This is one of the most potent arguments against evolution I have ever come across. It has never, to my knowledge, been effectively countered by any evolutionist.
Basically the evolutionist believes that transitional forms happen "all the time" throughout history. So we don't actually need to look at fossil records to establish evolution - all we need to do is LOOK AROUND US and OBSERVE all the billions of transitional forms and species which - according to the evolutionist - should be running about the day. Since, according to the evolutionist, change is slow and gradual, then we be able to observe many forms which things like three legs, half a fin, one wing, etc.
So why can't we see them? Did evolution grind to a sudden halt over the past 150 years since Darwin declared its existence? That would be a bit odd, would it not???!!!
So, evolutionists, show me the evidence. Who needs to concern themselves with the fossil record when according to your own THEORY transitional entities should be ALL AROUND US - walking, swimming, crawling or flying.
Good point, well made.
ReplyDeleteWe do:
ReplyDeleteDog dew claws
Human coccyx
Dandelion Stamen & Pistil
Astyanax Mexicanus eyes
Ectrodactyly in some tribes
A few more:
ReplyDeleteSugar Gliders
Live birth in some reptiles (some species actually showing both live birth or egg-laying in different populations)
Fish with digits that allow them to walk
Air-breathing fish
Naked mole rat
Oh dear, Garvan, can't you think up something new? Only creationists, who see time foreshortened by a factor of about 1/250000 would expect observable species change in the time since Darwin. The 150 years used as an example by a creationist loon elsewhere would then expand, in the real world, to 3.75 million years. Just about long enough for creationists to evolve into rational human beings, even!
ReplyDeleteYou yourself are a 'transitional form'. You are not a clone of either of your parents, and your children are not a clone of you. The differences between your grandparents and future grandchildren will be even more pronounced. Change happens very, very gradually.
ReplyDeleteI was lucky enough to see Richard Dawkins giving a talk about his latest book late last year. It's called "The Magic of Reality" and is a basic introduction to science, aimed at any level above a bright 7 year old, so it's really easy to understand (after reading it, I had a clearer idea of atomic structure than I'd managed to get in my A-level chemistry course 15 years ago!), and unlike many of his other books is not an expressly atheistic book. In it, he describes a thought experiment where he asks the audience/reader to imagine a pile of photos, starting with themselves on the top, and each sucessive image being a snapshot of the previous generation. No one picture is very different from the ones either side, but there are very big differences when you pick 2 that are separated by a considerable time. Because of this, there is no one individual where you can say it's a different species to its parent.
I'd recommend you check the book out - there's really no reason to ignore it just because of the author, and I think you'd learn a lot from his explanations of the science. Plus it's beautifully illustrated.
Oh, and going back to my point about how your children aren't exact clones of you, and things change over generations:
ReplyDeleteMy sister looks a lot like my mother's nephew, our cousin - we share a link 2 generations back with our grandparents. My mother's own cousin has 2 daughters who look nothing like my sister and I - the genetic split happened earlier, with our great-grandparents, so we've also had 2 generations worth of DNA from 4 other families entering the mix. Extrapolate back to my grandparents' cousins, and their (assumed) grandchildren will have last shared a common relative with me in our great, great grandparents. OK, we're both still human, but if I were to ever find out who/where they are, I doubt there would be anything physical to suggest we're related.
All transitional forms are is this same process, happening over a much longer time period, and many more generations.
Bill said...
ReplyDelete"Good point, well made."
No it was not, it was ignorant balderdash that shows a total inability to even make the slightest effort to comprehend the subject.
For the deranged creationist (that is of course all of them since if they were not deranged then they would not cling to such arrant rubbish) believing is seeing, belief comes first and so obfuscates their already impaired abilities that they are rendered incapable of grasping reality.
>"aimed at any level above a bright 7 year old"
ReplyDeleteNo use to Garv then.
JennyAnyDots said...
