Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (36191)	5/12/2013 7:03:56 PM
From: 2MAR$	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

So you admit now that there are transitional fossils, that talk given in 2006 by Ken Miller and after all this denial they've had them for quite a while now, 1000s of them in fact. Whether Nature is God or God is Nature at least we shouldn't lie about the fullness of scope and the play of it, should we? Then we the have the Intelligent Design proponents themselves quickly backpedal so did you just come here to waste time? Michael Behe states "I believe the evidence strongly supports common descent.". Similarly, William Dembski explains: "Intelligent design does not require organisms to emerge suddenly or to be specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence

To: Brumar89 who wrote (36191)	5/12/2013 7:16:00 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Don't believe in transitional fossils still? By all means , feel free to pretend they don't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tra… The Missing Link, shows how the idea of a single missing link between species distorts the reality of the fluid nature of change in evolution. http://www.toptenmyths.com/myth4.html Transitional Fossils & Evolution - What Are Transitional Fossils? http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutevoluti… Claim CC200: There are no transitional fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC… Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tran… Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller… On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils" http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossil… A few selected transitional fossils http://www.transitionalfossils.com/ Fossil Evidence http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/f…

To: Brumar89 who wrote (36191)	5/12/2013 7:19:46 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

Not atheism or religion : Also a purely scientific interpretation of evolution does not generate an argument for atheism, here you lie again for Evolution is & never was an argument against religion or God , its purpose soley to explain the unfolding of life on Earth. Evolution does not = atheism, though tiny minds in defensive posture that dont think or ever study the subject would say so.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (36191)	5/12/2013 7:26:48 PM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Here's just a small example of transitional fossils: "Transition from primitive bony fish to amphibians" talkorigins.org Few people realize that the fish-amphibian transition was not a transition from water to land. It was a transition from fins to feet that took place in the water. The very first amphibians seem to have developed legs and feet to scud around on the bottom in the water, as some modern fish do, not to walk on land (see Edwards, 1989). This aquatic-feet stage meant the fins didn't have to change very quickly, the weight-bearing limb musculature didn't have to be very well developed, and the axial musculature didn't have to change at all. Recently found fragmented fossils from the middle Upper Devonian, and new discoveries of late Upper Devonian feet (see below), support this idea of an "aquatic feet" stage. Eventually, of course, amphibians did move onto the land. This involved attaching the pelvis more firmly to the spine, and separating the shoulder from the skull. Lungs were not a problem, since lungs are an ancient fish trait and were present already. •Paleoniscoids again (e.g. Cheirolepis) -- These ancient bony fish probably gave rise both to modern ray-finned fish (mentioned above), and also to the lobe-finned fish. •Osteolepis (mid-Devonian) -- One of the earliest crossopterygian lobe-finned fishes, still sharing some characters with the lungfish (the other lobe-finned fishes). Had paired fins with a leg-like arrangement of major limb bones, capable of flexing at the "elbow", and had an early-amphibian-like skull and teeth. •Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (mid-late Devonian) -- Early rhipidistian lobe-finned fish roughly intermediate between early crossopterygian fish and the earliest amphibians. Eusthenopteron is best known, from an unusually complete fossil first found in 1881. Skull very amphibian-like. Strong amphibian- like backbone. Fins very like early amphibian feet in the overall layout of the major bones, muscle attachments, and bone processes, with tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and tetrapod-like elbow and knee joints. But there are no perceptible "toes", just a set of identical fin rays. Body & skull proportions rather fishlike. •Panderichthys, Elpistostege (mid-late Devonian, about 370 Ma) -- These "panderichthyids" are very tetrapod-like lobe-finned fish. Unlike Eusthenopteron, these fish actually look like tetrapods in overall proportions (flattened bodies, dorsally placed orbits, frontal bones! in the skull, straight tails, etc.) and have remarkably foot-like fins. •Fragmented limbs and teeth from the middle Late Devonian (about 370 Ma), possibly belonging to Obruchevichthys -- Discovered in 1991 in Scotland, these are the earliest known tetrapod remains. The humerus is mostly tetrapod-like but retains some fish features. The discoverer, Ahlberg (1991), said: "It [the humerus] is more tetrapod-like than any fish humerus, but lacks the characteristic early tetrapod 'L-shape'...this seems to be a primitive, fish-like character....although the tibia clearly belongs to a leg, the humerus differs enough from the early tetrapod pattern to make it uncertain whether the appendage carried digits or a fin. At first sight the combination of two such extremities in the same animal seems highly unlikely on functional grounds. If, however, tetrapod limbs evolved for aquatic rather than terrestrial locomotion, as recently suggested, such a morphology might be perfectly workable." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tran…