A Question which Atheists could not answer

[M.I.A.]

i dont understand evolution.

in reality if you look at a human body it starts as cells that are the same and then the cells become specific in function.

there is a template and any mutation away from it is manifests as abnormality.

even in later life cells are replaced to a specific standard.

mutation is not beneficial.

its like thinking that humans living on the edge of the sea would sooner or later become more adapted to living in the sea.

this is impossible because of the length of human lives.

but can anybody imagine that?

that sooner or later people would become better swimmers or better at catching fish.

or better at digesting fish.


...but why would they need to move to the sea when they are designed to live on land?


and even if they became "better" its not the same as mutating in a beneficial way.


its not a one in a trillion chance, its literally impossible.. or not.


more likely that each species has a pattern of changes that are more likely to occur... eye colour, hair colour, height, male, female (just taking humans as an example).

and these patterns of changes differ for each species.


the more variation it is able to have, the more likely it is to be able to adapt.



these are just some thoughts that might or might not be relevant to the topic.

and they sound completely obvious to you all,

and so they should.


but if i say that dinosaurs didnt even have feathers until recently, then its ether a case of lack of media exposure or not being able to put 2 and 2 together for a long time.

and now its completely obvious.

i guess what im trying to say is that even if evolution seems to work, its not set in stone how its interpreted.

it just depends on the angle which it is observed from.


that is how even the most universally excepted theories develop in knowledge.

gravity probably took a few tries to get right, but it was there for a very long time.



imo thats whats going on with toe.. people are willing to get behind and believe in it even though it may be far from what actually happens/happened...

all based on what they can see and how it is interpreted... by others.

and without fresh approaches its just more of the same.

lucky for monothiests they believe in something else, although its easy to lose sight of when arguing.

 

[~Zaria~]

You are still avoiding the question of whether the fossil record indicates a trend as stated, nor are you offering any evidence to contradict it. At this stage, this is getting exasperating but I'll continue anyway

Let's imagine a world in which all species have indeed been created by divine fiat. // snip

......

I repeat, I'm not talking at all about the mechanism, the 'how' for TOE at this point. And I'm not trying to prove that any one fossil is the direct ancestor of another, just the overall trend of development. I'm saying that what we see looks like the RESULT you would expect if TOE were correct, and not what you would expect from continuous divine creation. The HOW is an interesting but separate question.

^ Is this meant to be a scientific argument for TOE?

What you expect to observe, based on an 'overall trend'?

The initial half of this thread was about the supposed 'sub-species' of man - the Neanderthal......until this was disproved.
Then we heard about the 'evidence' found from fossils.....when in fact, there are no genuine fossil evidence that links man to ape.

And now we have moved on to common sense-type deductions and personal expectations to try to rationalize a theory that is highly speculative and not verifiable in any way.....?

Please note that I've not been talking about the 'How' of evolution during this thread, but only about the observable evidence that TOE seeks to explain.

How does something become a 'fact' (as you have previously described), when we still have no idea as to 'How' it could have possibly occurred?

Vast numbers of fossils have been discovered since his day and many of the so-called 'missing links' discovered.

Would you like to share these 'missing links' with the rest of us?

Greetings Muhammad


What we can do with certainty is to map the broad chronological development of species and characteristics across the last 3.5 billion years. There is no assumption in this. It's not even a matter of evolutionary science, this is mostly geology. The chronological map shows an overall trend across all species - from single cell, simple creatures to a mix of simple and the ever-more complex. The same pattern is visible in specific characteristics within species (bilateralism etc).

^ The existence of different creatures is simply an observation.

Please do not confuse the concepts of 'observation' with 'evidence'.

This pattern is exactly what you would expect from a TOE world.

As it stands, about 1.2 million species have been described by science. Had any one of these been found in the wrong place, in the wrong time, or with inappropriate characteristics, it would have the potential to disprove TOE in a single leap. But they're all consistent.

So, if this is an 'assumption', then it's one that's consistent with all 1.2 million items of evidence collected so far. I'd be very happy with that degree of evidence.

^ Your 'expectations' do not constitute for any 'degree of evidence'.

This pattern alone reveals a world which is what we would expect if TOE were true, even if you looked at no other evidence and made no other deduction. I do not claim that it proves TOE. But the balance of probability is very strong and there is no other theory that attempts to account for this evidence.

