Why Are There No Transitional Animals...
Darrel

Providence, UT

#429 Oct 10, 2012
frog that had a three heads http://www.strangeorfunny.com/three-headed-fr... now that's kinda disturbing
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#430 Oct 10, 2012
Darrel wrote:
frog that had a three heads http://www.strangeorfunny.com/three-headed-fr... now that's kinda disturbing
Thanks for the heads up Darrel. But when you post it by resurrecting old threads three times in the *same* forum, that's spamming.
Defender

New York, NY

#431 Feb 3, 2013
In an attempt to play Devil's Advocate for ImNoMonkey... in the 50 plus years of DNA research and millions of catalogued animals in DNA banks, why don't we have any animal with the DNA of BOTH a reptile and amphibian? The argument that it takes thousands, maybe millions of years, to make that leap is fine, but there should be some creature alive today that IS making the leap RIGHT NOW. Also, when scientists are confronted with this they switch from slow, almost undetectable changes, to their "shotgun evolution" theory; that a whole new species emerges all at once. Nature exhibits an imagination... "let's try a snake with a rattle on it's tail." Animals with such dramatic changes reflect a consciousness that preceeds the physical creature. Arguments against a biblical god are fine. Arguments against a conscious force that determines natural selection and the creation of life itself seems almost futile.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#432 Feb 3, 2013
Defender wrote:
In an attempt to play Devil's Advocate for ImNoMonkey... in the 50 plus years of DNA research and millions of catalogued animals in DNA banks, why don't we have any animal with the DNA of BOTH a reptile and amphibian? The argument that it takes thousands, maybe millions of years, to make that leap is fine, but there should be some creature alive today that IS making the leap RIGHT NOW. Also, when scientists are confronted with this they switch from slow, almost undetectable changes, to their "shotgun evolution" theory; that a whole new species emerges all at once. Nature exhibits an imagination... "let's try a snake with a rattle on it's tail." Animals with such dramatic changes reflect a consciousness that preceeds the physical creature. Arguments against a biblical god are fine. Arguments against a conscious force that determines natural selection and the creation of life itself seems almost futile.
The first part of your question needs to be worded better. As written it indicates that you do not understand genetics or evolution. The best answer I can give is that amphibians and reptiles do share quite a bit of DNA, but then we share quite a bit of DNA with reptiles. The split between the two, or to be more precise, the formation of different clades occurred before mammals formed a separate clade from the reptiles. So the differences between different mammals, should be smaller than the differences between reptiles and amphibians. That means the difference between a mouse and a whale should be smaller than the differences between a toad and a snake. Or even between a newt and a gecko. Time wise the mouse and whale are more closely related than those other combinations.
Defender

New York, NY

#433 Feb 3, 2013
Subduction Zone, I chose to word my question as if I were speaking in the vernacular, rather than if I were writing a thesis. Your response, although informative and wordy in itself, does not answer my question: Where are the animals making that final leap into a whole different species right now? If it's true that different species share similar genes, then I would like to see science prove evolution by forcing that transition from one species to another. All of the information for a brown mouse to become a white mouse when subjected to the environment is already contained in the mouse's DNA. Science can show molecular evolution, but it cannot show speciation. Unfortunately, until science can recreate the dramatic leap from amphibian to mammal or any other such combination you don't have science. You have an "idea."

Religion provides a rather startling insight into the creatures of the natural world: And God said,“Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.

A 2,000 year old book nailed it. Whether a god did or did not create life on earth, whoever wrote this passage did a very good job of predicting that all life on earth is neatly filed into specific categories.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#434 Feb 3, 2013
Defender wrote:
Your response, although informative and wordy in itself, does not answer my question: Where are the animals making that final leap into a whole different species right now?
Everywhere. Every single animal alive is in the process of transitioning.

If you want a DRAMATIC example, look at ring species.

A ring species is a species which has a wide distribution and sufficient genetic diversity that groups which are next to one another can mate successfully, but groups from opposite ends of the range can not.

Larus Gulls are an example of this.

The entire group is considered one species with several subspecies.

However, if the middle subspecies were to go extinct, then the group to the west and the group to the east would no longer be able to exchange genetic material at all. The would be reclassified as separate species.
If it's true that different species share similar genes, then I would like to see science prove evolution by forcing that transition from one species to another.
It's been done.

