On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

You seem strangely confused about what Darwin claimed about the Galapagos finches.(1) Darwin did not claim that they were reproductively isolated, or that they weren't: so this is not something that he could conceivably have been wrong about.(2) Darwin barely mentions the Galapagos finches in the Origin of Species. Here is the complete text of the Origin of Species. If you will search through it, you will find three uses of the word "finch", none of them references to the Galapagos finches. And yet you claim that they were the "foundational evidence" for his theory!(3) Darwin does however make a passing reference to the "birds of the Galapagos", not mentioning finches or giving any details, in the section of chapter II entitled "DOUBTFUL SPECIES": The fact that these finches, which were classed as separate species by creationist zoologists, can in fact interbreed, therefore proves his point.---In addition, there is one error in your post that you could have figured out for yourself, despite your ignorance of Darwin. You claim that "no-one bothered" to check that they were interfertile. Then how do you suppose you know that they are? You don't know much about biology, do you? The X Club was founded in 1864. Darwin published the Origin of Species in 1859.

There are. As your question is off topic, perhaps you would be best advised to use the forum search to find one of the threads in which creationist gibberish about population growth is blown to pieces. It is, in my opinion, in the top three dumbest creationist arguments, and that's saying something.

Ten years or so after Denton wrote Evolution - A Theory In Crisis, he realized that he was wrong and admitted it publicly. See Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny: However, I believe that your nonsense is off-topic --- this thread is for you to be wrong about transitional species. If you wish to be wrong about genetics, start another thread.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There is an old proverb to the effect that the thief thinks that everyone steals.The fact that you know that you are biased does not mean that everyone else is. The problem is, in fact, solved by pointing out that they evolved. It is not solved by attributing it to magic. What utter nonsense.

The bits of that which are comprehensible are wrong.As most of your blunders are too old and stale to have any interest, could you expand on the nonsense in the last paragraph? It's not clear what mistake you're trying to make, but it's possible that it's a new one and might have some entertainment value.Thanks.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No. Actually, there's lots of them. In the real world, you know, the one you didn't make up in your head?As you yourself are about to admit in the case of whales. A case of evolution so undeniable that you yourself admit it ... is damning evidence against evolution?I have asked you to expand on this. It seems like it could be a whole new kind of creationist crazy.

This is, of course, not true. But not a good one, for two reasons. First, you are simply, flatly wrong about the prevalence of vestigial features.Secondly, the theory does not predict that everything should have vestiges of everything in its line of descent. What it predicts is that those features which appear vestigial should be consistent with the line of descent (as ascertained by the other evidence). That is, it divides vestigial features into two classes, the possible and the impossible --- it in no way implies that any such feature is necessary.A challenge to the theory would involve finding a feature in the "impossible" class.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

All other creatures do seem to have evolved and sure enough they are made up of "bits and pieces of foregone bodies".But these bit and pieces are usually not vestigial because they usually haven't lost function.If you're descended from monkeys, and monkeys have legs, does that mean that you can or should have vestigial legs? No, 'cos you're still using them to walk on. Whales can have vestigial legs because they're descended from animals with legs and they're not using them.If you're descended from monkeys, and monkeys have teeth, does that mean that you can or should have vestigial teeth? No, 'cos you're still using them to eat with. Duck billed platypuses can have vestigial teeth because they're descended from animals with teeth and they're not using them.If you're descended from monkeys, and monkeys have eyes, does that mean that you can or should have vestigial eyes? No, 'cos you're still using them to see with. Blind cave fish can have vestigial eyes because they're descended from animals with eyes and they're not using them.If you're descended from monkeys and monkeys have tails, does that mean that you can have a vestigial tail? Yes, and you do, it's called a coccyx.Every animal is composed of "bits and pieces of foregone bodies", but most of these are not vestigial because they are still performing their original function.The only case in which you could even hope to find a vestigial feature is where there has been loss of function. Even then, at least one of three conditions must be met. Either(1) The feature still has some function.
(2) The burden on the organism is so slight as to be invisible to natural selection.
(3) The loss of function is so recent that natural selection has not yet removed the feature.This said, there are of course lots of examples of vestigial features --- but only in places where the theory of evolution predicts that we're likely to find them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If it was instant adaptation, why are there all those intermediate forms? But this is not actually true. See my previous posts.

Your point is obscure.Let me reiterate mine.The theory of evolution tells us which vestigial features are possible under which circumstances, and which are impossible. The theory is always correct. This is evidence supporting the theory.

No, it's from the Latin legal maxim exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis --- the exception proves the rule in cases not excepted.For example, if you read that William IV granted the Royal Navy the right to drink the Loyal Toast sitting down, you can (correctly) deduce that the normal thing is to drink it standing up; because there would be no need to single out sailors and say that they could sit down unless this was an exception to a rule saying that people in general should stand up.

Well, for example, all mammals possess vitellogenin (egg yolk) genes; only echidnas and duck-billed platypuses actually use them, of course. In non-monotremes they survive as vestigial pseudogenes. So that's 99.82% of mammal genera at a single stroke, with vestigial features in every cell in their bodies (except red blood cells, which have no nuclei). Yes there are. If you wish to deny that they are transitional forms that's another thing, but that they are morphologically intermediate is unquestionable. They therefore constitute evidence for an evolutionary transition.If you have any evidence for your saltation hypothesis now would be a great time to produce it.

And your point is completely wrong. See post #140.All the evidence shows that animals are made of of ancestral bits and pieces. But for very very very obvious reasons not all of these bits and pieces are vestigial.

Which reasons? And the genes ACTUALLY exist. And you are wrong. Show your working. You are still confusing intermediate forms and transitional species. There are definitely intermediate forms. This is evidence for evolution, since it is what we would predict in the light of evolution.

Yes it is, since it's what that hypothesis would predict. Well, no it isn't.But as I have pointed out, it is our expectation that comparatively few of these should be vestigial. But saying that this ought to be the case if the ToE is true debunks your argument.As I said, the fact that you are descended from monkeys and monkeys have legs does not mean that you should have vestigial legs. You should just have legs. The ToE does not predict that every remnant should be vestigial. Most of them should be fully functional, since you can't build a working animal entirely out of vestigial features. In the places where the theory of evolution actually predicts that we should find them. But they don't. Obviously the fact that marine mammals have vestigial features does not in any way imply that (for example) platypuses don't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.