Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
* Oldest snake fossil shows a bit of leg (Apr 20, 2006)
Scientists have found fossils of a legged snake with “hips” – a specimen that could be the most primitive snake ever unearthed. The find suggests early snakes were not creatures of the sea and has reignited the debate over how snakes evolved. Sebastián ApesteguĂa at the Argentine Museum of Natural History and his team found the snake fossil in a terrestrial deposit in the RĂo Negro province of north Patagonia, Argentina, in 2003.
Well, you don't have to go to the fossil record to see species evolving. Go to a dog show.
The breeding of dogs by humans into the mulitude of AKC recognized breeds is proof enough that species can be bred/mutated into different sized animals.
Except in nature, the breeder is the environment. Eskimos and species (e.g.the fox) who live in the far north are bred to suit their environment, as are humans and animal species from desert enivoronments (e.g. the desert fox).
The fossils of elephant-like mammoth species found in portions of mexico which were miniature versions of the mammoth are another example of fossil record. You really don't have to work hard to find simple examples of evolution.
Ok, now we have gone frome skulls to dogs. Yes, dogs have changed because of breeding. I believe in change within the species. That is not the same as to say man evoloved from apes. And we can't go to the (stone fossil) record, because it does not show us Evolution.
As far as a snake being found with hips as proof of evolution, I believe it is more proof for Biblical truth. The reason I say that, is because according to the Scriptures it appears that snakes my of walked up right at some point in the past. In Genesis Chapter 3, verse 14 God spoke to the snake which was the Devil, and he had just deceived Eve in the garden. And God told him. "Because thou hast done this, thou (art) cursed above every beast of the field; upon thy (belly) shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life". Now it appears science is suggesting that snakes my of walked, yet the Book of Genesis suggested this over 3,000 years ago.
I did not post that link to address the figurines, but merely to demonstrate what independent science is about. The site does address evolution in a scientific way, but I don't suppose you bothered to read it, since it does not fit your creationist agenda. Science is about discovery without bias, vested interest, or fitting theories to any agenda. You will never find an independent site that supports your theories, because creationism is not science, but myth.
If the creation story is a myth, why are so many other Biblical stories being varified historically?
Ok, now we have gone frome skulls to dogs. Yes, dogs have changed because of breeding. I believe in change within the species. That is not the same as to say man evoloved from apes. And we can't go to the (stone fossil) record, because it does not show us Evolution.
As far as a snake being found with hips as proof of evolution, I believe it is more proof for Biblical truth. The reason I say that, is because according to the Scriptures it appears that snakes my of walked up right at some point in the past. In Genesis Chapter 3, verse 14 God spoke to the snake which was the Devil, and he had just deceived Eve in the garden. And God told him. "Because thou hast done this, thou (art) cursed above every beast of the field; upon thy (belly) shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life". Now it appears science is suggesting that snakes my of walked, yet the Book of Genesis suggested this over 3,000 years ago.
Huh, Campbell?? I caught you lying again... Chapter 3, Verse 14... I can't find any mention of a snake in there... Now... There is mention of a serpent but that's hardly a fair taxonomic scientific description. Surely, if it were a snake, the writers of the Bible would have been divinely inspired to write "snake" instead of "serpent", right? So, let's not act like you're the primary authority on all things biblical and that the Bible is as accurate as you say it is. You've been put to shame on numerous threads prior to this one and now this one. You're fitting modern day scientific findings to what you want to believe and you're doing a poor job with your illusory mental fantasies.
So, cut the crap, Campbell. Stop trying to yank our chains and change topics. You still haven't answered what the stone fossil record is except with some red herring attempt to throw the conversation off topic. So, from here on out, before you bring it up, could you please explain to the crowd what this stone fossil record is? Because, quite honestly, so far you've done nothing but troll this forum with strawmen, red herrings, and completely falsifiable myths about "stone" fossil records. You continue to claim that fossils are not found in the "stone" fossil record, but to my knowledge, every fossil found is INDEED stone. So, for the last time, if you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the conversation other than blatant lies just quit while you're ahead before I report you for trolling because that's all you're doing now.
Woah... hold on a second. Let's not throw red herrings out here. Why do you always change the topic, Campbell? I asked you what you meant by the stone fossil record? So, you're the deciding authority on what is the stone fossil record (which is confusing in and of itself since all fossils are stones)??? How on Earth can you deduce that archaeoraptor would be part of the stone fossil record but something like the horse (which we have extensive amounts of fossils showing evolutionary progression) is not? It's just up to you? Well, that's the biggest load of B-S I've ever heard.