The E. Coli/Citrate experiment ran 20+ years and changed normal E. Coli which can not use citrate as a food source into a new species of E. Coli which could use citrate as a food source.

They froze multiple generations through out the experiment and can point to the specific mutations and when those mutations occurred.
All of the information for a brown mouse to become a white mouse when subjected to the environment is already contained in the mouse's DNA.
The difference in color between one mouse and the next isn't sufficiently great to prevent interbreeding between the two.

However, a brown mouse and a brown kangaroo mouse, though both the same color, can not interbreed.
Science can show molecular evolution, but it cannot show speciation.
That's like saying "Science can show that someone can walk a mile. But it can not show that someone can walk 10 miles."

If you accept that a person can walk a mile, then you have to accept that walking a longer distance over a longer period of time is also possible.
Unfortunately, until science can recreate the dramatic leap from amphibian to mammal or any other such combination you don't have science. You have an "idea."
You need to pick a demand and stick to it.

First you are saying that science needs to demonstrate a change in species (which happens all the time and which they have demonstrated)

Now you are saying that science needs to _RECREATE_ the steps that led to a change in _CLASS_.

There are MANY levels of differentiation between species and class.
Religion provides a rather startling insight into the creatures of the natural world: And God said,“Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
A 2,000 year old book nailed it. Whether a god did or did not create life on earth, whoever wrote this passage did a very good job of predicting that all life on earth is neatly filed into specific categories.
As with most things in the Bible, this only seems like it's right to someone who is unwilling to think about it for more than a second.

Basically, everything in the Bible is about appeasing the intellectually incurious with pat answers and moving on without asking questions.

If everything is so neatly fit into specific categories then help me sort these out:

Penguins - Are they a bird? A fish? Why?
Bats - Bird? Why or why not?
False Snakes - Snake? Lizard? Why?
Hyenas - What kind are they?
Anteaters - What kind are they?
Kangaroos - What kind?
Platypus - What kind?

See. No thought, no answers. Good for the stupid, bad for reality.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#435 Feb 3, 2013
Defender wrote:
Subduction Zone, I chose to word my question as if I were speaking in the vernacular, rather than if I were writing a thesis. Your response, although informative and wordy in itself, does not answer my question: Where are the animals making that final leap into a whole different species right now? If it's true that different species share similar genes, then I would like to see science prove evolution by forcing that transition from one species to another. All of the information for a brown mouse to become a white mouse when subjected to the environment is already contained in the mouse's DNA. Science can show molecular evolution, but it cannot show speciation. Unfortunately, until science can recreate the dramatic leap from amphibian to mammal or any other such combination you don't have science. You have an "idea."
Religion provides a rather startling insight into the creatures of the natural world: And God said,“Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds.
A 2,000 year old book nailed it. Whether a god did or did not create life on earth, whoever wrote this passage did a very good job of predicting that all life on earth is neatly filed into specific categories.
Those animals are all around us. Animals never "look" like they are evolving. It is a slow steady process, there is no line that is drawn where you can say one is animal is a dinosaur and its offspring is a bird. The differences become obvious long after the fact.

You are still working on the false concept of "kinds". No one has been able to make a working definition of "kind". There has never been shown to be a limit of evolution. In fact believers in Noah's Ark would need a rate of evolution that would make the maddest of scientist's head spin.

Also, evolution cannot be forced in the sense you want it. It is not scientists fault if you misunderstand their work. There are many many people who have tried to teach you throughout your lifetime, but you keep rejecting the teaching. So for your first step you have to realize that your Biblical beliefs are only children's bedtime stories. I know, it would be nice if the handsome prince kissed you and took you to his castle, but that ain't gonna happen.

And now for some reading material. Even the concept of species can be a bit misleading to people who were brought up with a Bible education. So drop it now and try to understand the concept of a clade first:

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

Once an animal is in a clade, all of its descendants are in the clade too. So we are still in the clade of apes, that of monkeys, that of mammals, that of tetrapods, and even in the same clade as that of the fish that were our ancient ancestors. So in a sense we are still "fish". If you study this concept you can begin to see how all life is related.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#436 Feb 3, 2013
Nuggin, bats are birds it says so in the buybul. So, hmm, scrambled bat eggs for breakfast. Anyone care to join me?
Defender

New York, NY

#437 Feb 3, 2013
Nuggin, perhaps I wasn't clear when I began my argument. The "species" I'm referring to isn't the difference in species of gulls. I'm asking for science to show me the transition of an amphibian into a reptile... a transition that's happening right now. The demand I am making is clear and hasn't changed.