ReplyDelete"I was lucky enough to see Richard Dawkins giving a talk about his latest book late last year. It's called "The Magic of Reality" and is a basic introduction to science, aimed at any level above a bright 7 year old,"
I think that may be too hard for the average educationally impaired creationist to grasp, Garvan's level of comprehension appears to be at the level of a rather dim six year old.
>"three legs, half a fin, one wing, etc"
ReplyDeleteWhen a cretinist says things like this you have to suspect Poe. Could even the thickest of them (like Bill) really believe that evolutionary theory predicts that when a 4 legged animal has evolved into a 2 legged animal it has been through a 3 legged stage?
"like three legs, half a fin, one wing, etc."
ReplyDeleteThat is crass stupidity even for someone as lacking in any education as you Garvan.
Animals show some degree of symmetry so you are not going to get any of those things.
What you do get is fleshy limbed fish that walk on the sea bed, the modern examples of these share a common ancestor with you.
You are a tetrapod, that is for limbed animal, all terrestrial vertebrates are tetrapods since they share common descent. That includes snakes and legless lizards since they evolved from legged species.
Eyes are a particularly good example of evolution, they are so useful that various versions have evolved many times.
Hi Dr K Bob we seem to be covering the same points at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI am surprised that Garvan has not commented on this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089008/Funeral-directors-accused-ripping-mourning-relatives-overcharging-simple-ceremonies.html
"Funeral directors are using hard sell tactics on vulnerable families, trying to push added extras such as embalming, to increase the price."
'Good point, well made.'
ReplyDeleteBill you really are a clueless clown aren't you?
Garv has an excuse ...he has mental issues...what is yours...?
Before commenting on something you clearly do not understand why don't you find out exactly what it is first...knee jerk comments like yours are called 'brain dead mooing with the herd!'
Show some integrity man ...get a grip for your own sake!
Yellowcat/Dr K Bob - I know, but I was hoping on a first reading he might learn enough to come close to an 8-year-old's level, then he could start reading it over to see if the earlier bits made more sense on a second reading. I wasn't imagining an instant education!
ReplyDeleteYellowcat/Dr K Bob - I know, but I was hoping on a first reading he might learn enough to come close to an 8-year-old's level, then he could start reading it over to see if the earlier bits made more sense on a second reading. I wasn't imagining an instant education!
ReplyDeleteA lot of new faces..do any of you go to UCLA because i showed a bunch of my dorm buddies this place...Also GArven you should refute the argument or agree that it is not valid when arguing against evolution.
ReplyDelete>"Hi Dr K Bob we seem to be covering the same points at the moment."
ReplyDeleteHa, yes. Perhaps we are the same person pretending to be two different people?
"Dr K"? What happened to my Bob?
ReplyDeleteAh! There it is.
ReplyDeleteIs "Dr K" a transitional form?
ReplyDeleteMonotremes and marsupials
ReplyDeleteSlime moulds
Rabbits
Oh, and pandas
ReplyDeleteAnd multicellular yeast organisms.
ReplyDeleteYeast selected to settle more quickly through a test tube evolved into multicellular, snowflake-like clusters in just 2 weeks, or about 100 generations. The clusters evolved to be larger, produce multicellular progeny, and even show differentiation of the cells within the cluster—all key characteristics of multicellular organisms:
http://the-scientist.com/2012/01/16/evolving-multicellularity/
Here is the paper for those that want to read it:
ReplyDeleteExperimental evolution of multicellularity
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/10/1115323109.full.pdf+html
Half wings?
ReplyDeleteAny extension in gliding ability would give an advantage. It can be incremental. The squirrel born with loose skin forming flaps could jump further, have more chance of evading a predator so lived longer and reproduced more than his peers. The scenarios are endless. There isn't really any meaning to "transition" animals, change can be incremental and every living thing may be transitional to something else.
WE could be transition animals to
another species so long as we do not die out first.
I really can not see why any one would reject the awe inspiring majestic splendour of evolution in favour of some squalid, grubby little fairy story dating from our ignorant past. Those that cling to such worthless creation myths really are denying their humanity.
