Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
How do you know that? Was there other matter found along with these fossils or are these "facts" the result of human interpretation?
I don't know the details of this particular find, but most of the time we know the order in which things happened by the strata in which they are found. Deeper is older. Sometimes you date by other stuff you find in the same layer.
Couldn't the toe bones have been eaten by another creature, or just not found?
It wasn't just missing limbs, they found fin rays, probably in an impression. There are plenty of fossils that are incomplete, and while scientists guess what those pieces might have been based on what came before and after, no one uses those guesses as evidence to prove themselves!
How do we know that it simply wasn't another species?
I'm not sure what you mean here. Each of the fossils I've mentioned here is classified as its own species, so yes, it was another species. A species that was part of the lineage that links fish to amphibians. I suspect you are trying to ask a different question, but I don't want to assume I know what it is.
But if they're wrong, and the fossils found are not transitional and are merely another species from an intermediate period
But transitional fossils are other species from intermediate periods. Are you suggesting that they aren't related species? In that case, you appear to be asking why we haven't seriously considered the possibility that each of these thousands of transitional forms magically appeared completely independently of the previous species despite looking nearly identical, and then just coincidentally happened to disappear at the exact time that a new species totally unrelated but looking very similar magically appeared. I would suggest that there is a very good reason why we don't think that's likely to be the correct explanation.
But based on your last little story, it seems pretty clear that you are set on assuming the worst about scientists, so there's probably no point in trying to show you evidence to convince you. You can always say "but what if they are making it up?" I could have the fossils and the scientists shipped to your house to do the work in front of you, and I expect you would still insist that they must be pretending in order to make themselves look good. I wonder what terrible thing scientists did to you as a child to make you so completely mistrustful of them!
you're quite right. My use of the phrase "another species" was clumsy. I was asking if fossil finds used to show an evolutionary lineage could have, in fact, been an unrelated species.
Is it possible that in the 150 to 200 BILLION years between the rise of fish and the rise of amphibians, that the fossil finds some scientists use to create the link between the two only managed to survive on the planet for say, 10 million years with no trail before or after? Why is a creature with fins a transitional creature? There are creatures with fins still today. Couldn't these finned creatures been in the evolutionary timeline of these other finned creatures rather than humans?
My point here is that there is so much time -so much time- between these "mutations" from one species to another; and so few actual fossil evidence found to date, that scientists are using these finds to span billions of years without sufficient evidence of proof? Could they be making a huge leap of faith assuming that Adam begat Seth and Seth begat Enosh and Enosh begat ... I mean... fish begat amphibians and amphibians begat reptiles and reptiles begat mammals and mammals begat humans...
My beef isn't with "science" as though I'm a firm believer in witchcraft. My beef is that in historical science, certain assumptions MUST be made. There are no absolutes. Holes are filled with whatever the human mind can conceive; sometimes they assume that a transitional creature exists and that we just haven't found it yet. Sometimes they apply an imagined fleshy image around the bones to create a complete model that the rest of us humans can identify with - no one really knows what dinosaurs looked like, for example, since humans didn't exist at the same time as dinosaurs, and to date, no actual pterodactyls exist except in Jurassic Park. What we see in museums and biology books and history books are human concoctions that look amazingly similar to animals that exist on earth today. This fits the theme of evolution but is entirely -entirely- guesswork on the part of scientists.
Evolution isn't proven science, it's today's accepted theory. Successfully selling it to the masses doesn't make it factual. (By the way, I understand fossil finds relative to depth; though I appreciate your condescension.)
But beyond all of that- it still could have been God that put all of this into the works. For science to close all of the holes, it must either prove, or disprove God. Anything short is just a creation of the human mind at it's current limits of imagination.
It is possible, what you are describing is the reason why we always have to call our description of how live on earth evolved a theory. Historical facts cannot be proven by science. We weren't there, we didn't see it happen, so there is no experiment we can perform to "prove" that it happened the way we think it happened. Every phylogeny that you see in a scientific paper is a hypothesis. The key is that because we can't know what happened, we have to take the best possible explanation, and then look for evidence that disproves it. So the hypothesis that requires the fewest assumptions is considered the best-- Okham's Razor, until we find something that doesn't fit, then we have to change the hypothesis. I guess that's why your facile description of how scientists must look at fossils was so infuriating-- scientists LIVE for the things that don't fit the hypothesis, that's where history is made and progress leaps forward and scientists become famous, at least among other scientists.
There are some cases where we don't have big gaps. I'm not familiar with the details, but apparently the bear fossil lineage is essentially smooth and unbroken from cave bears right up to modern species. It isn't guesswork to imagine what happened to turn one into the other, it is a matter of record.
