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.

[Jose]

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.

An excellent strategy! When I present exactly the counters to your arguments, you describe them as meaningless mumbo-jumbo, a form of rhetoric. Then, you tell me to go away. I love it!

You wouldn't consider actually discussing the issues?

[YEC]

jose, you presented nothing, you answered nothing.

Either stay on topic or once again...go away.

[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]

Color me shocked! I didn't see it coming that the simple question of posting a series of skull photos starting with a chimpanzee and ending with a modern human would result in creationist handwaving and obfuscation rather than a simple answer like "E and here's why" or "H and here's why."

Once again evolutionism makes a speculative assumption.

This is YEC (meaning Young Earth Creationists in general, not you specifically) cognative dissonance at it's best. Of course science makes speculative assumptions. Those are called "predictions." Those predictions are based on previous observations. These "predictions" are then tested against further observations (like the skull examples) which, upon discovery might "falsify" said "predictions."

For those of you not in the know, that's called the "Scientific Method."

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.

Are you familiar with the Hox gene? And what exactly is supposed to account for the differences in morphology other than mutations? Anyway, back to the Hox gene, your entire claim in this paragraph is completely invalited by it's existance. I'm not going to do your homework for you, so I'll suggest you hit Google and learn the ramifications of Hox and morphology.

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.

Beautiful! Cognative dissonance again!

Let's try this again. Evolution "predicted" 150 years ago that we would find fossils that represented transitional, or were close to transitional species between our closest cousins the African great apes and ourselves. This "prediction" could have been falsified by finding nothing but obviously Chimp (or Gorilla) fossils and none that appeared transitional. Instead we find a near seamless morphological change between a Chipmanzee like skull and a modern human skull.

Hardly circular since the prediction was made before the majority of skulls were unearthed. As an aside, the "circularity" argument rings nearly as hollow as the Zeno's paradox argument. Apart from the DNA evidence, and the skulls themselves as evidence, one must ask if humans and Chimps are so separate, why do these skulls exist at all? How excactly to Creationists explain their existance?

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.

Setting aside for a moment that the ERV evidence I mentioned above (something you're totally ignoring to myopically focus on fossils btw) is powerful evidence for the lineage of New World Monkeys, Old World Monkeys, Gibbons, Ourangoutans, Gorillas and Chimps and Humans and our other Hominids, why would the skulls point to such a shared morphological legacy if not for evolution?

Why, if each were a special creation would there be such a seamless transition from one species to another? Why would the morphological and DNA evidence line up so precisely? And why, again, putting aside a skull series from prosimians like Tarsiers to modern humans like us, is it so hard to call a discernment point between "apes" and "humans" in a series of merely 14 skulls?

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.

Utter balderdash. Modern H. sapiens skulls are virtually undiscernable from each other when judged by race. Differences such as the nose (in equitorial blacks) or the eyes (in Asians - the preferred referance -- "Oriental" is a carpet, not an ethnicity) are superficial and found in the skin and cartillage, not in the bone structure.

Oh, and one more thing... If your interpretation the Bible says that the Asian (actually it never mentions the Asian races) races were "post-Flood," how could they possibly have existed pre-Flood?

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.

O.K. You got us...

Oh, wait a minute, you forgot the multi-layered evidence for evolution...

How many English Bulldog skulls have been found in South America?
How many Basenji skulls have been found in China?
How many Corgi leg bones have been found in Australia?

Therein lies the power of the evidence for evolution over the ad hoc hand waving of Creationism.

Human's are predicted by evolution to have evolved in the Eastern Hemisphere, and specifically Africa. Hominid fossils are found, the majority (and the most archaic) in Africa, and with increasingly later dates, Asia and Europe. None have ever - not once ever - been found in the Western Hemisphere. That is the predictive power of biogeography.

As an aside, we know why the Wolf has transformed into the Bulldog, Basenji and Corgi - through human intervention and that's why their skulls are so disperate. Does Creationism offer an explanation as to why we have found Hominid fossils as disperate as Lucy, KNM-ER 1470, Turkana Boy and Neanderthals?

Could the same variations among "breeds" of fossilized species be confusing the evolutionist? Most definitely....but try telling our closed minded evo friends that.

