Medieval monks knew science

[Spud]

I don't know what examples you're thinking of,

https://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished

[Stranger]

https://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished

Even if I accepted everything this article says (and I don't because creation.com is a lying propaganda site), it's supposed to be even the slightest dent in the mountainous evidence for evolution, how exactly?

At the most it's a rethink of a particular detail.

[Dicky Underpants]

https://creation.com/tiktaalik-finished

The strata in which the prints were found seem to have been securely dated, and may indeed indicate that some kind of tetrapod had evolved before tiktaalik. But this hardly constitutes a demolition of evolutionary theory. What it does indicate is that, yet again, Creationists misunderstand the ToE in thinking that it is of a purely linear nature. Many organisms of a 'primitive' morphology have existed for millions of years alongside many types which have evolved more rapidly (the coelocanth has modern descendants which differ little from their prehistoric ancestors except for the modern varieties' adaption to deep-sea conditions).

So, tiktaalik   may indeed prove to be not the hugely significant transitional fossil it was once thought to be - but that doesn't leave much of a dent in the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is supported by a vast mountain of evidence, much of which is not dependent on the fossil record in any case (I mean genetics etc.)

[Spud]

I don't know what examples you're thinking of, but a seriously out of place fossil would falsify the current picture. The famous comment from J B S Haldane, when asked what would falsify evolution, was "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian".

However, there is probably more evidence for evolution (macroevolution and common descent) from genetics than there is in the fossil record. Remember, genetics was unknown at the time the theory was formulated and could have falsified it at one fell swoop - instead of which, it spectacularly corroborated it and added greatly to our understanding.
 
Where is this evidence and why do you think nobody, without a religious vested interest, working in the field, has noticed it?

Another example is archaeopteryx. This is the oldest known bird with flight feathers (correct me if I'm wrong). It has pennaceous feathers, with asymmetrical barbs (a characteristic of modern flight feathers) and also barbules.
So pennaceous feathers with barbules appear abruptly around 150 million years ago.
"The barbules and the alignment of melanosomes within them, Carney said, are identical to those found in modern birds."
https://tinyurl.com/y3n5bd3b
There are no transitional links from dinosaurs.

[Stranger]

Another example is archaeopteryx. This is the oldest known bird with flight feathers (correct me if I'm wrong). It has pennaceous feathers, with asymmetrical barbs (a characteristic of modern flight feathers) and also barbules.
So pennaceous feathers with barbules appear abruptly around 150 million years ago.
"The barbules and the alignment of melanosomes within them, Carney said, are identical to those found in modern birds."
https://tinyurl.com/y3n5bd3b
There are no transitional links from dinosaurs.

The link just talks about the feathers - they aren't the only transitional feature - neither is archaeopteryx the only relevant specimen. Origin of birds

But you're still missing (or ignoring) the point. We could totally ignore all the fossil evidence and we'd still have a cast-iron case for evolution. What's more, even if evolution was falsified and we'd no idea how life got here - we'd still have copious evidence for an old Earth and universe.

The 6,000 ya, 6 day myth is falsified in endless different ways.

[Spud]

(feathers)... aren't the only transitional feature

It doesn't matter - it only takes one feature, in this case a feather, to be as complex as a flight feather today, and that will falsify the theory that its owner was more primitive. Right?

[Stranger]

It doesn't matter - it only takes one feature, in this case a feather, to be as complex as a flight feather today, and that will falsify the theory that its owner was more primitive. Right?

What are you talking about? What do you mean by "more primitive"? Do you have some strange idea that evolution is some strict progression in which some quality of "primitiveness" is smoothly reduced across all features of all organisms?

I'm struggling to even get what your misunderstanding might be...

[Dicky Underpants]

There are no transitional links from dinosaurs.

Birds are dinosaurs


Are Birds Really Dinosaurs? - ZME Science

https://www.zmescience.com › Science › Biology

[Robbie]

Thanks for the link Dicky, fascinating site. For some reason I went on to read about Chlamydia which is not relevant to this thread :-).  However, I found this:-
https://www.zmescience.com/other/science-abc/birds-dinosaurs/

[Spud]

What are you talking about? What do you mean by "more primitive"? Do you have some strange idea that evolution is some strict progression in which some quality of "primitiveness" is smoothly reduced across all features of all organisms?

