Challenge for evos

[YEC]

Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one species into another species in which the new species is a member of a different taxonomic rank of Family.

Or (if you don't like taxonomic ranks and you're a cladistics fan)

Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits.

[USIncognito]

Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one species into another species in which the new species is a member of a different taxonomic rank of Family.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that the extant Platypus is a clear transitional example of evolution from reptiles to mammals at the level of Order, how about we just stick to a simple test I have seen Creationists fail to offer a solution to after nearly 5 years. The photo I will link to below has 14 skulls. Skull A is Chimp Pan Trogoldytes. Skull N is a modern human Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Please demark in the skull series where you differentiate between an ape, and more importantly why?


For a full explanation about the skulls you can take this link.

Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits.

If you don't want to take the skull challenge, how about you explain why Endogenous Retroviral Insertions into our, and our fellow ape DNA isn't a valid indication of common ancestry? (Just a note, the probability of ERVs being "common infections" is even less likely than most bogus abiogenetic probability calculations).

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses

Remember, you have to explain away both the morphological similarities of Chimps, Humans and our common ancestor, as well as the DNA evidence like ERVs (and pseudogenes like Cytochrome C in order to poopoo both the fossil and DNA evidence... and more importantly explain why...

[Jose]

Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one species into another species in which the new species is a member of a different taxonomic rank of Family.

Hmmm ...when one species evolves into another species, it is still in the same genus as the species it was before. Do you really mean to ask about a very, very long series of speciation events in at least two lineages? Can you please be more specific about what you are asking?

Or (if you don't like taxonomic ranks and you're a cladistics fan)

Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits.

Again, as you know, a transition to a new species doesn't change anything enough to provide the distinction for which you are asking. Do you really mean that you want 100% of the intermediate fossils for a 15-million-year progression? Do you really mean that you want every individual in the family tree, with absolutely NO fossils that might be aunts or uncles instead of direct, lineal ancestors and descendents?

A couple of picky points, just to be sure: First, what do you mean by "clearly demonstrate?" That is, what level of proof do you want? Are you sticking with your usual criterion of absolute proof, with no possible way of wiggling out of it? If so, science can never give you that level of proof, and you should stick to religion, which claims Absolute Truth. Second, do you mean "preceeded" rather than "proceeded"? Third, how many traits qualify as "a group"? There may be many examples that illustrate a single trait, but if you insist on a group of traits, that's a different question.

There are probably things that I've overlooked here, but I think it is necessary to be sure we all know what the actual questions are.

I note that USIncognito has pointed out the retroviral DNA data. We don't need fossils here, because we have the living genetic evidence. There really isn't any other explanation than common ancestry, except for the humorous-God model, in which he created us with these precise DNA insertions to make it look like we share a common ancestor (i.e. the appearance-of-age model, which is sincerely adopted by many YECs). But, perhaps this "doesn't count" because we can explain it entirely with microevolution, which YECs accept as being "proven."

[gf]

Putting aside for a moment the fact that the extant Platypus is a clear transitional example of evolution from reptiles to mammals at the level of Order, how about we just stick to a simple test I have seen Creationists fail to offer a solution to after nearly 5 years.

I love the Platypus, a perfect example of a cruel joke

[YEC]

[quote="USIncognito"]


Personally i don't really think this shows much of a linage. For example "L" appears out of place and "G" seems like it would be a better fit.


Maybe "K" belongs between "F" and "G"

I would even swap "D" and "E"...but like you, all I have is pictures of fragmented skulls to go on.

[Jose]

how about we just stick to a simple test I have seen Creationists fail to offer a solution to after nearly 5 years. The photo I will link to below has 14 skulls. Skull A is Chimp Pan Trogoldytes. Skull N is a modern human Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Please demark in the skull series where you differentiate between an ape, and more importantly why?

Personally i don't really think this shows much of a linage. For example "L" appears out of place and "G" seems like it would be a better fit.

Maybe "K" belongs between "F" and "G"

I would even swap "D" and "E"...but like you, all I have is pictures of fragmented skulls to go on.

