Christians: Does age of earth matter?

Can you translate this into English?

 

Sure.

How about I take the first one.

Acanthostega is an intermediate between fish and amphibians. It is an early tetrapod. Four legs with eight digits on each limb. Its limb bones were relatively long, like the bones of an amphibian as opposed to the same bone in lobe finned fish. But the pelvis and spine of Acanthostega indicate that it was ill suited for life on land. They just could not have supported the animals weight very effectively for very long on land. In addition, it had gills and a lateral line like fish.

The ecology of where fossils of Acanthostega indicates that it lived in a murky, freshwater environment. The adaptations most likely were useful for scurrying around on the stream bottom before they become useful for scampering onto land.

But what is clear is that Acanthostega contains the features that one would expect of a creature intermediate between fish and amphibians. It has a mix of traits from each.

Using Google you should be able to find the same type of information on all the listed animals. That is about as close to "English" as I can come. These are the names of the animals. I cannot simplify this any more. But you should find that all of these are some form of transitional, though I did use the term loosely. For example, Proconsul is believed to be the first true ape, so I listed it. Not necessarily a transition to apes since it IS an ape. But it is a transition to all of the other apes.

So just take Google and a couple of hours and educate yourself.

 

UTE:

"Acanthostega is an intermediate between fish and amphibians. It is an early tetrapod. Four legs with eight digits on each limb. Its limb bones were relatively long, like the bones of an amphibian as opposed to the same bone in lobe finned fish. But the pelvis and spine of Acanthostega indicate that it was ill suited for life on land. They just could not have supported the animals weight very effectively for very long on land. In addition, it had gills and a lateral line like fish."
=================

The comparitive anatomy of fish and amphibians no more proves evolution than do the comparative anatomies of humans, chimps and apes.

Anatomical similarities with their vestigal appendages and rudimentary organs don't prove evolution because the imagined process itself takes too long for humans to observe. So the 'fact' of evolution is more religious in nature than scientific.

I think, therefore I see.

 

P of E:

"If we must interpret the Bible as saying the creation was 6000 years ago literally, maybe 10,000 at the most, then the Bible would be in error, as proved by modern scientific discoveries."
=========

But if we interpret both the fossiliferous geologic strata and the Genesis Flood account of worldwide destuction correctly, as ICR does, then we can prove that Darwinism is as much of a religion as say, Bhuddism or Hinduism.

 

jcrawford,

Your adopting an interpretation of fossils consistent with your understanding of Genesis does not prove anything. To prove Darwinism to be a religion, you must, instead, offer a better scientific explanation of the existing data. And these data include the evidence of relatedness of living things in their genomes.

A mere allegation that the Theory of Evolution is a religion does not, without convincing scientific proof, make it so.

 

I don't suffer from any observable obsessions with science let alone provable ones.

I prefer pointing out uncontestable religious observations by some of those pontificating 'science.'

 

That's right, jcrawford. There cannot be any possible transitionals because you will deny the evidence that says that they are.

Let me ask this a different way. (I am not really expecting a substantial answer because you seem to prefer to not be direct.)

What would you consider to be sufficent evidence that some creature was an intermediate subject to the constraints we live in given our present reality? You deny anatomical evidence. You deny DNA evidence. What evidence would be sufficient for you within the realms of what is actually possible in our existance as human beings?

 

Not only has UTEOTW failed to refute the statement from the Archaeopteryx conference that Archaeopteryx is a "True Bird" he fails also in his wild speculation about the virtebra.


Notice the vaccuous claims of they following type "The brain of Archaeopteryx is shaped more like that of a reptile than that of a bird, though there are flight related changes.


Notice that this "true bird" had no problem with that.

Notice that in each case UTEOTW's reliance is on old school bad data - and bad science.

Here is another example of a UTEOTW claim.

Benton has stated that "details of the brain case and associated bones at the back of the skull seem to suggest that Archaeopteryx is not the ancestral bird, but an offshoot from the early avian stem."
M.J. Benton, Nature 305:99(1983).

And here is the data showing it to be "bad science" based on "bad data".

We note that in this same paper, Benton states that the quadrate (the bone in the jaw that articulates with the squamosal of the skull) in Archaeopteryx was singleheaded as in reptiles.

But using a newly devised technique, computed tomography, Haubitz, et al, established that the quadrate of the Eichstatt specimen of Archaepoteryx was double-headed and thus similar to the condition of modern birds, rather than single-headed, as stated by Benton.
B. Haubitz, M. Prokop, W. Döhring, J.H. Ostrom, and P. Welinhofer, Paleobiology 14(2):206 (1988).

We also observe that as the data is brought to light - UTEOTW objects to its being presented.

I encourage UTEOTW to "observe" that even the Archaeopteryx Conference confessed that this is in fact a "true bird".

