News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

This is an update to a previous post by Bex and the bat fossils and transitions.

Strangely scientists don't give much thought to what the public thinks, nor are they much concerned with inventing scenarios for public consumption. All they are concerned with is what the evidence shows.

Curiously genetics is now showing bats are not necessarily descended from Nyctitheriidae as they suggested earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat

Looks like another round of scientific revision is in order due to new evidence ...

I bring you this information for your use, and to show you that I am not trying to confuse or misrepresent the evidence.

Listing several hundreds\thousands\millions of different transitionals is not meant to be confusing, nor does not mean that we have transitionals for every stage of every development of every life form. What we have are enough to show that transition from one life form to another life form has occurred.

The typical (creationist/CTD's/your) listing of specific instances where we do NOT have transitional fossils between specific life forms does not in any way show that transition does not occur, all it shows is that you are ignoring the plentiful, profound and pervasive evidence of transitionals that do exist.

Saying there is no bat transition between 65 million years ago and 52 million years ago ignores that the 52 million year old fossils are different in significant ways from modern bats, ways that show they are intermediate between some non-flying mammal insectivore ancestor and modern bats

Abstract: Primitive Early Eocene bat from Wyoming and the evolution of flight and echolocation
Nature 451, 818-821 (14 February 2008)
doi:10.1038/nature06549;

bold color for emPHAsis.

So we have a bat ancestor that is capable of quadrapedal locomotion as well as tree climbing ability, and the flight pattern is not fully developed.

Here is a graphic from the actual article:


Notice that the fossil is intermediate in characteristics between non-flying mammals (in general) and bats (in general), ie it is transitional by Darwin's definition.

Modern bats have evolved since the first fossils known of bat ancestors, and when older bats are found we will know more about bat evolution - until then we can make some educated hypothesis, but that is all they are. Was there a common ancestry between sloths and bats? Or is branch hanging a just a similar behavior? Time will tell.

Well, that would be because we are talking about evolution, not "RussTolution" or "CTDilution" or "Bexolution" ... or what we can better call "Creolution" as they are all misinformed views based on common creationist arguments, misinformation and misconceptions. That way we don't slander any individuals here. The purpose is to inform and to correct the misinformation, misconceptions and misrepresentations.

In evolution all "fit" organisms - the ones that have the ability to survive and reproduce - are, by definition, fully formed organisms.

Individuals do not evolve. They develop from embryos to adults based on the hereditary traits they inherited and the mutations they have, and the relative success they have in survival and breeding will determine whether their hereditary traits are passed on to the next generation and how often. Those that breed more often will contribute more to the hereditary traits of the next generation in the population than those that don't. Those that survive and breed will be fully formed organisms.

Populations evolve. They evolve by the process of succession: some organism die, some reproduce, and the young organisms that reach the age of reproduction become the next generation. No two individual organisms are identical, they all have different mixes of hereditary traits from their parents, and they all have new mutations, and thus some will be relatively better at survival and breeding than others. Those that survive and breed will be fully formed, fully functioning organisms.

The populations change from generation to generation due to the succession of hereditary traits in the organisms that survive and breed based on their individual mixture of hereditary traits and the constraints of the ecosystem they live in. Those that survive and breed will be fully formed, fully functioning organisms.

If the ecosystem is static for long periods of time, then the adaptation to that ecosystem will be fairly similar within each generation, but if the ecosystem changes or the population branches out into a new ecosystem, then the effect of that new ecosystem will alter which individuals are better at survival and breeding in the new ecosystem, and different sub-populations will arise with different sets of hereditary traits. Those that survive and breed will be fully formed, fully functioning organisms.

If the different hereditary traits are not shared by breeding between subpopulations, then they are free to change further in response to the different ecologies. Over time this can result in different populations that no longer interbreed when the opportunity exists because they do not recognize the others as mates. Thus two populations descended from a common ancestor population have become different - they have diversified. In each new population, those that survive and breed will be fully formed, fully functioning organisms.

Both show hereditary traits in common with the ancestor population plus new traits. Both show hereditary traits in common with each other plus new traits. Both show transition from the ancestral population to their new population, with different sets of shared traits with the ancestral population. In each new population, those that survive and breed will be fully formed, fully functioning organisms.

The transition from ancestral population to daughter population will be shown by the hereditary traits in each of the individual organisms in each generation as one generation follows the one before and gives rise to the one after: the succession of generations of populations of individual organisms that are all in a transitional lineage between the ancestral population and the new daughter populations. Each individual organism will be a transitional organism, and those that survive and breed will be fully formed, fully functioning organisms.

All transitional organisms will be fully formed fully functioning organisms fully adapted to the ecosystem they live in.

What you do not see is "Creolutionist" transition ... because creolution does not occur. Don't forget to move the goalposts.

