scientific theories taught as factual

Look at a 1914 Model T, a 1928 Model A, a 1958 Fairlane and a 1990 Taurus.The Model A still had mechanical brakes, but it got rid of the weird Model T transmission. The Fairlane kept the Model A transmission but had hydraulic brakes. The Taurus kept the Fairlane brakes but had an automatic transmission.Are you saying that the Model A and Fairlane weren't transitional?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

Intelligence is irrelevant. The point is that you've made up a phoney-baloney definition of "transitional" to suit your own purpose. A transition is a transition regardless of how it developed. And transitionals are fully developed.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

So there's an obvious barrier to prevent walking to the moon. Now show us the barrier that prevents small steps adding up to big evolution.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

You could try reading his response in Message 68. So what? We're following lines of ancestry here. If your grandmother didn't have any Polynesian descendents or Norwegian descendants, does that mean your father wasn't a transitional between her and you?And how about answering the question I asked you? Where's the barrier to macroevolution?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

So what's the difference between one generation and ten generations, or a hundred generations, or a thousand generations? Where's the barrier between Lucy and you? What prevents those one-generation changes from adding up?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

I'm asking you where's the barrier that prevents Lucy (or something like her) from becoming human after many generations.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

I don't know what the consensus is on whether or not Lucy is a direct ancestor of humans but it doesn't matter in the least. We are, in fact, talking about "something like her".It doesn't make any difference whether Lucy is your great, great, great... grandmother or your great, great, great, great... aunt whose line became extinct. We're interested in the number of generations (all of which are transitional). And I've asked you repeatedly, where is the barrier that prevents a hominid contemporary to Lucy from micro-evolving into you?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

You're the one who compared, in Message 73, evolving from a single-celled life form to walking to the moon. I pointed out that there's an obvious barrier to walking to the moon, two hundred thousand miles or so of empty space. I've just been asking you to back up your comparison by showing us an obvious barrier to evolution.You're the one who brought up Lucy in Message 88. I don't care if you point out a barrier between the single-celled life form and Lucy or between Lucy and you. I'm just asking you to back up your comparison.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

I already did point it out, and you even quoted me:

quote:

---

You're the one who compared, in Message 73, evolving from a single-celled life form to walking to the moon.

---

Message 73:

quote:

---

I know this sounds stupid. But to tell me I evolved from a single cell life form that no one knows where it came from to get on the planet earth that no one knows where the singularity came from that birthed the planet earth came from is just as stupid to me.

​

In fact I think it would be easier to walk to the moon.

---

The subordinate clause, "that no one knows where it came from to get on the planet earth that no one knows where the singularity came from that birthed the planet earth came from is just as stupid to me", doesn't alter the fact that you're comparing evolution to walking to the moon.Leaving out the subordinate clause doesn't alter the meaning:

quote:

---

I know this sounds stupid. But to tell me I evolved from a single cell life form [...] is just as stupid to me.

​

In fact I think it would be easier to walk to the moon.

---

Either you intended to make the comparison or you confused yourself with all that gibberish about the singularity. If you didn't mean to make the comparison, just say so and stop wasting my time. That's exactly what I said. It doesn't matter what ethnicity your ancestors were any more than it matters whether Lucy was your direct ancestor. The fact is that your father is a transitional between your grandfather and you. If you don't understand that, you don't understand what "transitional" means.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

The singularity has nothing to do with this discussion. We're only talking about what happened to single-celled life forms, evolving through Lucy to you. That also has nothing to do with this discussion. We're only talking about what happened after the origin. It's like we're trying to discuss the Bible and you're obsessing about whether a typesetting process or a photographic process was used to print it. Nobody cares what you think. Nobody's trying to convince you of anything. I'd just as soon try to convince an amoeba that it's an amoeba.All I'm doing in this exchange with you is helping you demonstrate that you're incapable of debating honestly. So you're saying that you didn't mean to compare evolution with walking to the moon? That's the only question I asked. You could have just told me I misunderstood you.As it is, I'm sure your evasion has been noted by the readers.I'll give you one last chance to redeem yourself. Do you think there's a barrier that prevents small changes from one generation to the next adding up to big changes? If so, please tell us what that barrier is.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

(I'm not going to use the term "element" because that term has a specific meaning in science.)But no, one organism doesn't have to "cease to be" to become another organism. There's a little something called "reproduction". One organism (or more than one) produces an offspring, a different organism, a child. And because of the imperfections in DNA copying, the child is different from the parent. So there's already a change there, a transmutation, if you like. Every generation is already different from the previous one, even while the previous generation is still alive.So every change is a transition. Every generation is transitional.So what prevents those little transitions from adding up to big changes?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

I think I've been pretty clear throughout the thread. Big changes are from single-cell to Lucy or from Lucy to you. Specifically, what barrier prevents that?

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

Of course not. Nobody has suggested that.Again and again and again, we're talking about cummulative changes from generation to generation, over thousands of generations. We're not talking and we have never been talking about one organism magically changing to a different species all by itself.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

It's not a "law". It's what the word means.

quote:

---

tran·si·tion
-noun
1. movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another; change: the transition from adolescence to adulthood Dictionary.com.

---

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT

So what? You can't pinpoint every step in the walk from coast to coast either.The whole point of this exchange has been: what leads you to conclude that it couldn't be done? We've established that some walks are impossible - e.g. to the moon - and we've established that some walks are possible - e.g. to the corner store. Your conclusion is not reasonable unless you can point to the barrier that prevents you from walking coast to coast. There was a time when it had never been "proven to be a fact" that one could walk from coast to coast. Did Lewis and Clark assume some phantom impenetrable barrier? Or did they decide that they'd believe in the barrier when they saw it?Show me the barrier to cross-country walks and I'll believe in it. Show me the barrier to evolution and I'll believe in it. All you're doing is quoting (or quote-mining) Professor Chen's (supposed) claim that there is a barrier. Until the barrier is shown - specifically - Professor Chen's claim is no more valid than yours.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT