On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

My assertion is well founded on reasoning used by evolution proponents.
if you use vestigial bits to make a conclusion then the opposite conclusion is better made by the fantastic poverty of vestigial points.The blueprint idea works well.
first there are no such things as mammals or retiles .
There are just kinds. These groups are just wrong ideas on lumping things together.
Bats are indeed just flying rats. That is a real adaptation after the flood.
Creatures have hair simply because they need it. not because its a trail of heritage. Why say that?
In fact there is a common blueprint for echolocation in bats, whales etc.
We all have eyes from a common design. Yet its not a sign of biological relatedness.
Your nests are just twigs of presumptions and won't bear a storm of scrunity.

There are creatures with vestigial bits remaining. they had no problem.
In like manner it could ONLY be in all that action of biological change that there would be great amounts of unused leftovers of former anatomy.
its a numbers game here. The great poverty demands that there was no evolution as the few demand that there was in special cases.
Anyways the use of creatures with remnants of parts is being used by evolution to make its case.
In fact it makes a case against it by the absence of leftovers.

A notion ain't evidence.
in fact in order to discover species flowing into/out of each other over time is founded not on biology but presumptions that geology shows this time too have taken place.
there is not biological evidence for evolution. This is a flaw in the thinking.

It is not true that marine creatures are a special case. Just scanning through the Wikipedia article on vestigiality I see they list a number of examples of vestigiality, like whale leg and pelvis bones, ostrich, emu and other flightless bird wings, cavefish eyes, snake pelvis bones, and flightless insect wings. In people alone there are several examples of vestigiality, like ear muscles, wisdom teeth, the appendix, the tail bone and body hair.So could you please stop repeating the claim that marine creatures are a special case of vestigiality, and also cease employing it as an argument in support of your assertion that evolution makes conflicting claims about vestigiality. It makes no sense to keep employing an argument that is so obviously untrue. Despite repeated explanations you continue to hold a badly distorted understanding of both vestigiality and reuse. They're not synonyms. I'd be very interested in a discussion where our actual explanations and perspectives were being challenged, but your responses consist mostly of bald reassertions of your misunderstandings.Maybe it would help to focus on specific examples. In the evolution of bird wings from the forelimbs of dinosaurs, the bones of the forelimbs have for the most part become bones of the wings. That's reuse, a modification of an existing form for a new use.In the evolution of snakes the pelvis bones became unnecessary and functionless and for the most part disappeared, but some snake species still have rudimentary pelvises. That's vestigiality, which is loss of most or all function with no repurposing for a new function.Because evolution is a gradual and continuous process we should also be able to identify organs and/or structures that are on their way toward either vestigiality on the one hand or reuse for a new function on the other, but I am not myself aware of any good examples. Maybe the appendix is an example. Since surgical removal has no discernible effect on fecundity or longevity, one would expect that even it's current minor function as a store for useful bacteria would diminish further while the organ becomes smaller and smaller. Perhaps one of the biologists can chime in with more examples.Evolutionary theory is based upon observations of the real world. Your attempts to reconcile evolutionary theory with the real world with an eye toward assessing how well they align is the right approach, but in the real world marine creatures are not the exception in displaying vestigiality. The evidence from the real world tells us that vestigiality is present in all life, its one of the outcomes of evolution in a changing environment, and it is necessary that you acquire an accurate understanding of actual prevalence of things like vestigiality and other evidence from the real world if your assessments of evolution are to have any validity.Look at it this way. If I were to argue that Christianity is false because Jesus Christ doesn't really deliver presents on the morning of his birthday, and if I were to refuse to concede my confusion over many pages of discussion, would the fact that no one was able to convince me otherwise make my arguments any more valid? No, of course not. If I can't get my facts straight then any arguments I make based upon them won't be valid.You're suffering from the same problem. Get your facts straight, and then your arguments will make more sense.--Percy

No, the evidence for the notion is evidence. For the notion. If you rewrote that in meaningful English, it would still be wrong. Biologists disagree. Perhaps you should think about why.