Again, what you see is the succession of generation after generation of similar but different organisms in population lineages, and those generations all have organisms that survive and breed based on their hereditary traits and the relative abilities they convey, and those that survive and breed are all fully formed, fully functioning organisms. Each of those organisms will be a member of the population species.

Only creolution suggests that something else happens at a population\species level. Only creolution says that there are half-formed chimera organisms caught in the middle of bodily transforming from one "kind" to another.

What is a "kind" (the perennial question asked whenever the term is used - words need definitions to mean anything other than noise)? Is a cat a different "kind" of animal from a fox?

Can you list all the differences between a cat and a fox? Can you list all the similarities? Is the amount or degree of difference more or less than the variation we see within dogs?

Can you list all the differences between a human and a chimp? Can you list all the similarities? Is the amount or degree of difference more or less than the variation we see within dogs?

The questions really, are (a) how much change are you expecting to see? and (b) over what time frame? Perhaps your expectations are mistaken, being based on misinformation.

Birds have feathered wings. Until a few years ago the only feathered fossils we had were of archeopteryx and later fossils with fully formed fully functioning wings with feathers. Now we have a multitude of fossils of dinosaurs with feathers that pre-date archeopteryx and show a clear lineage of feathers first, then adaptation of feathered limbs to flight. Each fossil is a fully formed, fully functioning organism that belongs to a specific population\species of fully formed, fully functioning organisms. Each population shows change in hereditary traits in their individual populations as they go through the succession of generation to generation, where all the organisms that survive and breed are fully formed, fully functioning individuals.

The more generations pass, the greater is the opportunity for more change to accumulate in a population through the succession of generations of intermediate forms.

Onychonycteris finney demonstrates the kind of change you will see in the fossil record - not in the fossil, but in comparison to other fossils and to modern living bats.

Enjoy.

This post you made is a perfect example of information that is emotionally based.

Why?

Because, when you read it, it feels like you've really said something. It feels as if you've really presented some evidence to support your position.

But...

When you look at the information with your intellect, it becomes clear that there is NO evidence here and NO information that supports the existence of transitional forms.

NONE.

People who covet the apparent emotional benefits of evolution are blinded so much, that they imagine the process of sacles turning into feathers or fins turning into feet.

Anyone using true discerning intellect the amazing complexity involved in the myth of one form turning into another. Feathers are very complex. Feet and hands and arms are complex. Most of all, they are symmetrical, and no reasonable explanation of symmetry has ever been produced by fanatical evolution theorists.

Intelligent and reasonable people not coveting a religion such as evolution (it's a religion because it's unobserved and requires faith and speculation) clearly see the absurdity in these outright silly ideas that claim that scales turn into feathers or fins turn into feet.

Intelligent and reasonable people understand the sheer complexity involved in such a mythical process and they realize that design as such, requires a Designer.

Again, I urge people reading this previous post to attempt to pick out evidence from it. You will, in fact, only find speculation, fabrication, and imagination: The three pillars of the evolution religion.

Please explain specifically why you disagree with any of the information RAZD has presented, and what your evidence is for this. Thanks.

I second your request Linda. I doubt that this will occur because Russ apparantly believes that his mere opposition to what RAZD wrote is evidence enough.

(1) Math.

(Search for my post on the mathematical absurdity of evolution.)

(2) Logic.

As I said, RAZD's post is filled with assumptions and suppositions.

(3) Fossils.

Furthermore, the idea that, let's say, scales turned into feathers is absurd, and we have no record of this happening.

This kind of change is HUGE, ENORMOUS, EXTREMELY COMPLEX, but those with religious fervor for evolution belittle the complexity.

I think we can all agree that a creature with scales didn't give birth to a creature with feathers (hopefully) (even though the evolution spin doctors did attempt to pass this one off, but it was so obviously ridiculous to the populace, that they rescinded.)

So, let's ask ourselves, where are these intermediates?

(4) DNA

DNA is necessary for a cell to form and function.

So, where did this original DNA come from? How did this immensely complex, highly-formed, information-containing molecule come into being?

It looks that way because he really did present evidence.

I did look at what he presented and now feel insulted by you in that you are saying I don't use my intellect. Are you calling me stupid? You have already stated that you believe I am lying about my Christianity. Untrue....I am not lying. So you have slandered me.

Then show his evidence to be false instead of just saying so.

This looks like emotional appeal right here. No evidence just a turn of phrase to make evolution look ridiculous. What are these extremely pleasing emotional benefits to believing evolution? Just one would be good enough for me as long as you can:
1. Show that it is a part of the theory.
2. Show that the coveting by these people has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falseness of evolution.

BTW: I am not a coveteous person and your saying that I am is slander.

Except HOX genes which you just ignored. Oh! Sorry, you didn't ignore that. You had a reply that, if boiled down to a few words, could be stated as: "Nuh uh!"


