Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.

I've added in parentheses what is excluded (for some reason) from the first half of the definition. Thus we can read the second half of the definition better as

quote:

---

According to evolutionary theory, a 'transitional form' is a description that is assumed to factually describe a fossil exibiting features assumed of it as described above

---

Now that's what I call a neutral definition.

That is better. The definition is tied in which the assumption that evolution occurs in the TOE sense. For a transitional fossil to exist evolution must be presumed to occur. If it wasn't then there would be no talk of "derived descendants". Thus it is not a scientific definition as such but an evolutionary science definition Had you worded it so..."So, Iano, do fossils exist that meet the criteria of the evolutionary scientific definition of transitional fossils. A simple yes or no eh?"..then I would have answered a hearty yes

And if evolution is assumed to happen then fossils exhibiting certain characteristics will be slotted in as transitional because the assumption demands that there be some.I dealing with the rather narrow issue of defining a transitional. And the definitions so far assume the traits to be transitional (derived descendent is the term used) which make the definitions evolutionist definitions not scientific ones. Razd quoted what was described as a neutral (read: scientific) definition when it most certainly is not.His complaint seems to be that opponants twist 'scientific definitions' whereas they are actually evolutionist definitions of fossils found. If it is as I see it then its a complaint that rings hollow. "You may oppose but you must assume our definitions to correctly describe the fossil found"Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.