^ More 'expectations'?

Indeed the balance of probability is completely against TOE.


........


As mentioned previously, if we desire this discussion to be of any worth, then there needs to be good, well-referenced and valid scientific evidence for any claims that are made (not speculations, opinions or personal expectations).

But as this thread has continued i am seeing that perhaps the obstacles are greater than i thought. This is particularly true for Muslims, because of the tremendous urge to confirm the literal truth of every word in the Qur'an.

Maybe it's harder than i thought to find a common ground.

"The tremendous urge to confirm the literal truth of every word in the Qur'an" - is what makes us muslim.
It would not be possible for us to deny any part of the word of our Creator - who has already revealed to us that man have been created, not evolved. SubhanAllah.

There is no 'common ground' between evolutionists and muslims when we speak of the origins of man.

If this is your aim in this thread, I would suggest that you agree to disagree on this matter.

(Should there be any meaningful evidences added to this thread, in shaa Allah, I will try to respond.

If not, Peace from me, )

​

​

 

[observer]

Disproved where? How? Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't make it so. Likewise, you may not accept the fossil evidence, but it's there.

 

[Muhaba]

I think the ending of the video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life: Intelligent Design" says it all. Where there is a work of intelligence (such as in the DNA), an intelligent mind will recognize it to be the work of intelligence and not a chance occurring. If you don't recognize it, then your intelligence is in question.

 

[Independent]

The initial half of this thread was about the supposed 'sub-species' of man - the Neanderthal......until this was disproved.

You're a little confused about the implications of this.

Prior to the DNA analysis Creationists argued about whether Neanderthals were human or not. You have elected to call them humans, while Hulk (earlier in this thread) found Qur'anic evidence to say they were apes. Which would be worst for Creationism? On balance it would have been easier for the Creationist story if they were totally non human, but that's not how it's turned out.

(Yes, Creationists change their story all the time too, in reaction to new scientific information. Although they claim their story is fixed and unchanging.)

Now we have sequenced the DNA, interbreeding is confirmed. This makes it certain that they are very closely related and therefore definitively not apes (from whom we diverged very much longer ago). Whether we call them another 'species' or 'sub species' of human is not that important. For clarity I'll call them a sub species from now on.

You want to treat them as 100% human. So how human are they?

We know now as a fact that there are at least 3 other sub species of human: Neanderthals, Denisovans and a mystery third (perhaps Homo Erectus). Modern humans outside Africa have varying degrees of their DNA.

These 3 sub species are all different enough in their dna to be 100% distinguishable from humans. There is no modern human who could be mistaken at the dna level for one of these 3 (which is consistent with TOE). Humans come in many shapes and sizes (especially in Africa, where man originated and where there has been the longest time to create genetic diversity - as is consistent with TOE). There are some humans who might superficially visually resemble, say, a Neanderthal. But a more systematic anatomical examination would lead once again to a 100% distinction between human and Neanderthal.

How human were they in behaviour and intellect? This is an ongoing debate with new information coming in frequently. But one thing we know already is that all 3 species are entirely extinct to the last man, woman and child. That's despite their massive geographical extent. No so-called human led genocide ever got close to 100% elimination.

It is almost certain that this was due to their failure to adapt to conditions, rather than being exterminated by modern man (for which we have minimal evidence one way or the other). This is especially likely because we have 3 examples, not one.

In all 3 cases, they were different enough from humans to die out completely. So not that human then.

Therefore: these 3 species are plainly not apes, they are close cousins of modern humans (as is consistent with TOE). Neanderthals and Densiovans are sub species that have branched off and died out. Homo erectus (if that what it is) is a predecessor species to the other 2 and to modern humans. They have also died out. (All consistent with TOE and unaccounted for by Creationism.)

Close cousins yes - human the same as us, no. They are distinguishable from us in dna, appearance and behaviour. All of this is consistent with TOE. It is not consistent with any Creationist story. No Creationist story accounts for these sub species.

The whole thing is further strong evidence in favour of TOE, and negative evidence against Creationism.

 

[Muhaba]

And I repeat:
the ending of the video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life: Intelligent Design" says it all. Where there is a work of intelligence (such as in the DNA), an intelligent mind will recognize it to be the work of intelligence and not a chance occurring. If you don't recognize it, then your intelligence is in question.

 

[Independent]

Please do not confuse the concepts of 'observation' with 'evidence'.

"Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong." (The US National Academy of Science)

Would you like to share these 'missing links' with the rest of us?

The term 'missing link' predates Darwin and is next to meaningless. This from wikipaedia:

"The phrase missing link' has been used extensively in popular writings on human evolution to refer to a perceived gap in the hominid evolutionary record. It is most commonly used to refer to any new transitional fossil finds. Scientists, however, do not use the term, as it refers to a pre-evolutionary view of nature...."

"...The term "missing link" refers back to the originally static pre-evolutionary concept of the great chain of being, a deist idea that all existence is linked, from the lowest dirt, through the living kingdoms to angels and finally to God..."

"...In any case, the term itself is misleading, as any known transitional fossil, like Java Man, is no longer missing. While each find will give rise to new gaps in the evolutionary story on each side, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to our knowledge of evolutionary transitions..."

Full article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

 

[Independent]

^ Is this meant to be a scientific argument for TOE?

What you expect to observe, based on an 'overall trend'?

This is standard scientific method, used across all disciplines. TOE attempts to describe nature based on a consistent phylogentic theory. This means that species and characteristics must appear in a certain order chronologically and geographically. Any deviation from this order is potentially fatal for the theory. (ie the theory is falsifiable).

In Darwin's day, this was established from natural history and fossils. Subsequently we have been able to add molecular biological analysis which also corroborates TOE in 100% of cases. Do you think that is a coincidence?

Scientists are making predictions based on observations all the time. For instance, physicists studying small particles inferred the existence of a new, unknown particle which became known as the Higgs Boson. For decades it remained unproven. Last year, it was finally identified at CERN.

Similarly, in TOE Darwin inferred the need for an intermediary species between reptiles and birds. Just a couple of years after publication the fossil of an Archaeopteryx was discovered that fitted the bill. However, the head was in poor condition and had no teeth. In another few years more new bird species were found - Ichtyhornis and Hesperornis. They were determined to be seabirds, but they retained teeth. This meant that for TOE to be correct, Archaeopteryx (as an intermediiate species) had to have teeth.

In 1877 a new Archaeopteryx fossil was discovered...with teeth. A precise prediction, precisely fulfilled.

Give me one example of a Creationist prediction, similarly fulfilled.

 

[M.I.A.]

This is standard scientific method, used across all disciplines. TOE attempts to describe nature based on a consistent phylogentic theory. This means that species and characteristics must appear in a certain order chronologically and geographically. Any deviation from this order is potentially fatal for the theory. (ie the theory is testable).

In Darwin's day, this was established from natural history and fossils. Subsequently we have been able to add molecular biological analysis which has corroborated TOE predictions in 100% of cases. Do you think that is a coincidence?

Scientists are making predictions based on observations all the time. For instance, physicists studying small particles inferred the existence of a new, unknown particle which became known as the Higgs Boson. For decades it remained unproven. Last year, it was finally identified at CERN.

Similarly, in TOE Darwin inferred the need for an intermediary species between reptiles and birds. Just a couple of years after publication the fossil of an Archaeopteryx was discovered that fitted the bill. However, the head was in poor condition and had no teeth. In another few years new speices were found -Ichtyhornis and Hesperornis. They were determined to be seabirds, but they retained teeth. This meant that for TOE to be correct, Archaeopteryx should have had teeth.

In 1877 a new Archaeopteryx fossil was discovered...with teeth. A precise prediction, precisely fulfilled.

Give me one example of a Creationist prediction, similarly fulfilled.

i understand what your saying, and its logical.. i would expect the numbers to go up in order 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and so would any mathematician.

but its a clever trick, to say the next number would be six and to expect a nine somewhere.


but i would wager that for every number of order found, there are probably several disregarded.. because they would not fit the theory.

or at least not be beneficial if brought to light.

how can such a thing remain hidden?


...its not paranoia.

its because nobody works against there own self interest... funded by interest.


take modern medicine for example, it is built upon crude and inefficient methods.. and yet its always developing.

i hope you see the point i am making.

huge parts of it are rewritten and disregarded everyday..

and yet as a whole, modern medicine is beyond reproach.