Hmmm....YEC, you didn't address the issue that USIncognito raised. USI didn't say "here is your lineage." Rather, the question was "can you tell me where ape ends and human begins?" It looks like you had a hard time telling what looked human and what looked like an ape. Of course, as we have discussed before, comparative anatomists use a large number of different characters to determine morphological similarity, not just a photo. For all you and I know from the photos, these could be extant species, with not a single fossil among them.

I guess it's not a surprise that we can't easily tell where the human/ape borderline is, since ID teaches us that all of the Irreducibly Complex things were created long before the split of chimps and humans from their common ancestor. The divergence occurred through those processes that you say creationists accept fully--microevolution and speciation.

[juliod]

Hey YEC: How many hominid species on the ark?

Isn't the figure with skulls A-M suffcient proof that your unstated creationist theory is false?

BTW, in my view, this is the sort of debate we should not engage in. In fact there is nothing to debate. The creationists (our YEC included) have not proposed an alternative interpretation.

Also, it is a rhetorical blind alley. The fact is that all fossils (100%) are intermediate forms. My grandfather's bones are an intermediate between me and every other species currently alive. This search for "missing links" has always been a mistaken attempt to play the game by the creationists rules. They invent this phoney notion of a "frog giving birth to a cat" and demand we present them with a fossil that has the head of a cat and the legs of a frog.

DanZ

[YEC]

Hey YEC: How many hominid species on the ark?

Isn't the figure with skulls A-M suffcient proof that your unstated creationist theory is false?

BTW, in my view, this is the sort of debate we should not engage in. In fact there is nothing to debate. The creationists (our YEC included) have not proposed an alternative interpretation.

Also, it is a rhetorical blind alley. The fact is that all fossils (100%) are intermediate forms. My grandfather's bones are an intermediate between me and every other species currently alive. This search for "missing links" has always been a mistaken attempt to play the game by the creationists rules. They invent this phoney notion of a "frog giving birth to a cat" and demand we present them with a fossil that has the head of a cat and the legs of a frog.

DanZ

Once again evolutionism makes a speculative assumption. In this case they assume that morphological mutations are responsible for the differences we see in the skulls. To this date there still is no examples that show morphological mutations have cause change to an animals body part or appendage. This should be kept in mind when reviewing the material of evolutionism.

As a matter of fact the logic of evolutionism is some what circular. For example the differences in the fossil record are assumed to have been caused by evolution....while evolution is shown to be true by the differences in the fossil record...interesting, but back to the point.

Currently we have 206 or so different types of primates living on the planet. If given a skull from each of those 206 primates it would be possible to line them up as if to create a supposed ancestral linage. This is exactly what those that have faith in evolutionism are doing with the contemporaneous pre-flood primates and humans. See the above picture in this thread for proof.

With in the current human race there are skulls of different sizes and shapes. An oriental skull and a caucasian skull have noted differences. If these two skulls were pre-flood and captured in the fossil record the evolutionist would consider it as evolution.

Turning to mans best friend as an example,
Just the difference between the tea cup sized Chihuahua to the Cocker Spaniel thru the Collie into a Saint Bernard and up to a Irish Wolfhound is more than the evolutionist have presented. Did you catch that? Is more than the evolutionist have presented.
If dogs were found in the fossil record the change of the snoot size and its bone structure of a Bulldog and a Collie would be enough to claim a transitional. The difference in leg size of a Corgi and the large leg size and the rear sloping position of the Great Dane would be passed off as evidence of evolution.
The differences in the ribs between the similar Greyhound, Whippet and Saluki would be presented as a major change from the Dachshund and Basset Hound.
Could the same variations among "breeds" of fossilized species be confusing the evolutionist? Most definitely....but try telling our closed minded evo friends that.

[Jose]

Once again evolutionism makes a speculative assumption. In this case they assume that morphological mutations are responsible for the differences we see in the skulls. To this date there still is no examples that show morphological mutations have cause change to an animals body part or appendage. This should be kept in mind when reviewing the material of evolutionism.