Now I'm apparantly unreasonable, unintelligent and an apostate as well as coveteous. More slander. I'm beginning to feel really insulted here.

Who was it that said "Those who cannot meet an discussion with facts will resort to character assasination"? Maybe that's not an exact quote.

I agree that a Designer did cause this to happen. He set up the process so that life and man would result. Unfortunately, I have no proof of this and must take that part on faith. The rest does not require faith.

A few simple questions: How do you measure complexity?
What are the units of measure for complexity?
At what measured level of complexity can can we conclude that natural processes could not have been the cause of the complexity?


I did look in your post but I only found speculation and imagination. I don't think there is fabrication because I take it that you believe what you are writing. However, I don't see how the things you wrote are a part of an evolution religion.

Oh! You meant those things were parts of RAZD's post....Sorry.

I don't see those in RAZD's post.

I'm sorry LinearAQ. I'm not sure where you're coming from.

You claim to be a Christian but you tear apart the integrity of the Bible and believe in evolution, a religion that is mutually exclusive with the Bible, except that you've accepted the "new" evolution twist claiming that it is only natural selection, and you claim that IT is NOT contradictory to the Bible.

OK. We'll get back to that.

I never received an answer from you on this previous question:

QUESTION: If the Bible is unreliable (as you said), then how can you believe that Christ is who He said He was? What is your basis for evidence supporting Christ's claim?

I'll be watching for your answer.

Thanks in advance.

Know that I don't mean to offend you. I only have found that you seem to contradict yourself and this has—understandably—cast doubt on your integrity, which should be expected in this circumstance.

If you can provide a logical answer for the above question, perhaps this will enable me to know that you are being honest about who you are. Remember, it was YOU who originally stated that you had misrepresented yourself.

Moderator's Note: Reynard the Fox is Russell2 and is another user that has been banned attempting to get access to the system again.


Greetings!

As a newcomer to the forum I've found myself zigzagging through many of the different threads and topics. This one caught my eye but there's so much being discussed and so many different points being raised that I didn't know where to jump in. Anyway, I'll just take the plunge with the last thing I read which caught my eye, and that is this:



The above remark seems to be implying that anyone who does not believe the bible is 100% accurate is not really a Christian. Most of the Christians I know don't see stories in the bible as all entirely factual events, they see many of them as noteworthy fables designed to teach the lessons of their belief system. All belief systems and religions are full of schisms, that's only natural when we as humans come from varied backgrounds and different points of reference. I don't think it's entirely fair to say that all other versions of a single faith are invalid.

I'm not a Christian personally but if I were one I don't believe I would say that the evidence supporting Christ's claim is in a translated text thousands of years old. If the claim were a true one it would have to be something we can witness in the world around us, not merely in words written long ago. I think most Christians or believers of any religion find evidence for their faith in the world around them, in the physical realm and outside of scripture. I think that's how faith is experienced: through being alive. To me, that is how one's god or gods touch you, and being touched so is where most believers say the evidence lies. From this standpoint, I see scripture as merely one aspect of a religion, not the end all be all of it.

On an unrelated note, it would be fun to see the topic of this thread tossed around a bit more. It was the title which caught my eye most and as someone who knows little about bat evolution I find it fascinating to read. Suggested reading sources anyone? Thanks!

None of these questions will be answered by me in this thread because it is about bat evolution and the evidence thereof. If you wish to start another thread or put it in an existing thread that is at least tangentially related to your questions, then I will address them.

If you do so, please notify me in whatever means is most convenient for you. That way I can give your requests my immediate attention.

This is stuff you have posted before. What happened to addressing the evidence that RAZD supplied? If you know it is in error then provide us, "the uneducated masses", with the evidence you know about that shows RAZD to be wrong.

This repetition of the same-ole same-ole looks like a distraction instead of an addressing of the issues at hand. Didn't you say that people who use distraction are usually trying to foist a deception on everyone else and have no evidence supporting that deception?

LinearAQ: If you want to answer the questions in another thread, that's fine. I'll be waiting.

About RAZD's post, as I said, there is no evidence in it. If you can find some information that you think is evidence in hist post, respond to me here and I'll address it.

He gave detailed information about why the fossil bat recently found in Wyoming is classed as a transitional, and where it appears on the phylogenetic tree. I guess you missed that.

I think there's actually good reason to lock this particular thread, since RAZD is conveniently not here to rebut what is said, and none of us here are experts on bats.

The bat is not a transition but just another false claim made by the religious fundamentalists evolutionists.

Why?

In short, because you cannot have a subsystem built by mutation. The problems with that are:

(1) Irreducible Complexity and
(2) The Law of Decreasing Generality

Response here:
Positively Ridiculous


OK, so I'll now lock this thread as you requested.