Let's see, the Morphologic evidence of fossils supports evolution. The Biogeographic evidence supports evolution. And the DNA evidence supports evolution. I wonder who is actually confused on the matter...

[YEC]

Color me shocked! I didn't see it coming that the simple question of posting a series of skull photos starting with a chimpanzee and ending with a modern human would result in creationist handwaving and obfuscation rather than a simple answer like "E and here's why" or "H and here's why."

I didn't know your theory taught we actually evolved from a chimp..I thought we were just distant relatives with a common ancestor...in other words, all that was presented was a bunch of skull pictures lined up to portray evolution. Call it fraudulent if you like.

Once again evolutionism makes a speculative assumption.

This is YEC (meaning Young Earth Creationists in general, not you specifically) cognative dissonance at it's best. Of course science makes speculative assumptions. Those are called "predictions." Those predictions are based on previous observations. These "predictions" are then tested against further observations (like the skull examples) which, upon discovery might "falsify" said "predictions."

So you previously observed evolution? Interesting concept. What kind of time machine did you have?

For those of you not in the know, that's called the "Scientific Method."

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.

Are you familiar with the Hox gene? And what exactly is supposed to account for the differences in morphology other than mutations? Anyway, back to the Hox gene, your entire claim in this paragraph is completely invalited by it's existance. I'm not going to do your homework for you, so I'll suggest you hit Google and learn the ramifications of Hox and morphology.

Tell me your not going to use the refuted chicken scute to feather argument? Did you ever see a picture of this so called feather?

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.

Beautiful! Cognative dissonance again!

Biologist have noticed for a while that different species of animals share similar features.
For example the bone structure of the limbs of the bat, porpoise, horse and human are considered as homologous and explained as a product of descent with modification from a common ancestor.

This evolutionary concept has some basic problems.

If homology is defined as similar features due to descent with modification from a common ancestor then it is circular reasoning it uses as evidence for common descent.

Here’s why:
For the evolutionist homologies are similar structures in animals.... explain by descent with modification from a common ancestry.

For example:
If the similar bone patterns of the forelimbs are to be considered as common ancestry of the vertebrates...then you must determine if they are indeed derived from a common ancestor.

Often the evolutionist point to the similarities and claim they have the evidence that shows descent with modification was derived from a common ancestor.

In other words the similaraties show they are homologus...the homologies show they are descended from a common ancestor....the descention from a common ancestor is the reason for the similaraties....the similaraties show they are homologus..and round and round it goes.

The circular reasoning has began and continues to this day.

The best the evolutionist can do is make the claim that homology is the anticipated and expected consequence of evolution. Homology is not evidence of evolution.

“A mere succession of similar forms does not furnish its own explanation.”

reference: Icons of Evolution

Let's try this again. Evolution "predicted" 150 years ago that we would find fossils that represented transitional, or were close to transitional species between our closest cousins the African great apes and ourselves. This "prediction" could have been falsified by finding nothing but obviously Chimp (or Gorilla) fossils and none that appeared transitional. Instead we find a near seamless morphological change between a Chipmanzee like skull and a modern human skull.

Did you read the part where I said there is over 206 skulls to choose from? 206 skulls to choose a few select and line up.

Hardly circular since the prediction was made before the majority of skulls were unearthed. As an aside, the "circularity" argument rings nearly as hollow as the Zeno's paradox argument. Apart from the DNA evidence, and the skulls themselves as evidence, one must ask if humans and Chimps are so separate, why do these skulls exist at all? How excactly to Creationists explain their existance?

Remember folks, these "skulls" typically exist chiefly in the form of plaster of paris to fill in between the fragmented peices. Maybe if you said, skull cap, teeth or jaw peice you would be a bit more accurate.

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.

Setting aside for a moment that the ERV evidence I mentioned above (something you're totally ignoring to myopically focus on fossils btw) is powerful evidence for the lineage of New World Monkeys, Old World Monkeys, Gibbons, Ourangoutans, Gorillas and Chimps and Humans and our other Hominids, why would the skulls point to such a shared morphological legacy if not for evolution?

Common Creator....but then again you already knew that.

