"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!!!"???

[CrowCross]

Tiktaalik being a transitional ....the evos have,

View attachment 389

 

[TB2]

These trackways are a remarkable find but tracks are not particularly unusual in the fossil record. Thousands of trackways of land animals have been found in many different locations all over the world. What has captured world attention is that that these tracks are dated (using evolutionary assumptions) at 397 million years, which makes them fully 18 million years older than Tiktaalik (again, by evolutionary thinking). If four-legged animals existed 18 million years earlier, then Tiktaalik can’t be the transitional fossil it has been claimed to be. (ref)

View attachment 387

This shows this chart to be ....wrong.

View attachment 388

Don't believe the lie.

More evidence of YEC misrepresentation and selective cherry picking instead of looking at the totality of the scientific research. Like this peer reviewed publication on the above tracks you mention.

Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints​

Spencer G Lucas
Ichnos 22 (3-4), 136-154, 2015
Devonian tetrapod tracks and trackways can be recognized by three criteria: morphology of the manus and pes impressions that matches known Devonian tetrapod skeletal morphology, manus smaller than pes, and the alternating trackway pattern that results from lateral sequence walking in quadrupedal tetrapod locomotion. The first reported Devonian tetrapod track, named Thinopus antiquus, from Pennsylvania, is not a tetrapod track and is likely an impression of a fish coprolite(s). A critical review of the published Devonian track record indicates only three can be verified as produced by a tetrapod trackmaker—Genoa River, Australia; Easter Ross, Scotland; and Valentia Island, Ireland. The supposed tetrapod tracks from the Middle Devonian of the Zachełmie quarry, Poland, fail the criteria for identification as Devonian tetrapod tracks. Indeed, no convincing case has been made that the Zachełmie structures are tetrapod tracks. Instead, they are reinterpreted as fish nests/feeding traces (ichnogenus Piscichnus). The oldest Devonian tetrapod trackway is Givetian and this is the oldest record of a tetrapod, but the sparse record of Devonian tetrapod tracks is of no other biostratigraphic and little paleobiogeographic significance. Bona fide Devonian tetrapod tracks are from nonmarine facies, so they do not support a marginal marine origin of tetrapods. They indicate lateral sequence walking and pelvic-limb-propelled, fully terrestrial (subaerial) locomotion in freshwater environments by at least some Devonian tetrapods.

But even if they were tetrapod tracks it doesn't negate the fossil evidence. It is well known that the vertebrate record is notoriously incomplete compared to marine invertebrates, which are the most well represented. ~97% of the fossil record is benthic marine invertebrates.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

The fossil record really only affords two options:

(1) Evolution (by nature and/or intelligent design); or

(2) "Progressive Creation"

And since I'm a "Gap theoryist" which allows for any number of CREATIONS in this dirt ball BEFORE the present Adamic creation, I'll go with "Progressive Creation" as the correct option. AND of course, since "Micro-evolution" (Variation in species due to environmental effects) is an observable FACT, I've got no problem with that. It's MACRO-Evolution (changing from one species into another) that I don't go along with.

 

[TB2]

Do you deny that over the past 100 years increasingly more fossils have been discovered with intermediate traits between fish and tetrapod?

'THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And then, of course, more discoveries were made, but for whatever reason these weren't good enough, so YECs still say:

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And then more discoveries were made...

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

And still more discoveries were made (like the discovery of Tiktaalik in 2006)....

"THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS!"

 

[TB2]

And since I'm a "Gap theoryist" which allows for any number of CREATIONS in this dirt ball BEFORE the present Adamic creation, I'll go with "Progressive Creation" as the correct option. AND of course, since "Micro-evolution" (Variation in species due to environmental effects) is an observable FACT, I've got no problem with that. It's MACRO-Evolution (changing from one species into another) that I don't go along with.

We have observational and experimental evidence of speciation, have observed speciation, and observed instantaneous speciation in real-time

 

[Bob Carabbio]

We have observational and experimental evidence of speciation, have observed speciation, and observed instantaneous speciation in real-time

Good for you. The "Gap Theory" makes room for all of that nicely. I'll find out later what really happened.