 

[Independent]

And I repeat:
the ending of the video "Unlocking the Mystery of Life: Intelligent Design" says it all. Where there is a work of intelligence (such as in the DNA), an intelligent mind will recognize it to be the work of intelligence and not a chance occurring. If you don't recognize it, then your intelligence is in question.

The overwhelming majority of specialists in this field support TOE. If you think you know more than they do, why not have a debate with them and see how you get on?

The video is a long, expensively produced, glossy advert for Intelligent Design. It does not explain why the historical phylogenetic pattern of species fits TOE, which is a challenge they really need to face. Instead it takes the familiar negative Creationist tactic of trying to find specific details which are difficult to explain. For Creationists, TOE has to be perfect and complete in every detail before they will consider any part of it, even though they often accept Big Bang as already proven.

The video highlights the Creationists' single favourite example, the Bacterial Flagellum, first popularised by Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution). The flagellum has a swimming mechanism which Behe compares to an outboard motor.

Behe's contention that the flagellum is irreducibly complex has already been proved wrong (it can be broken down into yet simpler forms). It's a very complicated argument that is difficult for non specialists to follow. See extensive articles here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

This is why I am making the case for TOE based on the phylogentic pattern (which is easy to follow and frequently not in dispute by Creationists). Whereas the method for TOE is cutting edge science and, frankly, extremely difficult for the non specialist to judge. Many previous threads have bogged down into cutting and paste wars as a result.

Of course, scientists want to understand the method and the journey is fascinating. But even if TOE were proved wrong, there is still a problem for Creationism because it does not explain the phylogenetic pattern of nature.

 

[Independent]

but i would wager that for every number of order found, there are probably several disregarded.. because they would not fit the theory.

or at least not be beneficial if brought to light.

Darwin worked from a few thousand fossils. Today we have millions.

Yet, not a single contradictory example has been found.

That's good enough for me.

 

[M.I.A.]

its not really the argument i wanted to get into,

its not really about contradictory evidence either..

darwin had a complete view which his theory led him to believe.. and it encompassed views that you would not necessarily agree with.

although evolution does seem sound.

the underlying principles of evolution are open for questioning imo.


and as a theist, driven evolution is probably the most understandable thing i can think of.

i dont know how this would contradict what i believe in.


but the complexity does not evade me.


if genetic records exist for evolution, then those same species would be more open for those same changes.. or not.

to establish if it were random..

if it could be reversed with increased probability.

and what it took to do so.


i would guess that any one mutation would be a non factor, what you are actually entailing is that multiple changes have to be in effect for any benefit.

and in theory its not really improvement in any case... or most cases.

its evolution for the betterment and devolution for survival.


think of tigers as specific group, the habitat and behavior of said group has changed massively.

is there any change that benefits that sub group? or makes there survival any easier. not really.

the evolution and relationships of that subset have already taken place.


so how would that evolutionary tree have "happened" in the first place?


anyway feel free to carry on, im no expert but you have to dispel my thoughts.

 

[Independent]

think of tigers as specific group, the habitat and behavior of said group has changed massively.

is there any change that benefits that sub group? or makes there survival any easier. not really.

Short term evolution to cope with environmental change has been well documented (see this famous example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution). Creationists term this as 'micro evolution' and most accept it. I don't know about the tiger in particular. Some attributes are much harder to evolve. 100 years is nothing in evolutionary timescales.

if genetic records exist for evolution, then those same species would be more open for those same changes.. or not.

to establish if it were random..

if it could be reversed with increased probability.

and what it took to do so.

Are you asking if evolution can be reversed? Since the mechanism is not fully understood this would be difficult. But they have tried to recreate recently extinct species by selective breeding/cloning etc (eg this article http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...ls-that-could-be-resurrected/fit-to-be-cloned)

 

[Muhaba]

Darwin's theory about natural selection causing evolution is far-fetched. Darwin observed birds with certain types of beaks, some had long and big beaks while others had thin small ones. In a famine, birds with the think long beaks would be able to crack hard shells and get food while those with small think beaks wouldn't be able to do so, they they would die out while those with the stronger longer beaks would flourish. Darwin calls this natural selection, survival of the fittest and uses this argument to prove that living things evolved from simple organisms to more complex ones over time. But one thing is overlooked. There were already bird with small beaks and birds with strong long beaks. Never has it happened that birds with thin beaks started getting stronger or longer beaks in famines. Nor has it happened that weak-beaked birds gave birth to birds with stronger beaks (without that being in their genes already). So the birds didn't really evolve. The only thing that happened was some survived because they had attributes that aided their survival. It's really stupid to assume that just because some animals are better able to survive certain conditions, it means that living things evolved from each other or evolved at all.

 

[M.I.A.]

Short term evolution to cope with environmental change has been well documented (see this famous example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution). Creationists term this as 'micro evolution' and most accept it. I don't know about the tiger in particular. Some attributes are much harder to evolve. 100 years is nothing in evolutionary timescales.



Are you asking if evolution can be reversed? Since the mechanism is not fully understood this would be difficult. But they have tried to recreate recently extinct species by selective breeding/cloning etc (eg this article http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...ls-that-could-be-resurrected/fit-to-be-cloned)

yes i know of the moth, if not that specific moth.

the example i remember is that a white moth became grey in response to industrial man made pollution.

but like i said in my previous post, its probably a mutation that is easy for the moth to make.

circumstantial evidence for varying patterns within moths and butterflies leads me to believe that.


it almost answers my own question but can the grey moth become white again?

 

[Muhaba]

Darwin worked from a few thousand fossils. Today we have millions.

Yet, not a single contradictory example has been found.

That's good enough for me.

I have seen the links posted before showing "intermediary fossils" but they don't prove anything.

Similarly, in TOE Darwin inferred the need for an intermediary species between reptiles and birds. Just a couple of years after publication the fossil of an Archaeopteryx was discovered that fitted the bill.

Actually it's already proven that the Archaeopteryx is actually a dinosaur and not something between reptiles and birds. (see bold text)

---

What fossil evidence is there for the evolutionist vision for the origin of life? Nothing, except for what look like blobs of cells (but it might be something else). Everyone agrees that the big surprise is the sudden appearance of fossils above the bedrock in the Cambrian Explosion.

The fossils of the Cambrian Explosion are complex invertebrates, sea creatures like trilobites, sponges, worms, jellyfish, sea urchins, sea lilies, mollusks, brachiopods (lamp shells), sea cucumbers, and swimming crustaceans such as

Opabinia, 3 inches long (8 cm) with 5 eyes and a long claw arm, (see picture at http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html)

and Anomalocaris, 3 feet long (91.5 cm), and the top predator in the Cambrian environment.

"Darwin argued that the incompleteness of the fossil record gives the illusion of an explosive event, but with the eventual discovery of older and better-preserved rocks, the ancestors of these Cambrian taxa would be found. Studies of Ediacaran and Cambrian fossils continue to expand the morphologic variety of clades, but the appearance of the remains and traces of bilaterian animals in the Cambrian remains abrupt." (Erwin et. al.)

In the classification diagram biologists use, these animals are so unrelated to each other that they are in different classes or even phyla. From time to time evolutionists announce with great fanfare that they have gotten a colony of bacteria to eat something they could not eat before, or some other small variation. These changes are always below the family level on the diagram. If evolution were true, there would have been ancestors and transitional creatures between each genus, family, order, class, and phylum in the layers below the Cambrian Explosion. But there are no fossils for any of these.

What to do? A team of evolutionists solved this problem using their most effective tool - storytelling. First they assumed evolution occurred. Then they estimated how fast it should have happened, and decided that the creatures in the Cambrian Explosion had been evolving for over 250 million years before any showed up in the rocks as fossils! "We estimate that the last common ancestor of all living animals arose nearly 800 million years ago and that the stem lineages leading to most extant phyla had evolved by the end of the Ediacaran (541 million years ago)." Yes, millions of generations of all kinds of creatures all over the world living, dying, evolving without leaving any trace of their existence. Not only that, "from the early Paleozoic onward there is little addition of new phyla and classes". "Little high-level morphological innovation occurred during the subsequent 500 million years". Their story was published in the prestigious journal Science, and was hailed as having solved a mystery challenging evolution theory all the way back to Darwin. --Erwin, Douglas H., Marc Laflamme, Sarah M. Tweedt, Erik A. Sperling, Davide Pisani, Kevin J. Peterson. 2011. The Cambrian Conundrum: Early Divergence and Later Ecological Success in the Early History of Animals. Science, Vol. 334, pp. 1091-1097.