I encourage UTEOTW to "observe" that the old school notions he has clung to have been refuted by "the data" case by case and in the case of the Eichstatt specimen we see unmasked the common ploy of evolutionism of making wild claims based on a single example of questionable data .

Well has UTEOTW stated that this is the "perfect example" of a transitional form - it is the "perfect example" of discarded stories found in evolutionisms basement.

So ask yourself - do you really want that kind of "bad science" as your "religion"?

Is it worth it to marry such humanist-bias to scripture and cut the Word of God in favor of the wild stories of man?

Richard Dawkings is correct - the wild claims of evolutionism - fully replace the "Creator's Actions" described in the Word of God. Christians that seek a compromise between the two - have embraced a flawed logic that is rejected both by "consitent evolutionists" and by Bible-believing Creationists who place faith in the accuracy of the "Creator's Account" given in Gen 1-2:4.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Oh Bob,

Anyone that reads each of our posts above can see that archy has quite a large number of reptilian features. You do not have to accept that. But that is what the facts indicate. Your "rebuttal" seems to be that 1) archy may have been a side branch rather than on the actual line to modern birds which matters not at all in showing that it posseses all the features of an intermediate, 2) you give one more trait in common with birds which I will accept without a challenge since it does not change the long list of reptile traits that the animal also had, and 3) you again assert that the conference said that it was only a bird when all it said was that it was not a small, running dinosaur.

The unbiased reader should have no trouble seeing the archy was intermediate between birds and reptiles.

 

UTEOTW once you confess that Archaopteryx is a "true bird" (not half-bird half-reptile) how do you expect to "position the bird" as a non-bird transistion BETWEEN reptile and Bird? At BEST it could be a Unique bird like the duck-billed platypus is "unique".

The straining of evolutiohists to make a mountain out of a molehill is evident.

So what do we notice about this "true bird" - in the "data" so far?

Nothing here comprising a "reason" doubt the Creator's Gen 1-2:4 "account".

Exodus 20:8-11 provides a concise summary of the religion of "God" and what was done in 6 days.

Better the religion of God - than the shifting sands and turning tide of man.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Once you confess that Archaopteryx is a "true bird" (As did the International Archaeopteryx Conference Eichstátt, Germany, 1984) how do you expect to "position the bird" as a non-bird transistion BETWEEN reptile and Bird (half-bird half-reptile)? At BEST it could be a Unique bird like the duck-billed platypus is "unique" and nothing like a “perfect transitional formâ€￾.

Ooops!

Did I already post that?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I guess if you could show me irrefutable 'evidence' that the surface of the globe was not once totally destroyed by torrents of water and massive world wide tectonic upheavals as recorded in Genesis Seven I would have to believe in everything you say about transies.

 

John

Didn't really think I would get a straight answer from you. Never have, I guess I never will.

 

Bob

Please continue to point out the avian traits of Archaeopteryx. You do the bird part and I'll do the reptile part and soon everyone will agree that it was a transitional. But a few things you said do need to be corrected.

"bones like a bird"

Yes except...

Like a reptile, the vertebrae in the trunk region are not fused. In a bird they are fused.

"Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it. This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds."

The head attaches to the neck from the rear just like reptiles. The head of birds attaches from the bottom.

The cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets like related dinosaurs. These facets in birds are saddle shaped.

Archaeopteryx has a long tail with most of the vertebrae that make up the tail free. Birds have short tails with fused vertebrae.

Birds have short, stout ribs that are connected to one another with braces and which move with the breast bone. Archaeopteryx has slender ribs that are unconnected to one another and that do not move with the breast bone.

Archaeopteryx has a pelvis and pubic bone that are halfway between what is found in theropod dinosaurs and birds.

The sacrum, the vertebrae to which the pelvis attaches, is six bones in Archaeopteryx and ornithipod dinosaurs but 11 - 23 vertebrae in birds.

Like reptiles, Archaeopteryx has a flexible wrist. Birds have a fused wrist.

It has a nasal opening like a reptile, not like a bird.

"Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles. Typical of reptiles but not found in birds."

Archaeopteryx has three claws on its wing, unlike any modern birds.

Like reptiles, the tibula is the same length as the fibula. Birds have a short fibula.

"It was not earlier than the birds"

That is correct. Archaeopteryx is most likely a side branch and not a direct ancestor of birds. But it does preserve the transitional features of the actual ancestor.

"No prior transitions"

Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor. To name a few.

Any quotes not otherwise referenced are taken from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html .

 

None of these shows true transitional traits.

As already demonstrated Archaeopteryx was a "true bird" and therefore not even "possible" as a transitional form.

In fact Archaeopteryx has LESS "unique" traits (as far as a unique bird goes) than the woodpecker from an egret or vulcher. Uniqueness in the diversity within kind is "obvious".