Why, if each were a special creation would there be such a seamless transition from one species to another? Why would the morphological and DNA evidence line up so precisely? And why, again, putting aside a skull series from prosimians like Tarsiers to modern humans like us, is it so hard to call a discernment point between "apes" and "humans" in a series of merely 14 skulls?

Seamless transition??? Please present just one series of seamless transitions or retract your ststement.

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.

Utter balderdash. Modern H. sapiens skulls are virtually undiscernable from each other when judged by race. Differences such as the nose (in equitorial blacks) or the eyes (in Asians - the preferred referance -- "Oriental" is a carpet, not an ethnicity) are superficial and found in the skin and cartillage, not in the bone structure.

Forensic scientist can easily tell one race from another. Then again, just which race is the more evolved?

Oh, and one more thing... If your interpretation the Bible says that the Asian (actually it never mentions the Asian races) races were "post-Flood," how could they possibly have existed pre-Flood?

huh????

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.

O.K. You got us...

Oh, wait a minute, you forgot the multi-layered evidence for evolution...

There is more layers in a birthday cake than layers of evidence for evolution.

How many English Bulldog skulls have been found in South America?
How many Basenji skulls have been found in China?
How many Corgi leg bones have been found in Australia?

Therein lies the power of the evidence for evolution over the ad hoc hand waving of Creationism.

I like the way the evos find one species in one part of the world, then move 12,000 miles awy to find the next, then 6,000 miles in another direction to find the next...boy those guys really got around. You think they would have left a better fossilized trail rather than some hodge podge pick and choose this fossil from way over hhere fits trail.

Human's are predicted by evolution to have evolved in the Eastern Hemisphere, and specifically Africa. Hominid fossils are found, the majority (and the most archaic) in Africa, and with increasingly later dates, Asia and Europe. None have ever - not once ever - been found in the Western Hemisphere. That is the predictive power of biogeography.

Why would one expect them in the western hemisphere if they were not originally created there?

As an aside, we know why the Wolf has transformed into the Bulldog, Basenji and Corgi - through human intervention and that's why their skulls are so disperate. Does Creationism offer an explanation as to why we have found Hominid fossils as disperate as Lucy, KNM-ER 1470, Turkana Boy and Neanderthals?

Could the same variations among "breeds" of fossilized species be confusing the evolutionist? Most definitely....but try telling our closed minded evo friends that.

Let's see, the Morphologic evidence of fossils supports evolution. The Biogeographic evidence supports evolution. And the DNA evidence supports evolution. I wonder who is actually confused on the matter...

....please, instead of talking about this Morphologic evidence of fossils, present it.

[axeplayer]

since no one else is answering the question....i will. From the looks of the skulls, one can infer that ape ends at L and humans begin at M. This is due to the fact that skulls M and N are not as elongated as the all of the previous skulls. The skulls are more round, and the monkey skulls are longer. There's no connection between the ape skulls and the human skulls.

[YEC]

Transition of the Ancient Reptilian Pelvis to Early Modern Birds


Is this really a transitional series of the pelvis...or just what the pelvis of different selected animals would look like.....if lined up in apparent evolutionism fashion?

Heck, Want more? Check out this transitional series....
Skull transitions














Did you see how the snoot evolved as the skull length gradually became shorter and flatter? Amazing, isn't it.

Now, isn't evolution simple?

[juliod]

Now, isn't evolution simple?

Yeah, it is.

But let me join the dozen or so people who have the same experience with you, and point out that you don't answer questions. Let me repeat the question so you don't miss it:

How many hominid species were there in the ark?

Not primates, hominids. How many man-like species were there prior to the flood?

Isn't that collection of skulls (without interpretation) sufficient to prove to you that creationism is false? It is to everyone else.

DanZ

[Aximili23]

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.

I'd be very surprised if you haven't yet seen this webpage:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Although I'm sure you'll have a whole set of illogical arguments ready to dismiss the evidence.

[YEC]

Now, isn't evolution simple?

Yeah, it is.

But let me join the dozen or so people who have the same experience with you, and point out that you don't answer questions. Let me repeat the question so you don't miss it:

How many hominid species were there in the ark?

Not primates, hominids. How many man-like species were there prior to the flood?

Isn't that collection of skulls (without interpretation) sufficient to prove to you that creationism is false? It is to everyone else.

DanZ

There were 8 man-like species on the ark.