Fossil compound eyes from the Lower Cambrian, where the first complex creatures suddenly appear in the fossil record, have been found in the Emu Bay Shale of South Australia. The fossils are supposedly about 515 million years old. They may be corneas of Anomalocaris that were shed during moulting. The lenses are packed tighter than Lower Cambrian trilobite eyes, "which are often assumed to be the most powerful visual organs of their time." Notice that the lenses in the picture are different sizes. It is the same in the fossils. Each eye has "over 3,000 large ommatidial lenses". "The arrangement and size-gradient of lenses creates a distinct [forward] 'bright zone'... where the visual field is sampled with higher light sensitivity (due to larger ommatidia) and possibly higher accuity". This indicates "that these eyes belonged to an active predator that was capable of seeing in low light." "The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and are as advanced as those of many living forms" today, such as the fly in this picture, "revealing that some of the earliest arthropods possessed highly advanced compound eyes".24 When the earliest form is the most complex, there is no evolution.

This tiny fish (a little over an inch long, or 3 cm) is Haikouichthys. Its fossils have also been found in the Lower Cambrian. This "first fish" has a spine and spinal cord, eyes, gills, fins, scales, mouth, etc., though no jaw, like a lamprey. About 500 were found buried together.35

This is Guiyu, a fossil fish that "represents the oldest near-complete gnathostome (jawed vertebrate)."44 It measures about 15 inches long, or 37 cm. Clearly, the earliest fish were as much fish as today's fish. Guiyu is "a representative of modern fishes" from the Silurian, before the so-called "age of fishes" (Devonian).9 In the evolutionist's mind, "a whole series of major branching events... must have taken place well before the end of the Silurian." "A significant part of early vertebrate evolution is unknown."9

Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs. That was supposedly 65 million years ago. In the early 1900s, evolutionists touted it as the first walking fish, the transition between fish and tetrapods. That is, until 1938 when one was found alive and unable to walk. Evolution theory says that pressures from competition and the environment force changes over time. In chapter 9 of his book, Darwin wrote of ancestor species in general: "If, moreover, they had been the progenitors of these orders, they would almost certainly have been long ago supplanted and exterminated by their numerous and improved descendants." Here is a coelacanth today, alive and unchanged like many "living fossils". Where is the evolution?

Evolutionists tell us this dragonfly has not shown up in the fossil record for 250-300 million years! Dozens of the Ancient Greenling Damselfly live near Melbourne, Australia. "The damselfly, part of the dragonfly group Odonata, is the only living representative of the family Hemiphlebiidae. Its ancient predecessors are found solely in 250-300 million-year-old fossil records from Brazil to Russia." --Smith, Bridie. January 5, 2010. Found: fossil-linked, listed damselfly. www.theage.com.au (newspaper website)

This is a drawing of a supposed predecessor, Protozygoptera. With a wingspan of under 6 cm, it is the earliest damselfly-like insect ever found and "the origin of modern dragonflies". Its fossil wing was found in rocks of the Upper Carboniferous which evolutionists think are about 300 million years old. As with many creatures, dragonflies appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed. Damselflies living today look like Protozygoptera; there are no transitional intermediates and there was no evolution. --Jarzembowski, E.A., A. Nel. 2002. The earliest damselfly-like insect and the origin of modern dragonflies (Insecta: Odonatoptera: Protozygoptera). Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, Vol. 113, pp. 165-169.

Evolutionists always point to Archaeopteryx as the great example of a transitional creature, appearing to be part dinosaur and part bird. However, it is a fully formed, complete animal with no half-finished components or useless growths. Most people know "the stereotypical ideal of Archaeopteryx as a physiologically modern bird with a long tail and teeth". Research now "shows incontrovertibly that these animals were very primitive". "Archaeopteryx was simply a feathered and presumably volant [flying] dinosaur. Theories regarding the subsequent steps that led to the modern avian condition need to be reevaluated." --Erickson, Gregory, et al. October 2009. Was Dinosaurian Physiology Inherited by Birds? Reconciling Slow Growth in Archaeopteryx. PLoS ONE, Vol. 4, Issue 10, e7390.