I'm struggling to even get what your misunderstanding might be...

Archaeopteryx had feathers with barbs, and barbules to keep the barbs in place, according to the research paper quoted above. It's difficult to imagine how these barbules could have evolved, and the fact that archaeopteryx is almost the oldest species with pennaceous feathers implies that there isn't a species with a feather structure with semi-formed (ie evolving) barbules in the fossil record. 
If this is the case, we have to conclude that archaeopteryx was, like the platypus, a mosaic. It had theropod-like and bird-like features, giving the appearance of transitional features (like the long bony tail and reduced breast bone) but in reality not transitional, since there is no evidence that its flight feathers evolved.
If you want to say that archaeopteryx is transitional, it must be made clear that this is based on the as-yet unsupported assumption that the feathers evolved.

[Stranger]

Archaeopteryx had feathers with barbs, and barbules to keep the barbs in place, according to the research paper quoted above. It's difficult to imagine how these barbules could have evolved, and the fact that archaeopteryx is almost the oldest species with pennaceous feathers implies that there isn't a species with a feather structure with semi-formed (ie evolving) barbules in the fossil record. 
If this is the case, we have to conclude that archaeopteryx was, like the platypus, a mosaic. It had theropod-like and bird-like features, giving the appearance of transitional features (like the long bony tail and reduced breast bone) but in reality not transitional, since there is no evidence that its flight feathers evolved.
If you want to say that archaeopteryx is transitional, it must be made clear that this is based on the as-yet unsupported assumption that the feathers evolved.

Just watch those goalposts skipping merrily across the field!

• No matter how many transitions are filled in, you can always find another gap for creationists to say "look, you still don't have that transition!". The fossil record is patchy because fossilisation is rare. We're never going to have everything.
  
  
• Saying "it's difficult to imagine" how something evolved, is just an argument from incredulity/ignorance.
  
  
• This whole game of focusing on perceived difficulties in detail is just a distraction from the massive mountain of evidence for ("macro") evolution which would be beyond reasonable doubt even if there wasn't a single fossil.
  

[torridon]

Archaeopteryx had feathers with barbs, and barbules to keep the barbs in place, according to the research paper quoted above. It's difficult to imagine how these barbules could have evolved, and the fact that archaeopteryx is almost the oldest species with pennaceous feathers implies that there isn't a species with a feather structure with semi-formed (ie evolving) barbules in the fossil record. 
If this is the case, we have to conclude that archaeopteryx was, like the platypus, a mosaic. It had theropod-like and bird-like features, giving the appearance of transitional features (like the long bony tail and reduced breast bone) but in reality not transitional, since there is no evidence that its flight feathers evolved.
If you want to say that archaeopteryx is transitional, it must be made clear that this is based on the as-yet unsupported assumption that the feathers evolved.

Baffling watching people trying to pick holes in evolutionary theory, like some detail here or there is going to bring the whole house down.  People like you put me in mind of a visitor to London's Natural History Museum who unlike everyone else marveling at magnificent structure and its contents, spends all his energies going round the building hoping to find brick with a crack so that he can claim the entire edifice to be invalid.  I mean why ?  All you can achieve is nit picking holes when you could be growing in insight with the positive attitude of someone open to learning.

Do you really think a god that created life and set it loose in a changing dynamic environment would then impose arbitrary limits on its ability to adapt and evolve in line with changing environment ? It would be madness as a design principle.  Every time a big rock falls out the sky and causes a mass extinction. god has to come down and get busy all over again, a horse here, a hedgehog there, a colony of penguins for Antarctica, that would be nice.  No more triceratops or velociraptors though, he's gone right off them now.   I mean, really ?