Campbell, just keep moving the goalposts. As far as archaeoraptor is concerned... I would like for you to explain to me how a fabrication of something disproves evolution through survival of the fittest based on natural selection. And, yes, by the way, you were given a list of about thirty different "transitionals" several pages ago and have yet to answer anything about them.
But, I'll throw one your way. How about Tiktaalik, Campbell? Let me guess... it's not "stony" enough for you?
And could you be kind enough to address my questions in the future with direct answers instead of topic changing comments?
Explain to me WHAT IS THE STONE FOSSIL RECORD that you claim?
I used the fake Archaeoraptor fossil as an example. Since there are no other true examples of a (stone) fossil showing us a true transional, I had to use a fake one from China as an example. The fact is, most Evolutionist forgot long ago that these are the kinds of fossils that should exist if Evolution were true.
I don't have a problem with horse evolution, because that is a fact, and we see it in breeding today. Change within the species is a fact. Yet changing from one species to another, is not.
The latest speculation of the Tiktaalic is based on imaginative interpretation of soft tissues. They used this same reasoning with the Coelacanth, which was a fish that Evolutionist stated was a true transional. At least they use to say that, until they found a live one swiming around.
I think you are overlooking the fact that man is a member of the ape family....Hairless yes, but ape none the less. So since we are a member of the same species and you admit change within a species I guess you are admitting that it is possible that man evolved along this line.
The seven remaining ape species are Gibbon, Gorilla, Bonobo, Chimpanzee, Urangutan , Siamang and Human
I used the fake Archaeoraptor fossil as an example. Since there are no other true examples of a (stone) fossil showing us a true transional, I had to use a fake one from China as an example. The fact is, most Evolutionist forgot long ago that these are the kinds of fossils that should exist if Evolution were true.
I don't have a problem with horse evolution, because that is a fact, and we see it in breeding today. Change within the species is a fact. Yet changing from one species to another, is not.
The latest speculation of the Tiktaalic is based on imaginative interpretation of soft tissues. They used this same reasoning with the Coelacanth, which was a fish that Evolutionist stated was a true transional. At least they use to say that, until they found a live one swiming around.
Campbell, again you have not answered my question as to what the stone fossile record is. You keep claiming that a stone fossil record would show transitional creatures as opposed to (what? The Regular Fossil Record?)
Campbell, each fossil we dig up is a phylogenetic snapshot of a current era and of what a particular creature looked like at a certain time. To put it in perspective, if thirty million years from now, man has perished, all of our records are gone, and nothing but our fossils remain, let's assume that another fantastically savvy, scientifically minded part of the animal kingdom begins to do its' research.
As it digs through all of the geological epochs it comes through the one we currently reside in. What would they find? Well, more than likely, they'd find us humans, probably dog bones like the german shepherd, poodle, chihuahua, etc... They'd probably also find our cousins' bones like the chimpanzee, orangutan, siamung, bonobo, etc... Perhaps they'd find some bird fossils and some other interesting things. Who knows?
It's really not much different than how we look at fossils that are thirty million years old. We might say that things like monkeys, bonobos, orangutans, siamangs and even humans are very close to one another. We wouldn't classify them as the same species though because they're biological makeup wouldn't be the same. Yet, as our imaginary futuristic paleontologists dig further down through the epochs of geological time they would eventually come across things like A. Afaransis (Lucy) in which there shows a clear divergence of we humans from the chimpanzee and orangutans and other furry cousins of ours. No one in this futuristic part of the world would really think much of us other than being a part of the fossil record.
My point in all of this, Campbell, is that EVERY species is a transitional species. You, I, your dog, my dog, a wolf, a bear, a chicken, a hawk. They're all intermediates. Evolution is a continuous process. It's not like a carton of cream in which you might get half and half. The findings of fossils such as archaeoptyrex (not to be confused with archaeoraptor) are important because it gives us a portrayal of what dinosaurs looked like as they slowly evolved into feathered animals. No one suggests that a dinosaur gave birth to a half feathered/half reptilian creature. The mere suggestion of that is ludicrous simply for the fact that the genetic limiting factors would inhibit that offspring from mating.
Rather, just as dogs, chickens, cows, and tigers are all separate species of animals... Animals like archaeoptyrex and tiktaalik are good ideas of a current moment in evolutionary history. They were more than likely abundant. They were probably very common to see in some places and they were "fit" enough to survive and pass on their genetics to the next of kin (which would also be an intermediate).