E.coli experiments as well as other bacteria experiments and also tests on fruit flies have shown indisputable proof that, yes, adaptations do happen when the subject is exposed to environmental stimulus. But when that stimulus reaches the point of being too extreme, the subject dies. It doesn't evolve into a more complex organism. Sorry. Your E.coli and gulls are examples of molecular evolution, not speciation. Your answer "it's been done" does not apply to my question. When has an experiment forced a subject to evolve from a simple organism to a complex organism? When has an experiment forced an amphibian to become a whole different class of animal?

And your analogy of walking one mile proves that you can walk ten miles is not relevant or logical. Science is claiming if I can walk one mile and I reach an enormous cliff, I can, over time, change my DNA to the point where my ancestors grow wings and fly ten miles.

Everything in the bible isn't intended to appease people's questions concerning the natural world. Of course it leaves more questions than answers. But religion exists, in part, to explain the human condition in this physical world; the morality we are all faced with and the consequences of not answering to that morality.

Religion and science use two different plugs to connect to the physical world. The two topics cannot communicate with each other. In the epic game of rock, paper, scissors, science is always throwing rock and religion is always throwing paper. Everytime science attempts to prove a theory in the physical world they are left with the never ending conundrum that, when the rules of life are decided, something HAD to determine what those rules would be. If you show me an experiment where you expose E.coli to specific stimuli and the E.coli changes to a certain point, I can say, "yeah, but YOU controlled that experiment. YOU are the intelligent designer in that experiment."

We know a lot about the origins of life today. The experiments that have been done to recreate the world billions of years ago are intriguing. But what science has discovered is that there was a specific combination of events that took place in order for life to emerge. If the scientist is the intelligent consciousness in the laboratory experiment, isn't logical to say that there must also be an intelligent consciousness outside our physical reality to bring about that same experiment over the billions of years of the universe's existence?

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#438 Feb 3, 2013
Defender wrote:
Nuggin, perhaps I wasn't clear when I began my argument. The "species" I'm referring to isn't the difference in species of gulls. I'm asking for science to show me the transition of an amphibian into a reptile... a transition that's happening right now. The demand I am making is clear and hasn't changed.
So just what is the difference between an amphibian and a reptile?
They both have four legs, two eyes and lay eggs.
Reptiles do have a more water tight skin and lay hard shelled eggs rather than soft shelled eggs but is that enough to make them a seperate kind?
Defender

New York, NY

#439 Feb 3, 2013
"Reptiles do have a more water tight skin and lay hard shelled eggs rather than soft shelled eggs but is that enough to make them a seperate kind?"

Can they interbreed? Can they mate and have offspring with a combination of the best traits of both "kinds?" Can their DNA be manipulated to create a hybrid amphibian/reptile?

I'm using a passage by an author who lived over 2,000 years ago; God made the wild animals according to their KINDS.

We can dispute the similarities in DNA lineages all day, but you must concede that there are different KINDS of animal life on earth.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#440 Feb 3, 2013
Defender wrote:
Nuggin, perhaps I wasn't clear when I began my argument. The "species" I'm referring to isn't the difference in species of gulls. I'm asking for science to show me the transition of an amphibian into a reptile... a transition that's happening right now. The demand I am making is clear and hasn't changed.
Actually, the demand you are making isn't clear because you are using incorrect vocabulary.

Here are the terms and some examples (not all the examples):

Kingdom - Plant, Fungus, Animal etc

Phyllum - Athropods, Chordates, mollusks, etc

Class - Mammals, Reptiles, Birds, Amphibians

Order - Primates, Ungulates, Rodents

Family - Old world monkeys, great apes

Genus - Gorilla, Chimps, Humans

Species - Erectus, Sapiens, Neanderthals, Denovians

You are asking for a modern day example of a new class being formed. This is extremely rare and often takes a great deal of time to fully take effect.