"Archaeopteryx has long been considered the iconic first bird." "The first Archaeopteryx skeleton was found in Germany about the same time Darwin's Origin of Species was published. This was a fortuituously-timed discovery: because the fossil combined bird-like (feathers and a wishbone) and reptilian (teeth, three fingers on hands, and a long bony tail) traits, it helped convince many about the veracity of evolutionary theory." "Ten skeletons and an isolated feather have been found." "Archaeopteryx is the poster child for evolution." But "bird features like feathers and wishbones have recently been found in many non-avian dinosaurs". "Microscopic imaging of bone structure... shows that this famously feathered fossil grew much slower than living birds and more like non-avian dinosaurs." "Living birds mature very quickly and grow really, really fast", researchers say. "Dinosaurs had a very different metabolism from today's birds. It would take years for individuals to mature, and we found evidence for this same pattern in Archaeopteryx and its closest relatives". "The team outlines a growth curve that indicates that Archaeopteryx reached adult size in about 970 days, that none of the known Archaeopteryx specimens are adults (confirming previous speculation), and that adult Archaeopteryx were probably the size of a raven, much larger than previously thought." "We now know that the transition into true birds -- physiologically and metabolically -- happened well after Archaeopteryx." --October 2009. Archaeopteryx Lacked Rapid Bone Growth, the Hallmark of Birds. American Museum of Natural History, funded science online news release.
What evolutionists now know for sure is that their celebrity superstar was not a transitional creature after all. Wow! OMG. They better find a new one fast...


How about the Platypus? They could call it a transitional creature between ducks and mammals. The furry platypus has a duck-like bill, swims with webbed feet, and lays eggs.

from http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html




​

 

[Muhaba]

As you can see from the above, Coelacanth disappeared from the fossil record with the last of the dinosaurs but were alive all along. They were rediscovered in 1938 (Search for a Missing Fossil is a book that talks about it.) That is how reliable the fossil record is. The time record shown by the fossil record is not reliable at all. if the fossil record showed that the Coelacanth was extinct for years but was actually not extinct, then how can you trust such a record to show the timeline of animals? how many animals are shown to be extinct but not extinct? how many animals would be shown to have gotten extinct at a certain time period but would actually have gotten extinct at a different time? We shouldn't forget that there would be many animals whose fossils never show up because a lot of animals get eaten by other animals and no traces of them are ever left. The fossil record is simply not something that can be used to prove theory of evolution. There are too many holes in it.

 

[Independent]

if the fossil record showed that the Coelacanth was extinct for years but was actually not extinct, then how can you trust such a record to show the timeline of animals?

The discovery of a living coelacanth is exciting but it is in no way a challenge to TOE because it doesn't break the pattern. Everything is still in the right order. The modern coelacanth is actually not entirely identical to the fossilised specimens, but it is certainly of the same family.

The order of origin is more important for TOE than the time of extinction because TOE predicts that species can only evolve within the limitations prescribed by their immediate ancestors. TOE predicts only that many species will go extinct, and sometimes how, but not necessarily when.

As I have stressed throughout, TOE does not necessarily mean that simple forms disappear as more sophisticated creatures move in. If the simple lifeform has an environmental niche and can compete successfully, it will continue. (Possibly this is what happened with the coelacanth as it lives very deep in the ocean.)

Whereas an ape, for instance, has fewer places to hide. Of the estimated 8.7 millions species still living on this planet, only about 1.2 million have been described. However, most of those are insects and plants, it would be a big surprise to find a new large mammal.

As for the accuracy of fossil dating....specific fossils are always found in specific geological strata. eg a fossil may first appear in a layer of Devonian sandstone and never in an earlier stratum. Geologists have built up an accurate picture of the layers of rock through the ages by cross referencing samples from all over the world. Fossils are a valuable contributor to this record - and in fact they play a big role in oil industry prospecting, because they are such a reliable indicator.

Fossil evidence is cross referenced with evidence from other disciplines including geology, radiometrics and molecular clock estimations. (In fact, one of the convincing aspects of TOE is the way it supports and is supported by other sciences).

 

[Independent]

it almost answers my own question but can the grey moth become white again?

Yes it could, if the environment changed again and pale camouflage meant better survival.

 

[sugaray21]

This may or may not be relevant to this thread.......In 1912 Piltdown Man hit the headlines. Evidence of the evolutionary 'missing link' between apes and humans had been found, in England. For the next 40 years this momentous discovery influenced research into human evolution.
Then in 1953 Piltdown hit the headlines again, this time revealed as a hoax, a scientific fraud of shocking proportions. Just type in Piltdown forgery into google....