Show me the half-monkey, half-man, then I will believe you.
ReplyDelete"Show me the half-monkey, half-man, then I will believe you."
ReplyDeleteLet me get this right, Bill.
Are you saying that if someone shows you a half-monkey, half-man, you will accept evolution, even though this contradicts your belief in a literal creation as described in Genesis, and therefore your belief that the whole Bible must be true, or none of it is.
How would you adjust your beliefs to deal with this? How would you incorporate your new-found acceptance of evolution into your faith?
OK, I accept that there MAY be SOME example of MICRO-EVOLUTION, but these clearly are not examples of MACRO-EVOLUTION.
ReplyDeleteIf evolution were true, then all human beings would not be equally evolved. Some would have fur, some would have tail stumps, some would have paws instead of hands. At least there would surely be some note of this made at some point in history?????
Hi Garvan,
ReplyDeleteAre you of the same opinion as Bill - "Show me the half-monkey, half-man, then I will believe you"?
If so, then my question applies to you as well.
I'll leave your straw-men to others.
Garvan, please have a look at the book I mentionned above.
ReplyDeleteGarven, by using the half-man/half-monkey argument you are showing the you have no understanding of evolution. I have seen people correct you often so why do you not learn.
ReplyDelete"Garven, by using the half-man/half-monkey argument you are showing the you have no understanding of evolution"
ReplyDeleteI said this years ago, and I'll say it again.
For all the furore creationists raise about evolution, it really boils down to one thing, and one thing only.
They want humans to have been created.
If if could be shown that humans were created, I doubt many of them would worry about the rest of nature. Why worry if seals, stick-insects or streptococcus was created, or had evolved. At the end of the day it's humans they want to be a special creation.
True, they'd have to rethink that literal Genesis stuff, but I'm guessing they can. they're very creative when it comes to biblical apologetics.
Nope, although you'd never get them to admit it, even Garvan and Bill would find ways to accept an old universe, deep time, and the evolution of all life, so long as humans could be shown to be a special creation. That's all that really matters to them.
But I still want Bill to explain how this statement affects his personal faith:
ReplyDelete"Show me the half-monkey, half-man, then I will believe you."
Bill said...
ReplyDelete"Show me the half-monkey, half-man, then I will believe you."
Again your statement shows your profound ignorance of the subject.
I will attempt to educate you.
Humans did not evolve from modern apes, we all evolved from a common ancestor.
A thought experement for you.
Imagine that you are standing next to your father. He holds the right hand of his father, your grandfather in his left hand. Your grandfather holds his father's hand, and so on.
OK keep that thought.
There is an unbroken chain of your ancestors standing in line holding hands.
You can now start walking along that line, meeting your direct ancestors.
Now if we allow about a yard for each person then a mile will be 1760 generations of ancestors. Allowing 20 years per generation that would be 35200 years.
Now since I suspect that you are not African there is a very good chance that some of those ancestors a mile or so along the line may be Neanderthals.
Any way continue more miles along the line of your ancestors, each father and son will bear a close family likeness to each other as would be expected. However a few miles along and they start to look a lot less like you. You notice that they have slightly smaller heads and are becoming a bit more hairy and muscular. Further along they no longer stand fully upright and have longer arms, till after some 300 miles of your direct ancestors you come to two brothers, both clearly apes (as they all have been for the last few miles). One these ape brothers is your direct ancestor, the other a very distant uncle.
Your distant uncle is also holding hands with his son, your cousin many times removed. This other branch of your family form another line of direct descent, however following this line of your relatives to the present day will bring you face to face with a modern chimpanzee.
Humans are not a special creation we are another species of African ape.
Evolution is a beautiful and important concept. The understanding that it gives is crucial human welfare, to medical science, and to our understanding of the world. It is not so complicated that it can't be comprehended by any attentive person. The supporting evidence is abundant, various, ever increasing, interconnected, and easily available to anyone not blinded by superstition.
