How did God do it?

Originally posted by menace71
If millions of years then there should be more in the fossil record just by the fact of time.

Can you explain why you believe that?
How many fossils do you believe should exist and why? Do you know what the rates of fossilization are? ie do you know what percentage of living things that die become fossilized? What conditions are necessary for fossilization?
Roughly how many fossils do you believe there should be, and how many do you believe there actually are?

Originally posted by menace71
I also feel that the transitional species is a problem. What is the answer? If millions of years then there should be more in the fossil record just by the fact of time. I appreciate proper knobs example however at least it is evidence of a transitional species.

The late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould had an answer to this:

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

Basically, he argues that species remain static for most of their history (say, for millions of years), and then particular conditions lead them to evolve relatively quickly and dramatically (say, over tens of thousands of years) into new forms. This explains why, while there are transitional fossils, they are quite rare.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe the process to be true, given time life changes due to the forces applied
to it. The degree of change I have doubts about that many people just accept as
fact.
Kelly

One highly supported theory - a fact in common day parlance - that requires great change is endosymbiosis and was put forward largely by the great American biologist Lynn Margulis.

Briefly, the mitochondria, a.k.a. “the powerhouses of the cell" where energy (ATP) is generated in multi-cellular life forms, remarkably appears by a number of lines of independent evidence to be an engulfed bacterium. That a bacterium is resident in our cells generating energy for us from ingested foodstuffs is difficult to stack up with a single creation event and an "Adam and Eve"-type origin or alternative cosmogonies not incorporating great change over long periods of time.

If you accept change by either direct genetic events (mutation) or what is rarely mentioned epigenetic events (protein expression changes sans nucleotide sequence alterations) then the thing to remember is the length of time these events are occurring over. I do not think it easily within the "ken of men" to think about millions, let alone billions, of years and the change possible over these time periods can produce oddities like endocytosed bacterial “fossils” in humans.

http://science.jrank.org/pages/48745/Reticulate-Evolution.html

Originally posted by Teinosuke
This explains why, while there are transitional fossils, they are quite rare.

All fossils are 'transitional fossils' in general. It is a meaningless term in that sense. All species are in transitional all the time.
The only time the term has meaning is when we are talking about a major change such as sea to land, land to air or land to sea and we are asking about a species that shows partial adaptations to a new environment.
There are of course plenty examples of living animals that are such 'transitional species' ie they show partial adaptation to a different environment. There are many species that clearly evolved from water dwelling species but can survive partially (but not totally) on land.
There are plenty of species of land animals that can survive partially but not totally in the water.
There are plenty of birds that cannot fly and plenty of animals that can glide but have not developed full flight.
Whether any of the currently living things will eventually evolve into species that are fully adapted to a new environment remains to be seen.

Originally posted by menace71
I used to believe that God used (Classic evolution) to create life as we know it.I believed this to reconcile my belief in God and science. I however struggle with the concept that this happened over millions and millions of years. I also feel that the transitional species is a problem. What is the answer? If millions of years then there should be more in t ...[text shortened]... eciate proper knobs example however at least it is evidence of a transitional species.

Manny

Manny, you don't need to look at the fossil record, there are transitional forms alive on Earth today.

A penguin is an example of a transitional species alive today. It's a flightless bird, that has become highly adapt at living underwater, it's 'wings' have now become flippers. It spends half it's life in the water and half it's life on land, and it's a bird?

Flying squirrels, gliding possums and colugos are all mammals that can 'glide' in the air. Bats of course are mammals that can already fly. Flying fish can 'fly' over 400m/1,300ft.

Whales, dolphins and porpoises are all mammals that have adapted to the water. A hippo is their closest living relative, which incidentally spends most of it's life in the water, they do everything but eat whilst they are in the water.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Manny, you don't need to look at the fossil record, there are transitional forms alive on Earth today.

A penguin is an example of a transitional species alive today. It's a flightless bird, that has become highly adapt at living underwater, it's 'wings' have now become flippers. It spends half it's life in the water and half it's life on land, and it' ...[text shortened]... of it's life in the water, they do everything but eat whilst they are in the water.

A penguin is an example of a transitional species alive today. It's a flightless bird, that has become highly adapt at living underwater, it's 'wings' have now become flippers.
Kinda like a chicken.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]A penguin is an example of a transitional species alive today. It's a flightless bird, that has become highly adapt at living underwater, it's 'wings' have now become flippers.
Kinda like a chicken.[/b]

Not the chickens i've ever seen.

Originally posted by twhitehead
All fossils are 'transitional fossils' in general.

And all life too.

As an example: Humans are in between what we were and what we will be.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Kinda like a chicken.

Chickens can swim underwater?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Chickens can swim underwater?

What is the kids of a penguine called? Penguin chickens?
In that case - yes, chicken can swim underwater.

Speaking of chickens....

Originally posted by Proper Knob
So my questions -

Obviously i know the Biblical account of how human life allegedly came into existence, but how do creationists explain the gradual changes evident in the fossil record that seem to show evolution?

How come we (mankind) have catalogued 250,000 distinct different extinct species from the fossil record? Are we suppossing God incorr ...[text shortened]... at is taught on evolutionary biology courses at University level and above throughout the world?

I'm not a creationist, but I'll attempt an answer:

1. I'll assume a simple case of "gradual changes evident in the fossil record that seem to show evolution": Suppose we have fossils F(1), F(2), ..., F(n) such that F(2) is apparently newer than F(1) and shows only minor apparent physiological differences, F(3) is apparently newer than F(2) and so on. The modern biologist will automatically posit a corresponding sequence of species S(1), S(2),..., S(n). But what allows her to do so? What are the theoretical presumptions that allow one to go from F(1-n) to S(1-n)?

Obviously, the age of the earth is one such presumption. Another, would be whatever theoretical framework one assumes in dating fossils. A third yet, would be the presumed "truthfulness" of fossils (i.e. a fossil that apparently originated in a living being did actually do so). The creationist would challenge all of these.

2. Likewise, the question of God actually killing off 250,000 species can only be raised if we assume those species actually existed.

3. Lots of things have been taught in universities throughout history that we reject today. Lots of things taught in universities today will be rejected tomorrow.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I'm not a creationist, but I'll attempt an answer:

1. I'll assume a simple case of "gradual changes evident in the fossil record that seem to show evolution": Suppose we have fossils F(1), F(2), ..., F(n) such that F(2) is apparently newer than F(1) and shows only minor apparent physiological differences, F(3) is apparently newer than F(2) and so o t we reject today. Lots of things taught in universities today will be rejected tomorrow.

Hey LH, hope you're well! You've been missed here.

Most biologists don't automatically infer species sequences from fossil sequences. I thought such inferences were made only when ancillary evidence points to the reproductive isolation of the populations represented by F1, F2, etc. This is what they must do if they're using the Biological Species Concept (and this is the most commonly accepted definition of 'species'😉.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Haven’t you heard of “mutations”?

Mutations usually harm the species, not improve it.

Originally posted by bbarr
Hey LH, hope you're well! You've been missed here.

Thank you. I've missed it too (though probably to my benefit...)