ooman: Deepsight common, this plagiarized writeup of yours is old and settled already. Will post answers for you soon when am back on my computer.

Deep Sight:

Plagiarized? That's funny.

Please I will appreciate pictures. They are really easier to see and understand for slow students like myself, thanks. Pictures (and the sources) of intermediate fossils. So that if you gather enough such pics here, you can always use this thread in future as a bank to refer others to, who ask similar "plagiarized" questions. Cheers and thanks.

Mr_Anony2: following

Deep Sight:

[b]Okay, to begin this class on Evolution for Id.iots, (I am the Id.iot-student, not teacher here; I am expecting certain evolution-inclined atheists to be the teachers) - I start with my first and most basic question.

Where are the intermediate fossils?

By this, I mean the intermediate fossils between the largely distinct groups of species -

Unicellular[____] Basic Multi-cellulars [______] Fish [________] Amphibian [___________] Reptile [_______] Bird [_______] Mammal.

Evolution having occurred over millions or perhaps even billions of years on earth, it would be expected that there would be a staggering collection of intermediate fossils showing clearly the transition by various mutations and extinctions, the development from Unicellular Organism to man. So please, can any teacher help me fill in the blanks above, and where not possible, give me plausible reasons why there is a paucity of intermediate fossils - whereas there should be a deluge of same?[/b]

We start with these. More to follow.

Many thanks.

alfaman2:

It is good that you realised that you are an id.iot here. So I will answer your question. There aren't any intermediate fossils.
To understand me better I wiil need you to answer this similarly id.iotic question for me: "where/who is the intermediate relative between you and your cousin?"

alfaman2:

It is good that you realised that you are an id.iot here. So I will answer your question. There aren't any intermediate fossils.
To understand me better I wiil need you to answer this similarly id.iotic question for me: "where/who is the intermediate relative between you and your cousin?"

ooman:

Or the intermediate link between him and his mum, since they are different from each other and he came from her.

Deep Sight:



Are you guys being for real here? Tell me you are not being serious? Surely I don't need to explain what an Intermediary Fossil is supposed to be? Remember I am the student here. I can only assume you are cracking morning jokes?

Logicboy03:


Deepsight? When did you become this foolish? You want to learn about evolution while disbelieving that we all evolved from common ancestors within the lifespan of the earth?

alfaman2:

Ah, you mean the fossil of this guy?

Deep Sight:

O please do be careful to read that which I wrote and not that which you imagine me to have written. I do believe in evolution, but as stated above, I believe in directed evolution. In other words, that the process in its entirety could not have occurred without external intelligent imperative/ impetus.

However, I have never considered evolution to be mutually exclusive from intelligent design. Nor do I accept either -

1. That there is sufficient evolutioanry impetus - unaided save by nature alone - to produce the human being and mind

2. That there has been sufficient time in the timeline of the existence of the earth, to result in the span and stretch of creatures that have dwelt, and dwell upon the earth.

Difficulties for the theory

Chapter VI begins by saying the next three chapters will address possible objections to the theory, the first being that often no intermediate forms between closely related species are found, though the theory implies such forms must have existed. Darwin attributed this to the competition between different forms, combined with the small number of individuals of intermediate forms, often leading to extinction of such forms.[107] The rest of the chapter deals with whether natural selection could produce complex specialised structures, and the behaviours to use them, when it would be difficult to imagine how intermediate forms could be functional. Darwin said:

"Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?"[108]

His answer was that in many cases animals exist with intermediate structures that are functional. He presented flying squirrels, and flying lemurs as examples of how bats might have evolved from non-flying ancestors.[109] He discussed various simple eyes found in invertebrates, starting with nothing more than an optic nerve coated with pigment, as examples of how the vertebrate eye could have evolved. Darwin concludes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."[110]

Deep Sight:

Alright, i see you are having a laugh. You can of course come back whenever you are serious. Otherwise you may leave it to those who may wish to educate my ignorance in all seriousness.

Good morning, sir.

Deep Sight:
@ Ooman,

I want to believe of course, that the comments of yourself and alfaman, are meant as jokes. Your response to his, however, suggests that you see that as a serious comment or rebuttal. That would be deeply unfortunate.

Please, as a guide for discussion, see Darwin's own comments on the matter -



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species

So please, can we begin the discuss the question of intermediate fossils on a serious note, or do you wish to drool about with pedantic jokes such as that advanced by alfaman?

Logicboy03:



Then what the hell do you mean by number 2

There were serious scientific objections to the process of natural selection as the key mechanism of evolution, including Karl von Nägeli's insistence that a trivial characteristic with no adaptive advantage could not be developed by selection. Darwin conceded that these could be linked to adaptive characteristics. His estimate that the age of the Earth allowed gradual evolution was disputed by William Thomson (later awarded the title Lord Kelvin), who calculated that it had cooled in less than 100 million years. Darwin accepted blending

As for the intermediate species thing, you embarrassed yourself. Go and read. We know that is was a trap. A badly set one for atheists who believe in evolution that backfired on you

Chapter IX deals with the fact that the geologic record appears to show forms of life suddenly arising, without the innumerable transitional fossils expected from gradual changes. Darwin borrowed Charles Lyell's argument in Principles of Geology that the record is extremely imperfect as fossilisation is a very rare occurrence, spread over vast periods of time; since few areas had been geologically explored, there could only be fragmentary knowledge of geological formations, and fossil collections were very poor. Evolved local varieties which migrated into a wider area would seem to be the sudden appearance of a new species. Darwin did not expect to be able to reconstruct evolutionary history, but continuing discoveries gave him well founded hope that new finds would occasionally reveal transitional forms.[114][115] To show that there had been enough time for natural selection to work slowly, he again cited Principles of Geology and other observations based on sedimentation and erosion, including an estimate that erosion of The Weald had taken 300 million years.[116] The initial appearance of entire groups of well developed organisms in the oldest fossil-bearing layers, now known as the Cambrian explosion, posed a problem. Darwin had no doubt that earlier seas had swarmed with living creatures, but stated that he had no satisfactory explanation for the lack of fossils.[117] Fossil evidence of pre-Cambrian life has since been found, extending the history of life back for billions of years