But sadly for the guesswork of evolutionism - these are all true birds. Even many of our atheist evolutionist friends have seen that.

Given that it was not "earlier than birds" (in evolutionisms mythologies) and that it is in fact "a true bird" - the case "some" evolutionist would make of it - fails.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Didn't ever think I could get you to admit that archy was a transitional. The unbiased reader should have no trouble drawing that conclusion at this point, though. You would never admit to any creature being a transitional. You can't. But it should be obvious to the others. You have done a fine job of showing that it had many traits in common with birds. But there is no denying that there are many, many traits that differ significantly from all other birds yet are common to reptiles. I don't know what you mean by "Archaeopteryx has LESS "unique" traits (as far as a unique bird goes) than the woodpecker from an egret" but I think I have made it quite clear that it has many traits that are far outside the range that ANY modern birds have. I think it should also be clear that it has many traits that it only shares with the related dinosaurs from which it evolved.

It is not a true bird in any sense. It has too many traits in common with reptiles to be a true bird. And you are arguing against a strawman in asserting that it cannot be transitional because there are earlier birds. I do not know of any scientist that actually claims that archy was ancestral to birds. There are some specific reasons why it is a side branch. But it preserves the transitional traits of the true ancestor in spectacular fashion.

What set of facts would allow you to conclude that an animal was a transitional? Something plausible, please.

 

If archy really was a true bird, then maybe you can show us that it really did not have all of those reptile traits.

Or that all those traits I am asserting as reptilian are really within the normal variation of known birds.

Or why a "true bird" does not even have a beak.

Or what you would accept as evidence of a transitional creature.

 

I believe enough evidence has been presented to demonstrate that Archaeopteryx is a fine example of a transitional creature. It possesed a wonderful mix of avian and reptilian features. So we have proven that this one has "stood the test of time."

I have also given a short list of some of the other transitional fossils. Some of the easiest to see transitionals come from those animals at the border between aquatic life and terrestrial life.

Utatsusaurus is an early ichthyosaur who is basically a lizard with paddles. The skeleton is very much like a land dwelling reptile except for the adaptations that allow it to live in the water. Its bones even indicate that it still swam similar to the way that other reptiles swim whan they get into the water unlike later ichthyosaurs who adopted a more efficient means of locomotion.

Acanthostega is a walking fish. OK, that is not really true. It did not have a skelton that could have done a very good job of moving it about on land. But it is a "fish" with four legs and eight digits on each foot. It would have been well adapted for scurrying around on the bottom of shallow, murky waters. And even limited ability to get around on land may be useful if none of your predators can get out of the water. A fish with legs.

Ambulocetus and Basilosaurus are different stages between the land dwelling artiodactyls and the water dwelling whales. Ambulocetus most likely spent time both in the water and on the land. It would have been something like the mammal version of a crocodile. Basilosaurus was a fully aquatic animal in which the legs had shrunk to something no longer useful on the land.

Cynognathus is an interesting transitional between reptiles and mammals and it contains both the mammalian and the reptilian jaws at the same time.

Here is my short list again. Acanthostega, Adelobasileus, Ambulocetus, Australopithecus, Basilosaurus, Cantius, Caudipteryx,Confuciusornis, Cynodesmus, Dimetrodon, Eusthenopteron, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, Hovasaurus, Hylonomus, Ichthyostega, Kenyapithecus, Microraptor, Oreochima, Osteolepis, Pachycynodon,Pakicetus, Panderichthys, Parapithecus, Parasemionotus, Peramus, Proailurus, Probainognathus, Proconsul, Procynosuchus, Proganochelys, Proterogyrinus, Protoclepsydrops, Rodhocetus, Sinoconodon, sinornithosaurus, Spathobatis, Thrinaxodon, Triadobatrachus, Tristychius, Ursavus, Ursus, Utatsusaurus

 

Bob

Glad to see your still around from your post on the other thread. I'd still like to know what set of facts would allow you to conclude that an animal was a transitional?

And what do you think now of Archaeopteryx, Utatsusaurus, Acanthostega, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, and the others as transitionals?

 

I think a transitional must show stepwise MACRO evolution itself and not merely the MACRO differences that exist between species. It must be LARGER than the difference WITHIN a kind such as the various breeds of dog or the various kinds of birds. If you want a lizard to "become a bird" then you need to show one "Developing feathers".

Having a TRUE perching bird with modern feathers capable of flight is NOT a way to show a lizard "becoming a bird".

This is "obvious" - but it is the data that the religion of evolutionism "needs to avoid".

Show a trilobite with a simple eye-spot, then a single eye, then the emergence of multiple eye-spots around a single fully developed eye that merge over millions of years into compound eyes.

SHOW the stepwise evolutionary changes in macro evolution.

In Christ,

Bob