 

[TB2]

Good for you. The "Gap Theory" makes room for all of that nicely. I'll find out later what really happened.

It's neither good nor bad, but simply a statement of the evidence.

And based on the sum total paleontological evidence, you are correct to the extent that if the fossil record isn't explained by evolution, then progressive creationism is the only creationist theory that could possibly account for the fossil record data.

Although progeessive creationism does raise theological questions about a series of separate independent creation events with intervening extinctions.

 

[CrowCross]

More evidence of YEC misrepresentation and selective cherry picking instead of looking at the totality of the scientific research. Like this peer reviewed publication on the above tracks you mention.

Thinopus and a Critical Review of Devonian Tetrapod Footprints​

Spencer G Lucas
Ichnos 22 (3-4), 136-154, 2015
Devonian tetrapod tracks and trackways can be recognized by three criteria: morphology of the manus and pes impressions that matches known Devonian tetrapod skeletal morphology, manus smaller than pes, and the alternating trackway pattern that results from lateral sequence walking in quadrupedal tetrapod locomotion. The first reported Devonian tetrapod track, named Thinopus antiquus, from Pennsylvania, is not a tetrapod track and is likely an impression of a fish coprolite(s). A critical review of the published Devonian track record indicates only three can be verified as produced by a tetrapod trackmaker—Genoa River, Australia; Easter Ross, Scotland; and Valentia Island, Ireland. The supposed tetrapod tracks from the Middle Devonian of the Zachełmie quarry, Poland, fail the criteria for identification as Devonian tetrapod tracks. Indeed, no convincing case has been made that the Zachełmie structures are tetrapod tracks. Instead, they are reinterpreted as fish nests/feeding traces (ichnogenus Piscichnus). The oldest Devonian tetrapod trackway is Givetian and this is the oldest record of a tetrapod, but the sparse record of Devonian tetrapod tracks is of no other biostratigraphic and little paleobiogeographic significance. Bona fide Devonian tetrapod tracks are from nonmarine facies, so they do not support a marginal marine origin of tetrapods. They indicate lateral sequence walking and pelvic-limb-propelled, fully terrestrial (subaerial) locomotion in freshwater environments by at least some Devonian tetrapods.

But even if they were tetrapod tracks it doesn't negate the fossil evidence. It is well known that the vertebrate record is notoriously incomplete compared to marine invertebrates, which are the most well represented. ~97% of the fossil record is benthic marine invertebrates.

You evos are always playing with track ways...
The claim is the following was made by one of Lucy's kin.

Imagine that...Here's Lucy....and as you see the feet were made up.
View attachment 392

 

[CrowCross]

More on Lucy...

Here's what they found...
View attachment 393

...and adding plaster of Paris...and tons of biased imagination and speculation...they came up with this!!!

View attachment 394

SEE HOW EVO-ISM WORKS? Just keep in the narrative.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

It's neither good nor bad, but simply a statement of the evidence.

And based on the sum total paleontological evidence, you are correct to the extent that if the fossil record isn't explained by evolution, then progressive creationism is the only creationist theory that could possibly account for the fossil record data.

Although progeessive creationism does raise theological questions about a series of separate independent creation events with intervening extinctions.

The words "Without Form, and Void" (Tohu, and Bohu), everytime they appear together in the Bible, speak of desolation caused by God's Judgement. BUT HEY!!!! it's only "Theology" after all. All God's Chilluns gots "Theologies".

 

[TB2]

The words "Without Form, and Void" (Tohu, and Bohu), everytime they appear together in the Bible, speak of desolation caused by God's Judgement. BUT HEY!!!! it's only "Theolo

gy" after all. All God's Chilluns gots "Theologies".

While exegesis is imperfect I think we can make much headway by doing our best to interpret the Bible in its proper historical context. In the case of Genesis 1, the Ancient Near East (ANE) context. Tohu waw bohu seems to relate to Egyptian words and Genesis 1 seems a refutation of Egyptian pagan creation myths

See, "Scientific Concordism vs Divine Accommodation"