Foolish deist. I used to respect you until you started all these dubious christian tactics

Deep Sight:

This is what I mean -


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Summary_of_Darwin.27s_theory



It is a legitimate problem which serious scientists as well as Darwin himself have dwelt extensively on, so I have no idea what you are on about -



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Geologic_record

Frankly I am tired of your puerile methods of discussion. I ask you for transitional fossils and the only response is "You have embarrassed yourself!" How is that a coherent answer to anything? How do you expect the religious antievolution theist to respect anything you say? Ol boy, if all you have come here to say is to shout "debunked!" in your usual way, without uttering a single intelligble word, please leave me to my foolishness and tomfoolery here, ok? Surely that is not too much to ask.



So I guess all the scientists that have spent years and serious energy addressing these same issues in the TOE are adopting "christian tactics"?

*Sigh*

alfaman2:

Now that you have started quoting wikipedia, maybe this wikipedia list might help you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Logicboy03:


Darwin died in 1882 (about 130 years ago) without a complete knowledge of evolution. To use the scienitific criticism from the 19th- earl 20th century is not only archaic but dubious on your part.


Transitional fossils exist but you asked about intermediate fossils between fish and reptiles (missing links), taking a 2oth century deist thinking of missing links.

alfaman2:

Please take it easy on him. He already called himself an id.iot.

Logicboy03:


Darwin died in 1882 (about 130 years ago) without a complete knowledge of evolution. To use the scienitific criticism from the 19th- earl 20th century is not only archaic but dubious on your part.

Transitional fossils exist but you asked about intermediate fossils between fish and reptiles (missing links), taking a 2oth century deist thinking of missing links.

Logicboy03:





Good thing he did that because this is embarrassing for him!

Deep Sight:

O, but he recognized a problem straightaway, and might I add, that problem remains fiercely debated even today.



I actually mentioned intermediate fossils in my posts, I think I only mentioned transitional fossils in responding to you. At all events there is a clarification up there - between the two, and yes, why on earth should intermediate fossils not exist?

Logicboy03:


What problem remains fiercely debated today in evolution?

The theory is sound.

The fossil collection is what is left to complete. Do you really know what a fossil is and how difficult it is to get ones in proper shape? People who use fossils to criticse evolution are quite ignorant of the fact that

a) There are already transitional fossils found
b) The fossil record for anything is going to be difficult. Imagine trying to find your great great granfathers skeleton from the the 12th century. Even if uyou manage to find it, there is no guarantee that it would be in a usable state
c) Evolution as a theory is already cemented both with the little fossils we have and the genetic evidence.

So in short, you are an ignorant waste of time.

Game over.

Deep Sight:

Problems like the fossil record, kind sir.



Maybe you did not read the part where I said that I believe in evolution. You see, this is part of the problem with you. You do not take your time to caefully read and see what is being said and what is not being said. I have never debated evolution on this forum and this is my 5th year on this forum. If you were keen enough, you would recognize that the discussion is not about disproving evolution, which I do believe in, even if I am wrong. You would recognize that I am trying to make a case against undirected and mindless evolution.



No sir: try again; and bear in mind my comment above.

Doubtless, fossils will be hard to find and even put together. But 4 billion years (or less) of evolution would still disclose myriad species of an intermediate (not transitional - note the distinction above in my post to alfaman) nature. It is impossible and even ridiculous to claim that fish evolved to reptiles and reptiles evolved to birds and birds evolved to mammals or other such combination - and not have any intermediate fossils whatsoever to show this - notwithstanding that if this were the case, there must be trillions of them all around us.



So in short, you are debunked! Next!

Deep Sight:

Doubtless, fossils will be hard to find and even put together. But 4 billion years (or less) of evolution would still disclose myriad species of an intermediate (not transitional - note the distinction above in my post to alfaman) nature. It is impossible and even ridiculous to claim that fish evolved to reptiles and reptiles evolved to birds and birds evolved to mammals or other such combination - and not have any intermediate fossils whatsoever to show this - notwithstanding that if this were the case, there must be trillions of them all around us.



So in short, you are debunked! Next!

Logicboy03:

You believe in evolution not accept it?

You say you believe in evolution and you know that fossils are hard to find. Yet you complain about intermediate fossils and claim that evolution has a problem with fossils.

You truly are an idi.ot

alfaman2: Deep Sight. What you are doing is asking a straw man question. Asking us to describe something that doesn't exist. Evolution is not linear like you assume: Unicellular[____] Basic Multi-cellulars [______] Fish [________] Amphibian [___________] Reptile [_______] Bird [_______] Mammal.

No, man. It doesn't work like that. It works like tree and branches. The link between two species is another independent ancestral species. Like the link between you and your cousin is your grandfather/grandmother.

You get it?

Get facts firsts and ask questions based on facts.

alfaman2:

Let me keep educating you and also for the sake of other people who want to learn what evolution is all about.

The bolded is the simple mistake even so called scientists make when trying to explain evolution. Let me repeat it: fish DID NOT evolve to reptiles and reptiles DID NOT evolve to birds and birds DID NOT evolve to mammals.

Other common ancestors evolved into all you are seeing today. It is not linear. There are many factors. Get it?