3) Time of hope...less. They believe that sooner or later any event will become possible if we wait during billions of year, no matter results from experiments.
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@Leivinn20
1) "Natural selection" is a term describing an OBSERVABLE PROCESS in which species who are the "fittest" in a particular environment are more likely to survive and reproduce.
2) Mutations may be random, but natural selection is not, and the effects CAN be observed in a lab.
3) You have it backwards. The chance of any event "happening" AFTER it happens is 1. Just because we can't predict the future deterministically doesn't mean we can't explain the past objectively.
somecomputergeek 9 months ago
@somecomputergeek : My results tell: 1) all selection process reduces the variance, does not increase it. 2) the natural events can't prove how they were originated, in contrary case, the science would be based on a circular argument, it means: the natural laws can explained existence of all thing but we can't prove it. The natural selection rules on the evolution despite we can study and evade the natural selection...
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@somecomputergeek : should read: ..."the natural laws can explain existence of all thing but we can't prove it"...
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@somecomputergeek :Let me add: Why can we find defective individuals in the nature, such as adult frogs with a lot of legs? (Defective frogs are able to compete for food and space), why are there albino animals in the nature?, does natural selection works every now and then?.
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@Leivinn20
Because mutations are random, not all of them are "beneficial" to the survival of the species. In fact, most of them are neutral. Sometimes you get mutations that are harmful, and THOSE SPECIFIC MUTATIONS are not propagated through the gene pool. Some of them, however, ARE beneficial, and these specific beneficial mutations accumulate, 1 by 1, until we have a species built, over time, that is highly adapted to it's environmental niche.
Why did GOD create albinos?
somecomputergeek 9 months ago
@somecomputergeek : My viewpoint is simpler than what you're talking. How could natural selection select our intelligence, if our intelligence is able to study natural selection and evade it?, in consequence, if natural selection is not able to lead or control all kind of mutation, What does thing is selected by natural selection?. About albino animals: for creationist, this means: the creation is being destroyed gradually, the animals are losing genetic information.
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@Leivinn20
"How could natural selection select our intelligence, if our intelligence is able to study natural selection and evade it?"
Natural selection selected intelligence BECAUSE our intelligence can evade PREDATORS and increase the chances of SURVIVAL. We can not "evade" natural selection - that doesn't even make sense.
If albanism is due to a "loss" of genetic information over, then there would be a greater percentage of albinos in a population that reproduces more frequently, right?
somecomputergeek 9 months ago
@somecomputergeek : I'm afraid this discussion is falling into vacuum. Albinos show that it's not perforce true that the natural selection is the path to upper organization levels of organisms as said by Darwin. It means, natural selection doesn't explain biodiversity.
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@Leivinn20
Saying the discussion is "falling into a vacuum"? Sounds like something somebody would say when they are loosing an argument and trying to divert attention.
I'm not an expert in albinism. Could you please be more specific as to why albinism is shows that "it's not perforce true that the natural selection is the path to upper organization levels of organism"? You could start by explaining what you mean by "upper organization".
somecomputergeek 9 months ago
@somecomputergeek : In fact, it's really simple issue: according to Darwin natural selection drove life from the simplest life forms unto the most complex life forms, from bacteria to humans, however, any organism can lose genetic information and continues being viable, I mean: natural selection does not imply increasing of complexity.
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@Leivinn20
Complexity is a side-effect of evolution, not a "goal". The only "goal" of evolution through natural selection is the survival of genes. You are right when you say that natural selection does not imply increasing of complexity. It ALLOWS FOR increasing complexity, but each new area of complexity has a cost associated with it. It might be very complex to have 30 arms, for instance, but you would need to eat more food. Natural selection would not select for it, despite its complexity.
somecomputergeek 9 months ago
@somecomputergeek : I think you already get my point, 1) Natural selection doesn't resolve the dilemma about what happens first. Does the Fittest induce competition and by implication induces natural selection?, or does natural selection induce the fittest apparition?. 2) The natural selection would not be a natural and statistic trend by itself. Evolutionists have forced the viewpoint by means of assuming that fittest always appears and survives regardless the time.