Mammals didn't just happen in one generation. There were mammal-like reptiles which lead to monotremes which could, theoretically be very weird reptiles if there were no other examples. However, after monotremes came marsupials and then placentals. There were likely stages inbetween these, but I don't know their names off the top of my head.
E.coli experiments as well as other bacteria experiments and also tests on fruit flies have shown indisputable proof that, yes, adaptations do happen when the subject is exposed to environmental stimulus. But when that stimulus reaches the point of being too extreme, the subject dies.
Evolution doesn't happen to a subject, it happens to a population. It happens between generations. The above criticism is meaningless.
Sorry. Your E.coli and gulls are examples of molecular evolution, not speciation.
You shouldn't use words you don't understand. It makes you look foolish.

Explain to me in detail how an example of one gull species becoming two distinct gull species is not speciation (which is the process of one species become two distinct species).
And your analogy of walking one mile proves that you can walk ten miles is not logical.
You don't think it's logical that if a person can walk a distance, then they could also walk a longer distance? WOW.
Religion and science use two different plugs to connect to the physical world.
And the list of things that religion used to explain as magic which has now been replaced by science is endless.

Yet nothing goes the other way, from science to magic.
I can say, "yeah, but YOU controlled that experiment. YOU are the intelligent designer in that experiment."
Then you don't understand the concept of experimentation or design.
If the scientist is the intelligent consciousness in the laboratory experiment, isn't logical to say that there must also be an intelligent consciousness outside our physical reality to bring about that same experiment over the billions of years of the universe's existence?
No. If you walk in the forest and find two sticks which have fallen off a try and landed at right angles to one another, you don't automatically conclude that an extra-dimensional magical Jewish wizard arranged for them to fall that way and then guided you there.

You conclude that out of the COUNTLESS number of sticks which have fallen since the beginning of time in every forest everywhere, it's not unusual at all to discover that two sticks have fallen at right angles to each other.

Further, if you do wish to invoke the magical powers of a Jewish Wizard, we insist that you provide us with an explanation as to who designed this Jewish Wizard. Was it a MORE Jewish wizard? Was it a MORE Wizardish Jew?

Certainly God is too complex to have just emerged from the natural state of chemistry. Clearly he must have been made by a more complex being... who in turn was created by an even more complex being... who in turn...

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#441 Feb 3, 2013
Defender wrote:
Can they interbreed? Can they mate and have offspring with a combination of the best traits of both "kinds?" Can their DNA be manipulated to create a hybrid amphibian/reptile?
Again, your lack of education is getting in the way of you asking a rational question.

This is sort of like trying to explain economics to a rooster.

I suggest you finish High School biology, then come back when you are better able to formulate a question.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#442 Feb 3, 2013
Defender wrote:
"Reptiles do have a more water tight skin and lay hard shelled eggs rather than soft shelled eggs but is that enough to make them a seperate kind?"
Can they interbreed? Can they mate and have offspring with a combination of the best traits of both "kinds?" Can their DNA be manipulated to create a hybrid amphibian/reptile?
I'm using a passage by an author who lived over 2,000 years ago; God made the wild animals according to their KINDS.
We can dispute the similarities in DNA lineages all day, but you must concede that there are different KINDS of animal life on earth.
Yes, there are different kinds of animals on the Earth. There are also different kinds of ice cream. So what? The word "kind" as used in the Bible does not have a working definition.

The sort of evolution that you seem to want to observe is going to take millions of years. There is only one place to observe it. You can see it in the fossil record. It is not a continuous movie, there are going to be huge gaps. That does not mean that you cannot see it occurring there.
Defender

New York, NY

#443 Feb 3, 2013
Nuggins, I am no scientist or even a college educated person. I am also, by no means, a Jew or Christian. I am a human and I have a human right to use logic and reason to evaluate the world around me. In doing so, I read as much as I can that science has to offer and I am open to the theologies that our species has contributed over the span of our existence. If my vocabulary isn't spot on, I apologize.

Yes, the gull example you have illustrated certainly DOES show two distinct species. But it does not show the drastic change from a bird into something brand new. The obvious point I'm making is very plain and simple, but you use slight of hand and complex intellectual jibberish to avoid it: A brand new KIND of life form may take a long time to evolve, but here in 2013, with the millions of organisms we have on earth, something RIGHT NOW should be crawling out of a modern day premordial soup and something else should be "waking up" with a higher consciousness such as ours. When you keep moving the cursor to wherever you want in time, you avoid answering the puzzling question at hand.