ReplyDeleteThe way that evolution seems to work is that adaptation builds on adaptation. Genetics show that development genes work in sequence, occasionally steps can be knocked out causing noticeable changes such as people with a thick coat of hair over their face body(congenital hypertrichosis or ), or a mutation in a Kurdish family in Turkey who have a mutation that has damaged one of the genes responsible for bipedalism(Uner Tan syndrome).
ReplyDeleteHypertrichosis:
http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=63519
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1958710/Werewolf-boy-Pruthviraj-Patil.html?image=1
http://www.hairtx.com/hair-loss/hair-loss-disorders/disorders-of-hair-growth/hypertrichosis/
Uner Tan syndrome:
http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/831
http://cogprints.org/5387/1/WRIST_WALKER_NO_UT_SYND.pdf
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207450701667857
http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2010/09/03/human-quadruped-uner-tan-syndrome-part-1/
http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/645
"Show me the half-monkey, half-man, then I will believe you."
ReplyDeleteI say this because that would provide very strong scientific evidence of evolution. I would then be forced to re-examine my interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. However, on the basis of the existing flimsy evidence I personally believe that the account provided in the Bible is supported by science.
" I would then be forced to re-examine my interpretation of the Genesis account of creation."
ReplyDeleteOK. Let's assume (just assume) that such evidence were provided.
Reconsider, hypothetically, your interpretation of Genesis.
How would it differ?
" I would then be forced to re-examine my interpretation of the Genesis account of creation."
ReplyDeleteOK. Let's assume (just assume) that such evidence were provided.
Reconsider, hypothetically, your interpretation of Genesis.
How would it differ?
If the half man, half monkey came about by some means other than a mad scientist or evil mastermind in a lab/remote island/hollowed out volcano/other evil lair of your choice, that would be closer to disproving evolution, rather than proving it. Same with the crocoduck. You'll have to try harder, Bill.
ReplyDeleteBill said...
ReplyDeleteW "Show me the half-monkey, half-man, then I will believe you."
I say this because that would provide very strong scientific evidence of evolution. I would then be forced to re-examine my interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. However, on the basis of the existing flimsy evidence I personally believe that the account provided in the Bible is supported by science."
No. You say that because you lack the ability to grasp reality, your mind is clouded by your superstitious beliefs and that has corrupted your reasoning ability. As has been carefully explained to you there is overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact and it is beyond any doubt that you share a common ancestor with a chimpanzee.
The account provided in the Bible is entirely unsupported by science. Therefore if you have the slightest bit of intellectual honesty (which from your postings I seriously doubt) then you should see how insubstantial and flimsy the biblical nonsense is and like all reasonable people you would totally reject it.
Your beliefs are I suspect little more than a psychological prop that you use because you lack the emotional maturity to face reality.
With a bit of effort you could free your self from your belief in god. You need to question your faith and let serious doubt into your life.
What ever your problems god is not the answer.
Would not the half man half monkey be a chimpanzee, gorilla,orang utan, or any other great ape?
ReplyDeleteThe Great ape lineage split from the monkies about 15 million years ago during the Miocene Epoch.
There you go Bill, NOW you can start to question your false beliefs.
During the 1990s archaeologists unearthed dozens of new fossil hominids. These have been particularly useful for illuminating the changes that took place as the human lineage split from the chimp lineage. One important find was in Ethiopia by Tim White (University of California-Berkeley), Gen Suwa (University of Tokyo), and others who found a fossil, which they determined to be 4.4 million years old. The fossil, Ardipithecus ramidus, probably represents a transitional form with respect to the evolution of bipedalism: while it may have been able to walk upright, it had a different posture than we do. It probably spent some time upright and some time walking like a chimp, on its knuckles. In other respects, it looked much like chimp, except for subtle differences in teeth and skull. The first, clearly bipedal hominids - Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis - appeared about 4.1 million years ago, shortly after A. ramidus.