This is completely wacky. The pages of Genetics, Genes and Development, Developmental Biology, Theoretical and Applied Genetics, Gene, Cell, Science, Nature and many other journals have published many, many examples of mutations that alter morphology. It is astonishing that anyone can calmly claim that it is "there still is no examples that show morphological mutations have cause change to an animals body part or appendage." This claim is flat-out wrong, and illustrates the nature of the YEC position. "Let's make bold statements that sound good to us, even though they are wrong, because most people won't know that they are wrong, and we can usually get away with it." This is sick.

As a matter of fact the logic of evolutionism is some what circular. For example the differences in the fossil record are assumed to have been caused by evolution....while evolution is shown to be true by the differences in the fossil record...interesting, but back to the point.

An illustration of not understanding basic science. The evidence is the fossil record, genetic mechanisms, molecular biology, molecular control of development, etc. The interpretation of the data is "evolution happened." But then, you've proposed the type of logic that is required to accept that the bible is Absolute Truth. We assume that the bible is god's word, and use it as proof that god exists. In this case, there is no other, independent data so there's no other logic that can be used. It must be natural to project the same thinking style to others.

Currently we have 206 or so different types of primates living on the planet. If given a skull from each of those 206 primates it would be possible to line them up as if to create a supposed ancestral linage. This is exactly what those that have faith in evolutionism are doing with the contemporaneous pre-flood primates and humans. See the above picture in this thread for proof.

Sure--we can line anything up in a series of more-similar to less-similar, even creationists or dog biscuits. The fact that we can do this doesn't give us any insight into the analysis of fossils, for which we have additional information (such as the age of the fossil). Nor do we learn anything of value when we hear that some people don't understand the basic principles, and therefore ridicule evolution--except, perhaps, that we should do a better job of teaching science.

With in the current human race there are skulls of different sizes and shapes. An oriental skull and a caucasian skull have noted differences. If these two skulls were pre-flood and captured in the fossil record the evolutionist would consider it as evolution.

And, of course, the current differences among populations are the result of evolution. If we were to provide 100% of the data (which we cannot, at this time, do), the YEC response would be what we have already heard: it's just microevolution. It's the result of microevolution whether it's real human history or the pattern of descent from Noah. However you look at it, there's more diversity than there was in the ancestral human population, so evolution must have occurred. Calling it "microevolution" doesn't make it not be evolution.

Turning to mans best friend as an example,
<snip dog discussion taken from Ark Guy at CreationTalk.com>
Could the same variations among "breeds" of fossilized species be confusing the evolutionist? Most definitely....but try telling our closed minded evo friends that.

It always amazes me that creationists use dog breeding to say that evolution is wrong, when it is such a great example of all of the evolutionary principles. We have isolated populations that undergo different types of selection, producing morphologically distinct varieties. Right here, we see the goofiness of the above claim that mutations have never been shown to change morphology! We also see a very good illustration of a lack of understanding of basic genetics and evolution. Every population has genetic diversity. When we look at separate sub-populations within a species, we see even more diversity, as shown by different breeds of dogs, and by humans from different geographic regions (at least, prior to wide-scale ocean and air travel). There is no reason to assume that ancient populations were any different. Therefore, there was plenty of diversity for selection to act upon, resulting in evolution (that would be microevolution to you, YEC). This is also why it is so clear that every individual fossil represents a transitional form (unless, of course, it was the very last individual of that population to die from some great disaster, and there were no descendents).

Your point about this diversity potentially confusing paleontologists is valid, YEC. There are many instances in which fossils once thought to have been from different species have been shown to be from the same species, but of different ages, or of different sexes, or of different parts. This is why fossils are generally grouped as "form species" rather than true, genetic species. A "form species" is a group of fossil forms that are similar enough to warrant classifying as the same apparent species, but which we cannot justify linking to other fossils at that level. We know that some of these may be from different species that have not developed significant morphological differences (like Drosophila melanogaster and Drosophila simulans). We also know that different "form species" may be from the same species--just as you suggest for little dogs vs big dogs. But, you know, we know about this, and take it into account.

[YEC]

Jose...will you please stop with the rhetoric....please.

Sheeze man, present something that actually counters what I say instead of a bunch of mumbo-jumbo words that really mean nothing.

Answer the challenge or go away to another thread.