Walking one mile therefore means you can walk ten miles is rational. I agree with you. But you didn't respond to the second part of my remark. It's irrational to think that a non-conscious nature determines that flight is even a possibility, thereby adding wings to future organisms.

If I find two sticks that have fallen and created a 45 degree angle I certainly would not think an invisible god put them there for special little me to find. But in the scope of human consciousness, when someone like Albert Einstein discovers E=MC squared after having a lucid dream, then a logical, rational person must conclude that to discover intelligence embedded in our physical world must mean that intelligence PUT it there. And to have the kind of consciousness that can receive information while not even awake and processing information intentionally is evidence for a kind of external, invisible consciousness.

Stumbling upon two sticks forming a 45 degree angle that is insignificant to me? Random. Having a dream that tells me to go to a certain point in the forest where two sticks have fallen, forming a perfect 45 degree angle, while a ray of sunshine casts a spotlight on it and I return to my hut, inspired, and write down the world's first mathmatical formulation; that's something beyond explanation...and exactly what happens repeatedly in human existence.

I can assume you, Nuggins, are a scientist, which is why you can only think of a detached, wizard-like entity with magical powers that must have been created by someone else, and so forth. Why is it such an impossible theory that a conscious field exists and that all life is connected to that conscious field?
Defender

New York, NY

#444 Feb 3, 2013
"And the list of things that religion used to explain as magic which has now been replaced by science is endless."

Nuggins, the Bible, as I mentioned, was written to teach morality and the consequences of not answering to morality. I personally believe that the many authors of the Bible intentionally used magic in place of science to convey a sense of Holiness. Simply because the authors chose parables and fables that represent a conscious entity doesn't negate the existence of that entity.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#445 Feb 3, 2013
Defender wrote:
Religion provides a rather startling insight into the creatures of the natural world: And God said
So let me get this straight - you're criticizing science for allegedly lacking evidence, and for an alternative you propose invisible magic Jewish wizards?

Just so we're clear.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#446 Feb 3, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
You are asking for a modern day example of a new class being formed. This is extremely rare and often takes a great deal of time to fully take effect.
What? You're saying that he can't re-define speciation as total class transference?? You're mean!!!

He wants dog giving birth to a cat, damm you!!! And he wants it NOW!

>:-(
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#447 Feb 3, 2013
Defender wrote:
Nuggins, I am no scientist or even a college educated person.
Correct.
Defender wrote:
I am also, by no means, a Jew or Christian.
This has no bearing on reality so not sure why you would even bother to bring it up.

Unless of course that you, just like 99.9999999999999% of everyone else who rejects evolution, does so because you think Goddidit with magic.
Defender wrote:
I am a human and I have a human right to use logic and reason to evaluate the world around me.
Yes you do. Unfortunately so far you have rejected that right in its entirety.
Defender wrote:
In doing so, I read as much as I can that science has to offer and I am open to the theologies that our species has contributed over the span of our existence.
And this is precisely where your problem lies. Theology is irrelevant to reality, period.
Defender wrote:
If my vocabulary isn't spot on, I apologize.
And this is precisely your other problem. Well, one of a number of them at any rate. You claim to read as much as science has to offer, then go out of your way to completely ignore what science has to say about it. And you do this in at least two ways:

Your interest is primarily theologically based.

You misuse (either intentionally or unintentionally) the scientific terminology involved while making criticisms of science.

This can only lead to one thing - EPIC FAIL.
Defender

New York, NY

#448 Feb 3, 2013
No, The Dude. I'm asking why does science always say it happened "a long time ago" or "another significant event in evolution is thousands of years away." This is like saying I did my homework, but I don't have it with me right now. It existed last night. It exists right now, you just can't see it. And it will exist in the future even if I must redo it. How do you expect to get graded on a something you can't produce right now? I'm the teacher saying, "OK, if you did it, do it again. Right now. While I watch."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 57 min blacklagoon 3 81,867
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr ChromiuMan 164,308
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 14 hr Science 2,196
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 14 hr Science 33,086
Did humans come from Sturgeons? Oct 16 Science 1
Proof humans come from Tennessee Oct 16 Science 1
Science News (Sep '13) Oct 14 Science 4,005
More from around the web