Where I think you're making the big mistake, Campbell, is trying to say that we should find animals that are mixed together like Kirk Cameron's picture of the dog-bird. It's a ridiculous notion that no one in the evolution community tries to portray. Yet, there is hope in all of this. The beauty of science is that it can make predictions and based on the abundance of data it can make predictions such as "We hypothesize that birds evolved from dinosaurs." The wonder of it is that it CAN be falsified. We could dig up a fossil of an archaeo-shark and stare in awe (although that wouldn't make sense it would still disprove our theory). What science finds is that through mitochondrial DNA alone we can actually compare our ancestry to those animals currently around us. We can, YES WE CAN, actually compare how close we our to an ear of corn or to an earthworm based on mitochondrial DNA alone!!!! The fossil record just goes on to support the theory of evolution. It is not a necessity but it is a wonderful supporting tool to have. So, even though there may be gaps in the fossil record (and I would be more concerned if there weren't because that would mean every single living organism fossilized) the fossil record is not of utmost necessity.
Finally, to hone in on that point a little more... Darwin himself stated (with much fewer fossils at his hand and without prior knowledge of DNA) that we should find transitional fossils in the fossil record if his theory is correct. And, Campbell, we do. We really do. Tiktaalik, Archaeoptyrex, and the massive list that you were given several pages back are all transitionals that science has predicted should and could exist. We're finding them, we don't necessarily need them, but it's just another torpedo slamming into the hull of your sinking argument.
Huh, Campbell?? I caught you lying again... Chapter 3, Verse 14... I can't find any mention of a snake in there... Now... There is mention of a serpent but that's hardly a fair taxonomic scientific description. Surely, if it were a snake, the writers of the Bible would have been divinely inspired to write "snake" instead of "serpent", right? So, let's not act like you're the primary authority on all things biblical and that the Bible is as accurate as you say it is. You've been put to shame on numerous threads prior to this one and now this one. You're fitting modern day scientific findings to what you want to believe and you're doing a poor job with your illusory mental fantasies.
So, cut the crap, Campbell. Stop trying to yank our chains and change topics. You still haven't answered what the stone fossil record is except with some red herring attempt to throw the conversation off topic. So, from here on out, before you bring it up, could you please explain to the crowd what this stone fossil record is? Because, quite honestly, so far you've done nothing but troll this forum with strawmen, red herrings, and completely falsifiable myths about "stone" fossil records. You continue to claim that fossils are not found in the "stone" fossil record, but to my knowledge, every fossil found is INDEED stone. So, for the last time, if you don't have anything worthwhile to contribute to the conversation other than blatant lies just quit while you're ahead before I report you for trolling because that's all you're doing now.
I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I was not lying, the actual word in the Hebrew is "NACHASH" which means (snake). Now serpent is a word that has been used in more modern times and translations, and no one has complained about it's use, at least not until it brushed the nerve of an Evolutionist.
My claim is that no (TRANSIONAL FOSSILS) have been found in the (stone fossil record). My claim is that we do not see (TWO OBVIOUS SPECIES) that all can agree on as (two species that are merging into one). And the only fossils that come close to a true transional that we could see such a display, turned out to be fakes from china. And that was the example I gave you. Can you show me a fossil that we can see a clear transition of two species? You will show me a fossil you will say is a transional, I say it is an extincted species. And it requires a great deal of imigination to draw the conclusion that your fossils are transonals. Millions of years, and tens of thousands of fossils, and we can't even see ONE OBVIOUS TRANSIONAL FOSSIL that we all can agree on. To believe what you believe, requires a real jump of faith. I do not have all the evidence for my personal beliefs. Yet I have to tell you, I have far more evidence for those beliefs, than you have for your belief in Evolution. CHINESE FOSSILS
I think you are overlooking the fact that man is a member of the ape family....Hairless yes, but ape none the less. So since we are a member of the same species and you admit change within a species I guess you are admitting that it is possible that man evolved along this line.
The seven remaining ape species are Gibbon, Gorilla, Bonobo, Chimpanzee, Urangutan , Siamang and Human
Perhaps science considers apes as part of our species, yet apes are not human, and I see nothing in science that should lead us to believe we evoloved from them. Human DNA and Ape DNA is incompatible.
Campbell, again you have not answered my question as to what the stone fossile record is. You keep claiming that a stone fossil record would show transitional creatures as opposed to (what? The Regular Fossil Record?)
Campbell, each fossil we dig up is a phylogenetic snapshot of a current era and of what a particular creature looked like at a certain time. To put it in perspective, if thirty million years from now, man has perished, all of our records are gone, and nothing but our fossils remain, let's assume that another fantastically savvy, scientifically minded part of the animal kingdom begins to do its' research.