As for the others, you still have to have a reason to disbelieve the simplest, and therefore best, explanation. For instance, I could disbelieve that I am my parent's child. I could instead insist that it is possible that someone else's child just happened to end up in my mother's arms, and the traits my parents and I share are coincidence, and the DNA markers that a court would use to prove relatedness just coincidentally happen to be the same. But no one would buy it, because it would be so far fetched. Technically, though, it is possible, but why would someone believe that over the far more elegant explanation that I am my mother's child? We do use DNA to link fossils, the same way we use DNA to determine how diseases are related to one another and people are related to one another. Why would we trust that it works only in some cases and not others?
Now, I'm going to apologize in advance, because I am about to get angry. I don't usually get angry, but I have taken just about enough of this $#!^:
"By the way, I understand fossil finds relative to depth; though I appreciate your condescension."
Seriously, what the fu@#? You asked a question, how do we know lungs on fish are primitive, and I answered it. I gave you the best answer I know-- I didn't give you the baby answer or the non-scientist answer or the stupid answer. I ANSWERED the question YOU ASKED to the best of my ability. If you don't want me to answer questions because it hurts your feelings, DON'T ASK THEM. Or from now on, if you'd prefer, I can assume that you already know the answer to the questions you ask and are just, what... wasting time? Testing me? Feel free to explain so that I don't insult you any more.
See comment in reply, below. Page is getting skinny again.
You go little loser. That will win friends over to your side of the debate.
Shut up Spinsterbear. No one cares anymore. No one is reading your tripe. Go away.
AGAIN, you have no respect. What did I say to you? NO RESPECT for what someone so clearly asked of you, in indicating they were not speaking to you and made abundantly clear they do not wish to now either. Why? Because it is unwise. But you are apparently unable to see or unwilling to respect that decision. You are back down in the weeds trying to be right -- not do right. You are the perfect example of what I was saying -- and also back up BK's wise boundaries.
No respect. Know when to stop.
I am not waiting on the Irishman to respond to my post. He will know that. And do not post to me again. I hope that is clear now.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
Spinsterbear: As the Vet would say "prove it."
would: —used in auxiliary function to express custom or habitual action <we would meet often for lunch>
would: 8. Used to express repeated or habitual action in the past: Every morning we would walk in the garden.
would: 4. (used to express repeated or habitual action in the past): We would visit Grandma every morning up at the farm.
I then tell spinsterbear my habit is to say "source it"
spinsterbear then brings a quote where I say "prove it" to a troll. Once. Not habitual. Not repeatedly. Not custom. Once. And what do I say in the subject line of that post. The subject line she fails to bring with the quote.
#276 Source it then little Sissy troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 1:36pm.
You saw me extensively source. Prove it. Little Butt Hurt Diaper Troll. Oh wait, you are so trusted to tell the truth here you don't have to, right? Not like you have a nickname that includes the word liar. Right Little Boy Liar?
Up yours spinsterbear you damnable liar.
Out of storage.
You go girl! Tell it like it is!
I should have kept with my decision to stay away from blogs that are destined to be futile and also loaded with potential for negative crapola. It doesn't matter if I had a nice purpose. It doesn't matter who I was posting to on the blog. It doesn't matter that I took the time to appeal to the person I was addressing in the way I felt was best for that person.
I stepped out and hoped it would not be someone's invitation to be jerky...and I received confirmation of my original insight about this type of blog and what comes of it. I should always go with my gut. Lesson re-learned.
Go ahead and tell us all about your scientific "facts".
I am betting you know as much about this, as the average libtard does simple math.
So please, proceed.
Professor Behe perhaps?
After all, it's your forum
Shepard's are one of the most beautiful dogs there are. Is that yours? I love them, don't see them as much as I used to...
No, I got that off the net. We have 2 shi,tzu's and the little younger one is named Buddy. The older one is Muffin. The wife loves little dogs, I'm partial to lab's myself. But shepherds are beautiful!
I clicked on reply, how did I get here??
He is ours. A spectacular Buddy. We have others too.
Is that your Beagle?
Guttermouth's Return: Last time I checked Christians were forcing their views on everyone.
Lies? Oh, that is different. Lies is A-OK.
Personally, I look forward to a spirited and interesting debate on the topic of evolution and perhaps a discussion about what constitutes a legitimate scientific theory and what qualifies as a scientific fact.
Or maybe I'll just call you names and ignore what your post is actually about and use it as a sad excuse to exert what little influence I think I have here.
No. I think I'll stick with the former.
Although I'm somewhat surprised bkeyser hasn't shown up yet since it was his dare for me to create this forum in the first place. Oh but wait! This debate will never end until either science or religion proves their case, so in essence I can wait 20 more years for a response. ; )
It's a crying shame.
"Toys For Tots"
I will honor our truce and allow you to discuss what you will with the troll.
Guttermouth's return: How conservative of you.
guttermouth's return: No, I leave the insults and name calling to the conservatives on this site
Yes. Only conservatives insult and name call, right?
Editor at Large
Michael M. Bates
P. J. Gladnick
D. S. Hube
Julia A. Seymour
Dialog New Media
Copyright © 2005-2013 NewsBusters.