Robert, please invest some time and thought in your posts. Peter did not claim notions are evidence. He said that species change over time is a notion that has stood up to scrutiny. The scrutiny of evidence. What did you think he meant by scrutiny? What did you think was being scrutinized? What did you think you would achieve by quoting his very sentence and then responding in a way that ignored the clear meaning?Why do we bother? Once a thread has degenerated to the point where you have to explain the meaning of simple English, progress seems unlikely. What is wrong with us that we insist on responding to blather as if it contained sense? Responding like this is not in the spirit of the Forum Guidelines, but to pretend nonsense is sense and respond to blather and prattle as if it meant something would be delusional behavior. There's a flaw in the thinking, alright, but it's yours. Congratulations on this display of inconsistent capitalization, bad punctuation, ignorance, and bald and baldly wrong assertions. At least you're consistent, since you give your location as "Toronto,canada" and are probably really from someplace else like "altanticCity,New jersey". Robert, once again I ask you, what fantasy world do you live in where faulty information leads to correct conclusions? Could you at least try to give the impression of trying to get your facts straight? We understand you have this fantasy that the conclusions of geology and biology are based upon presumptions rather than evidence, but while you're participating in these discussion threads could you please focus your attention on arguments that make sense and have evidence.I'm actually beginning to miss those creationists who argue, "We use the same evidence you do, we just interpret it differently and therefore reach different conclusions." I much prefer a creationist who not only knows there's evidence but even knows what it is to one who just shuts his eyes and puts his hands over his ears while repeating, "There's no evidence, there's no evidence..."--Percy

This got pretty well covered by others. It's based, in part, on biological observations of time-ordered, preserved remains. The time-ordering part is (I suppose) geology if we are talking about fossils, the observations of structure etc. are biology. That's odd ... I could have sworn there was a few gigatonnes of biological evidence cited on THIS site. Maybe I'm just interpretting it differently. Perhaps you could ellaborate and explain the flaw through (perhaps) commonly used examples of evidence for evolution ... just a thought.

I thought to be transitional was to be be 'between' in a chronological sense ... if that's not the case then I retract the 'extinction' comment that I made.But, if transitional is NOT about the chronology of species then it's not really a useful concept in evolution -- is it?

I see what you mean about 'extinctions' ... I would think there are huge numbers of extinct transitionals I chose the word 'could' very carefully.

Just because something is extinct doesn't mean it's not between two other things.Archaeopteryx is between dinosaurs and birds, it is also extinct.

Someone else pointed that out ... I should have stopped at 'dead end'.

The conclusion is based on the fact that the vestiges we do observe fall in line with the lines of descent predicted by the theory of evolution. A vestigial pelvis in whales is consistent with whales evolving from terrestrial mammals. If there were zero vestigial organs this would not falsify this conclusion. If you were to find vestigial fur on a fish then this would falsify the conclusion. Why? Are there species that have fur, mammary glands, three middle ear bones, and a single lower jaw bone? Are there any species that have feathers, mammary glands, and three middle ear bones? If sparrows and bats have a common designer then why don't we see any bats with feathers or sparrows with teats? False. The genes responsible for hair growth are inherited through DNA. No, there isn't. For example, dolphins have what is called a "melon". This is a dome of fat that acts like a lens to focus soundwaves. Bats do not have this. The blueprint is different. So I guess this falsifies the common designer then? Who is "we"? All life? All humans? You do understand how heredity works, don't you? The nested hierarchy is a fact, one that you can not explain.

Well I'm not gonna not reply I realize that's just an idiomatic phrase, but I would say that they are not the same for all purposes. Specifically, the purpose of studying evolutionary biology and the relationships between species that are or are not consider in a transition from one morphological feature to another.Further, there are distinctions between the terms used in that purpose that are important enough to maintain and not "grey out", so to speak. I agree that you can do this, but I don't find it particularly useful. Plus, I don't think the distinction is based solely on distance from the ancestor but also includes the morphologies, themselves. When I realized you had a different aim here than me, and that we're not really in much disagreement, is when I figured it wasn't worth pursuing any further. But there does seem to be enough disagreement to keep typing to you. It does, and I don't disagree with that. But I do think there is enough distinction between intermediate and transitional to keep them as seperately defined, at least for some purposes. That's what I was trying to exemplify with the 'fin-to-foot' hypothetical.

You're welcome

quote:

---

Dead-ends/extinctions are not transitional ... so not every organism can be considered to be involved in transitional species.

​

However, all extant species could be considered transitional except that we don't know into what yet.

---

niceEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Not that nice.