As it digs through all of the geological epochs it comes through the one we currently reside in. What would they find? Well, more than likely, they'd find us humans, probably dog bones like the german shepherd, poodle, chihuahua, etc... They'd probably also find our cousins' bones like the chimpanzee, orangutan, siamung, bonobo, etc... Perhaps they'd find some bird fossils and some other interesting things. Who knows?
It's really not much different than how we look at fossils that are thirty million years old. We might say that things like monkeys, bonobos, orangutans, siamangs and even humans are very close to one another. We wouldn't classify them as the same species though because they're biological makeup wouldn't be the same. Yet, as our imaginary futuristic paleontologists dig further down through the epochs of geological time they would eventually come across things like A. Afaransis (Lucy) in which there shows a clear divergence of we humans from the chimpanzee and orangutans and other furry cousins of ours. No one in this futuristic part of the world would really think much of us other than being a part of the fossil record.
My point in all of this, Campbell, is that EVERY species is a transitional species. You, I, your dog, my dog, a wolf, a bear, a chicken, a hawk. They're all intermediates. Evolution is a continuous process. It's not like a carton of cream in which you might get half and half. The findings of fossils such as archaeoptyrex (not to be confused with archaeoraptor) are important because it gives us a portrayal of what dinosaurs looked like as they slowly evolved into feathered animals. No one suggests that a dinosaur gave birth to a half feathered/half reptilian creature. The mere suggestion of that is ludicrous simply for the fact that the genetic limiting factors would inhibit that offspring from mating.
Rather, just as dogs, chickens, cows, and tigers are all separate species of animals... Animals like archaeoptyrex and tiktaalik are good ideas of a current moment in evolutionary history. They were more than likely abundant. They were probably very common to see in some places and they were "fit" enough to survive and pass on their genetics to the next of kin (which would also be an intermediate).
Where I think you're making the big mistake, Campbell, is trying to say that we should find animals that are mixed together like Kirk Cameron's picture of the dog-bird. It's a ridiculous notion that no one in the evolution community tries to portray. Yet, there is hope in all of this. The beauty of science is that it can make predictions and based on the abundance of data it can make predictions such as "We hypothesize that birds evolved from dinosaurs." The wonder of it is that it CAN be falsified. We could dig up a fossil of an archaeo-shark and stare in awe (although that wouldn't make sense it would still disprove our theory). What science finds is that through mitochondrial DNA alone we can actually compare our ancestry to those animals currently around us. We can, YES WE CAN, actually compare how close we our to an ear of corn or to an earthworm based on mitochondrial DNA alone!!!! The fossil record just goes on to support the theory of evolution. It is not a necessity but it is a wonderful supporting tool to have. So, even though there may be gaps in the fossil record (and I would be more concerned if there weren't because that would mean every single living organism fossilized) the fossil record is not of utmost necessity.
Finally, to hone in on that point a little more... Darwin himself stated (with much fewer fossils at his hand and without prior knowledge of DNA) that we should find transitional fossils in the fossil record if his theory is correct. And, Campbell, we do. We really do. Tiktaalik, Archaeoptyrex, and the massive list that you were given several pages back are all transitionals that science has predicted should and could exist. We're finding them, we don't necessarily need them, but it's just another torpedo slamming into the hull of your sinking argument.
Your belief that every animal is a transional is just a belief. It is not a fact. And that is the problem with Evolution. A Theory taught as fact by some, yet more myth than science. You say Dinosaurs evoloved into feathered animals. What do you base that on? The fossils you named such as
Tiktaalik, Archaeoptyrex. You call them Transionals, based on what? Do you have any idea how many times Evolutionist have called different species transionals only to be proven wrong time and time again. And now we have a whole new list. How many times do they have to lie to you before you say enought is enought? And the fossil record cannot be used to support evolution, because it does not show evolution. Your fossil Evolution is based on imignation, not evidence presented. And you say no one in the fossil community would try to portray animals mixed together. That not true, for when they thought they had a real transional it was splashed all over the pages of National Geographic. It's going to take a lot more than your imagination and fake fossils to torpedo my arguements.
Perhaps science considers apes as part of our species, yet apes are not human, and I see nothing in science that should lead us to believe we evoloved from them. Human DNA and Ape DNA is incompatible.
Isn't it a fact that human DNA is more than 90% compatible with other apes?
DNA strands are nothing more than the building blocks of living species, denying that living creatures have DNA in common is claiming that man is god because no other animal is exactly like us humans. Then again what a dog is to a human, a human probably is to a god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then again what a dog is to a human, a human probably is to a god.