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@Leivinn20
1) The further in time we go back, the less information fidelity we have. Just because we lack information about the very first (and furthest back) aspects of life DOES NOT MEAN that our observations TODAY are invalid, nor does it mean that the theory which explains a VAST BODY of high-confidence data is invalid.
2) The fittest do not "always" appear, nor do they "always" survive. The term "fittest" is relative to environment and other species, not some pre-conceived goal.
somecomputergeek 9 months ago
@somecomputergeek :1) Even from the evolutionist viewpoint, human intelligence shows that mutations capable to overcome natural selections occur, in fact, we study the natural mutation, then, What thing is selected by natural selections?, current evidence doesn't prove evolution.
2) The fittest is only a abstraction created by Darwin. Everywhere around there are factors which overcome surviving capacity of any organism, meteors, volcanoes, avalanches, human beings, tsunamis, and similar others.
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@Leivinn20 2) Changes in the environment caused by rarely occurring natural disasters like those is not a mark against evolution, its just something that changes the environment that is being adapted to; such changes in the environment doesn't change the fact that the fittest survives, it just redefines what it means to be the fittest.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight : "the environment doesn't change the fact that the fittest survives", come on, starting the analysis from atheist viewpoint: life existence is only issue of luck, and that is not scientific argument, it doesn't' implies a real explanation of our origins. In short: "the fittest always survive no matter any surrounding factor because we are here"...- it's a circular argument.
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@Leivinn20 "the fittest always survive no matter any surrounding factor" That is just a straw-man. A change in environmental conditions just changes the criteria of what it means to be the fittest, it doesn't change the underlying principle that the fittest will be the one to better pass on its genes to the next generation. Do you think there has to be some great plan? Some great reason why we're the dominant lifeform on the planet instead of something else? If so, why?
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@Leivinn20 1) Our ability to control our environment, thereby limiting or even negating the impact of some evolutionary pressures, arose as a side-effect of our increasing intelligence, it wasn't the advantage that led to our intelligence increasing in the first place; even if it wasn't, nothing says that such advantages arising via natural selection would be impossible.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight : From the atheist viewpoint: existence of our intelligence implies that mutations occurs regardless natural selection because we can evade natural selection, therefore, What thing is selected by natural selection?, even we can alter evolution course...
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@Leivinn20 "existence of our intelligence implies that mutations occurs regardless of natural selection" That's right, but not for the reason you seem to think. Mutation and natural selection are two different mechanisms, not a single one as you imply; the former gives rise to the traits that the latter affects. This means that mutations can arise even if there are no selective pressures (there are still pressures on humans btw, they're just mostly social instead of environmental).
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight : From direct observation we can take: 1) The human intelligence is capable to analyze natural selection, therefore, it can't be selected by natural selection. 2) The human intelligence in able to drop a hydrogen bomb on any life form to exterminate it. It implies: natural selection doesn't control evolution process. There are "mutations" able to overcome natural selections control (even the evolution). Yes, I trust on God. conclusion: there is not conclusive proof for evolution.
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@Leivinn20 "(human intelligence) can't be selected by natural selection" Actually it can. That's why people have steadily been getting smarter generation by generation. As I said, just because we're not subject to most environmental pressures (thanks to our ability to control our environment) doesn't mean that we're completely free of all NS pressures; there are still other pressures such as sexual selection that people are subject to.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@Leivinn20 Regarding your ridiculous H-bomb comment, one species being able to develop tools which are capable of wiping out massive amounts of life doesn't negate natural selection, regardless of what you think.
My concept of the fittest isn't circular. Being the fittest organism for its niche doesn't necessarily mean that its the one with the most traits or genetic information; different or less traits are mutations that can be selected for too if they suddenly become an advantage.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
@ArcanaKnight : By the way, your concept about fittest is circular. According to you, fittest is just the life form which survived, you should be take account some times the survivor is this one which lost genetic information, i. e.: certain bacterias are resistant to antibiotics due to they can't feed well, therefore, they don't assimilate the antibiotic enough to die. In this case, the evidence would suggest we are not coming from bacterias.
Leivinn20 9 months ago
@somecomputergeek : should read: ..in fact: we study the natural selection,...
Leivinn20 9 months ago
The stratigraphic column doesn't exist on any site, except on paper of school books, where it constitutes a graphic-conceptual model...and one of sacred objects of atheist religion.
Leivinn20 9 months ago
Technically there are no transitional forms... every form is complete from the troglobite to the blue whale! Every one is adapted to fit its changing enviroment.
Felhaven 9 months ago
Adaption is not Evolution, Evolution is a dead theory that Darwin hoped by now would have yelded the links between each species, it hasn't and it never will.
0B1ken0bi 9 months ago
@0B1ken0bi do you even know what you're saying?
EthernalExhile 9 months ago
showing diffrent form of the same species and saying they are transitional is like showing diffrent breeds of cats and dogs and saying they too are transitional, wake up you psuedo intellects, you are so full of shit it's comical, Educated Fools make this world what it is, a shit pit full of crap !!
0B1ken0bi 9 months ago
@0B1ken0bi
"showing diffrent form of the same species"
Which species was that, and what images were of the same species? All of them? This entire video was just one long sequence of the same species showing some adaptation?
"Educated Fools"
How is this any different than saying "people who are educated are not educated"?
somecomputergeek 9 months ago
@0B1ken0bi
You're a fucking idiot.
bluemoonrising26 9 months ago
@0B1ken0bi
Funny thing is I bet you don't even know what a species is... I'm right aren't I. without wikipediaring it, you would have NO idea.
OrthodoxDarwinist 9 months ago
Comment removed
0B1ken0bi 9 months ago
Being cut short in the evolutionary process doesn't mean that an organism's evolutionary process was complete, it just means that it was never able to develop any further. They could just as easily have been the ones to continue on if conditions had been a bit different; giant dinosaurs would probably still rule the earth if a few falling space rocks hadn't drastically changed the environment.
ArcanaKnight 9 months ago
Benny Hill music FTW.
LucasI3434 9 months ago
Why waste peoples' time obfuscating? It'd be more interesting if you'd actually point out that your definition of transitional fossil is different than the accepted definition. Then you could explain your definition and apply it to all these fossils.
Instead, zany horn music.
cosmicharlie1970 9 months ago
@cosmicharlie1970 Every fossil you've ever seen is a transitional fossil by the SCIENTIFIC definition,
Tigerpawzs 9 months ago
@Tigerpawzs No it's not. Otherwise there'd be no such term, and everyone would just say fossil. Come on man, is that all you got? SCIENTIFIC in all caps? It's cute wordplay, but other than that, it's a big nothing burger.
cosmicharlie1970 9 months ago
@cosmicharlie1970 Well, since all fossilized creatures were transitional species, it's a pretty simple conclusion that all fossils are transitional fossils. Granted that's rather redundant and probably why paleontologists generally just call them 'fossils.'
Tigerpawzs 9 months ago
@Tigerpawzs What about the creatures that died out? They weren't transitional, were they? They were final. If all fossilized creatures are transitional, and all fossils are transitional, why the debate over transitional fossils? You're playing semantic games, that's why.
cosmicharlie1970 9 months ago
@cosmicharlie1970 They would still be defined as transitional since they were in the process of evolving. There isn't a debate over this in the scientific community, it's pretty well accepted. Some ignorant and uneducated evangelists argue against this since they have no education of it and that hardly qualifies as a debate. Head on down to your local university and pick up a few biology classes, maybe it will help clear a few things up for you.
Tigerpawzs 9 months ago
@cosmicharlie1970
He is ac