[Spud]

Torridon,
If you're referring to the biblical God, we are told that he created the animals after their kind. It doesn't mention the idea that they are all related. It also implies the extinctions of many of them were caused by a historical global flood. So hopefully you can see that it isn't 'picking holes' in Evo theory, but constructive criticism (creationists don't deny adaptation and microevolution).
If birds evolved from dinosaurs it would have happened in the above context, but there were a lot of changes needed to the anatomy and physiology, so it doesn't seem likely to me. Maybe there were genetic changes that influenced feathers to evolve barbules, but the fossils currently don't corroborate that. It'd be interesting to know how they form in the embryonic stage, as that might give a clue as to how they could evolve.
The idea that extensive changes took place over just a few million years, as in the case of pakicetus to ambulocetus, or australopithecus to homo, doesn't agree with the other cases where very little change occurs over hundreds of millions of years, eg jellyfish to jellyfish, or bat with bony tail to bat without bony tail (possible clue to an archaeopteryx-modern bird transition there?) Or turtle with tail to turtle without tail - minor changes.

[Gordon]

Torridon,
If you're referring to the biblical God, we are told that he created the animals after their kind. It doesn't mention the idea that they are all related. It also implies the extinctions of many of them were caused by a historical global flood. So hopefully you can see that it isn't 'picking holes' in Evo theory, but constructive criticism (creationists don't deny adaptation and microevolution).

An inherently silly comment, Spud: you over-estimate the relevance of whatever either those living in antiquity or modern-day evolution denying creationists thought/think. The former have the excuse of reasonable ignorance, but the latter don't, so you'd be better not taking the views of either seriously.   

If birds evolved from dinosaurs it would have happened in the above context, but there were a lot of changes needed to the anatomy and physiology, so it doesn't seem likely to me. Maybe there were genetic changes that influenced feathers to evolve barbules, but the fossils currently don't corroborate that. It'd be interesting to know how they form in the embryonic stage, as that might give a clue as to how they could evolve.

The idea that extensive changes took place over just a few million years, as in the case of pakicetus to ambulocetus, or australopithecus to homo, doesn't agree with the other cases where very little change occurs over hundreds of millions of years, eg jellyfish to jellyfish, or bat with bony tail to bat without bony tail (possible clue to an archaeopteryx-modern bird transition there?) Or turtle with tail to turtle without tail - minor changes.

I suspect you've been at the creationist websites again.

[Walter]

Every living thing on this planet is an example of a transitional state except for one organism .
It's name ? Spud !

[Stranger]

If you're referring to the biblical God, we are told that he created the animals after their kind. It doesn't mention the idea that they are all related. It also implies the extinctions of many of them were caused by a historical global flood. So hopefully you can see that it isn't 'picking holes' in Evo theory, but constructive criticism (creationists don't deny adaptation and microevolution).

Except that the literal creation story is falsified by bucketloads of evidence from biology, physics, astrophysics, geology, archaeology, astronomy, cosmology, and so on. It is one of the creationist lies to suggest that they only dismiss "macroevolution" - they deny great swaths of modern science, much of which has nothing at all to do with evolution.

Scientifically it's dead - it is an ex-idea, it has ceased to be, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain, and joined the choir invisible. Creationists are not offering "constructive criticism", they are away with the fairies, in a fantasy land, blinded by their faith, and shutting their eyes to reality.

The idea that extensive changes took place over just a few million years, as in the case of pakicetus to ambulocetus, or australopithecus to homo, doesn't agree with the other cases where very little change occurs over hundreds of millions of years...

The noxious reek of another creationist misrepresentation of the theory. If creationism actually had anything to offer, why the need to be so dishonest about what the ToE actually predicts?

[SusanDoris]

And there are so very many of them. It is sad to think it is going to take so very long to make them a very small minority

[jeremyp]

Every living thing on this planet is an example of a transitional state except for one organism .
It's name ? Spud !

I'm not a transitional organism. I don't have any children. My combination of genes will go extinct with me.