Other fossil discoveries illustrate the bushiness of the human lineage. As many as four different apparent species often lived at the same time. While there was a general trend toward increased brain size with time, species with considerably different brain sizes lived simultaneously. Questions remain about how different species replaced previous ones. Was it through warfare? Was it that the replacing species were better competitors? Perhaps it was simply a random event. We don't really know.
" I would then be forced to re-examine my interpretation of the Genesis account of creation."
ReplyDeleteOK. Let's assume (just assume) that such evidence were provided.
Reconsider, hypothetically, your interpretation of Genesis.
How would it differ?
(Reposted, so you don't miss it, Bill)
'I personally believe that the account provided in the Bible is supported by science.'
ReplyDeleteWhat science?
Bill really the 'half man half ape' mantra is a total lack of understanding ....or even wanting to understand evolutionary theory correctly.
You have picked up the creationist false and ridiculous assumption that evolution describes a process that results in such a critter.
It is a sad reflection that creationists, being a little thick, think that is a valid demand to prove their stupidity untrue.
Common ancestor Bill...work it out from there...do yourself a favour grow up and ditch the creationist bilge...it really is a desperate and pathetic attempt at defending the indefensible.
Garv has a vague excuse...you however apparently have none except a low IQ.
Where is your pride man...try and read non-fiction for a change...it might help.
" I would then be forced to re-examine my interpretation of the Genesis account of creation."
ReplyDeleteOK. Let's assume (just assume) that such evidence were provided.
Reconsider, hypothetically, your interpretation of Genesis.
How would it differ?
(Reposted, so you don't miss it, Bill)
The question still stands Bill. I've posted it in another thread in case you missed it.
ReplyDeleteIf you should ever be infected with Tuberculosis, be sure to insist upon being prescribed Streptomycin. Since nothing evolves you should be just fine.
ReplyDeleteThat happened less than a hundred years ago, btw. I have my doubts about your claim of having a PhD.
What's with the long replies that contain facts and stuff? Why bother? This guy has already told you that it matters more that he believes what makes him feel good about himself, and that he is too weak and cowardly to show respect to others that are smarter than him. (Forgiveness and trust are an attribute of the strong, not weak).
ReplyDeleteJust leave him alone, he wants to play games.
Why don't you go and read On the Origin of Species--the part you like to quot e mind about it being impossible to imagine how an eye could evolve. Read the next few paragraphs and see where he says, It would be impossible to imagine, except for all of these minute transitional forms from light sensitive spot to fully developed eye that exist in living organisms (exactly what you were asking for), and then he names names the concave eye of the oyster, the pin-hole camera eye of the nautilus, etc. Since Darwin's time, all of these eye types have been found in the fossil record too, showing in exquisite detail the evolution of the eye, not once, but over and over again in many different animal lineages. Now even if you find some way to justify to yourself squirming out of accepting the fact that the eye evolved, you can never make the claim that no one ever pointed to you both the living and the fossil evidence (and its confirmed independently by the molecular evidence of DNA) for transitional forms.
ReplyDelete"If evolution were true, then all human beings would not be equally evolved. Some would have fur, some would have tail stumps, some would have paws instead of hands. At least there would surely be some note of this made at some point in history?????"
ReplyDeleteEvery one of us still has a tailbone. The tiny protruberance at the end of it suggests at least a small stump that may have been a tail. In short, every living human has evolutionary evidence in their body of transition.
Also, Ardipithecus Ramidus represents an almost perfect transition between ape and human. It walked upright, had the toe on the side of the foot (like an ape), which helped the foot function as an extra hand when climbing, and had a balance of ape and human characteristics.
In short, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Sorry, what I meant to say was, "In short, every living human has evolutionary evidence of transition in their body."
ReplyDeleteAnd you still don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Half a wing or half a foot isn't what evolution predicts, not that you care otherwise you'd use the actual arguments instead of strawmen!
ReplyDelete