[jeremyp]

Torridon,
If you're referring to the biblical God, we are told that he created the animals after their kind. It doesn't mention the idea that they are all related. It also implies the extinctions of many of them were caused by a historical global flood. So hopefully you can see that it isn't 'picking holes' in Evo theory, but constructive criticism (creationists don't deny adaptation and microevolution).
If birds evolved from dinosaurs it would have happened in the above context, but there were a lot of changes needed to the anatomy and physiology, so it doesn't seem likely to me. Maybe there were genetic changes that influenced feathers to evolve barbules, but the fossils currently don't corroborate that. It'd be interesting to know how they form in the embryonic stage, as that might give a clue as to how they could evolve.
The idea that extensive changes took place over just a few million years, as in the case of pakicetus to ambulocetus, or australopithecus to homo, doesn't agree with the other cases where very little change occurs over hundreds of millions of years, eg jellyfish to jellyfish, or bat with bony tail to bat without bony tail (possible clue to an archaeopteryx-modern bird transition there?) Or turtle with tail to turtle without tail - minor changes.

Can you not see the double standards you are applying? You are quibbling about tiny details in respect of evolution and yet you seem to accept the Christian creation story without question in spite of the fact that there are holes in it you could drive the Queen Mary through.

[Walter]

I'm not a transitional organism. I don't have any children. My combination of genes will go extinct with me.

do you think you'll be missed jezza? 😪

[Walter]

A word of warning !
Don't forget to drink plenty in this hot weather . I'm already on my seventh pint of Copper Dragon 🍻
Ccheers🍻

[torridon]

Torridon,
If you're referring to the biblical God, we are told that he created the animals after their kind. It doesn't mention the idea that they are all related. It also implies the extinctions of many of them were caused by a historical global flood. So hopefully you can see that it isn't 'picking holes' in Evo theory, but constructive criticism (creationists don't deny adaptation and microevolution).

All of which merely demonstrates that biblical mythologies are no good as a substitute for science. 

All species are related, clearly Old Testament prophets would not know that, so their stories merely reflect the level of understanding of their times. Now we know better and should not be in the business of ditching the fruits of meticulous research in favour of the ignorance of earlier times.

There have been mass extinctions in the past but none ever at the hands of a global flood.  So again, the Bible is clearly wrong on that and it's no good trying elide the mythology of Noah with the science of extinctions.

If creationists accept the principle of 'microevolution' then what is the barrier that prevents lots of 'microevolution' aggregating into 'macroevolution' over time.  If you don't specify a mechanism, then the assumption will be that you believe god intervenes to inhibit the natural workings of the very evolutionary processes that he himself devised, and does so by some form of magic for some unknown arbitrary reason.  And then you'd have to explain why god would curse life in such a way as to prevent the development of new ecosystems following the mass extinction.  And then you'd also have to explain why the evidence shows that in fact life does recover from mass extinction events despite your belief in god's seeming desire to block any such recovery.

[Sriram]

All of which merely demonstrates that biblical mythologies are no good as a substitute for science. 

All species are related, clearly Old Testament prophets would not know that, so their stories merely reflect the level of understanding of their times. Now we know better and should not be in the business of ditching the fruits of meticulous research in favour of the ignorance of earlier times.

There have been mass extinctions in the past but none ever at the hands of a global flood.  So again, the Bible is clearly wrong on that and it's no good trying elide the mythology of Noah with the science of extinctions.

If creationists accept the principle of 'microevolution' then what is the barrier that prevents lots of 'microevolution' aggregating into 'macroevolution' over time.  If you don't specify a mechanism, then the assumption will be that you believe god intervenes to inhibit the natural workings of the very evolutionary processes that he himself devised, and does so by some form of magic for some unknown arbitrary reason.  And then you'd have to explain why god would curse life in such a way as to prevent the development of new ecosystems following the mass extinction.  And then you'd also have to explain why the evidence shows that in fact life does recover from mass extinction events despite your belief in god's seeming desire to block any such recovery.

The Hindu culture did recognize the close relationship between humans and other life forms, from ancient times.  They focused on the evolution and development of consciousness from lower life forms to humans and did not bother about biological development.   

[jeremyp]

do you think you'll be missed jezza? 😪

I'm sure my friends and relatives will, but probably not by anybody else.

[Outrider]

I'm sure my friends and relatives will, but probably not by anybody else.

Who but our nearest and dearest counts, in this context? 

O.