What would a transitional fossil look like?

It matters to us, because we are looking at data that show what the most likely lines of descent are. The data are both molecular and paleontological.It is silly for you to carry on an argument about fantasy evolutionary events as if we are arguing for a position that you made up. The only kind of "completely new creature" is a normal baby that is created by the mating of a male and female and that carries a few mutations of the mix of parent's genes. It is a brand new baby where one didn't exist before. This is absolutely true, of course. Why would you use this as an example when only an idiot would think otherwise? Obviously. Why would you use this as an example when only an idiot would think otherwise? And none of us are arguing this has happened, so why are you acting as if this is our position? And interestingly, none of us are arguing that, so why are you acting as if this is our position? I can't tell what this means.If you think this is our position you are wrong.If this is your position it is still wrong. Your ability to read our imaginations is as faulty as your ability to accurately describe or indeed understand our position on evolution or transitional fossils.

Oh, good one.All the things you imagine we conclude are completely incorrect as I pointed out. Have you gone completely daft?

OK, so that is a yes, you are completely daft.

Actually we can dismiss everything you have to say because it's all bullshit. So what? Is there some rule that says changes in the genome must meet some "truly new" standard? What specific claims of the ToE are you referring to? Imagine our surprise if you ever presented any actual facts. That would be the perfect way to kill it.

Maybe I am missing something, but shouldn't that be "If no, then it is new."?

If it continues long enough, of course it is speciation.The erroneous assertions of an ignorant creationist has absolutely no effect on science or how scientists document their observations. It is ridiculously silly to try to draw conclusions from a comparison of birds and humans, with regard to how long speciation takes.If you don't know that, then maybe you need to do a lot more study. Yeah, I know that's not going to happen, since knowledge is not something you are interested in.

Dunning-Kruger effect.

We have wondered the same thing for years, then I realized you're stuck in diapause.

You mean the facts are hard to overcome, of course. I never realized you had a sense of humor..

I have been thinking about trilobites since "The Lumper*" led us down this rabbit hole. Her argument has the purity of absolute ignorance. She has basically only made 2 valid statements about them. 1) Their general body plan has 3 characteristic lobes. 2) Something strange about the arrangement of legs or something. That's it. She has seen pictures of maybe 5 species or at most a dozen or two.A while back I gave a short review of Trilobite, Eyewitness to Evolution by Richard Fortey, 2001. I saw somewhere, but can't put my finger on it, that there are more than 20,000 species of described trilobites with more being added every year. The people who spend their lives studying them not only show us what the adults look like, but in many cases they show us the immature stages as well. Often many clues about their habitat is also fossilized.The Lumper's substance free posts about trilobites provides us with absolutely NO useful or interesting information and she has not made any effort to learn any factual information about these fossil organisms. I think all insects make a better surrogate for trilobites. They have been around for about 100 million years longer. They are far more diversified with almost 2 million described species which by some recent estimates is only 10-20 percent of the total number of species.Like you said, 3 major body parts, 2 antennae, mandibles (but there are other important mouth "appendages" also), 3 pairs of legs always with 1 pair on each thoracic segment, and 2 pairs of wings always with a pair on each of the rear 2 thoracic segments. (Some insects have only one pair of wings and some have none, most can develop wings if HOX signals to develop wings.)The thing that I find the most striking about the insects is the mind blowing array of modifications evolution has made to every single external feature of insects. Just the differences in mouthparts in the single clade Diptera (True flies) is astonishing. There is huge variety in the fore legs, mid legs, hind legs, fore wings, hind wings, eyes, head, thorax, and abdomen.Taxonomists have grouped insects into taxons or clades or orders mostly based on shared basic characters of the wings.Looking at insects as models of evolution focusing on the variety of mouthparts or legs or antennae or wings would probably make an interesting discussion thread. I also think it is interesting to look at examples of evolution solving similar problems in completely different ways in different insect species, but then there are also cases where different species hit on very similar solutions.If we think of the development of diversity as a measure of success then insects are the most successful class of animals on the planet. * Among taxonomists there are are sometimes 2 groups, the lumpers and the splitters. The splitters often describe individual species based on a very narrow variation of features, sometime single features and the lumpers tend to disregard narrow variation in features and lump various related populations as a single species. I am not aware of anyone lumping together a whole taxonomic class of organisms like trilobites. It is as stupid as lumping together ALL THE FUCKING INSECTS AS ONE SPECIES. Trying to engage in any discussion about this with Faith is futile because as she said multiple times in this thread, her mind is closed and she possesses absolutely no knowledge about trilobites or evolution. She will never give us any information, only insults. Edited by Tanypteryx, : spelling

She doesn't just say they are wrong, but arrogantly insults their intelligence and education, and her reasoning is so ridiculously flawed and stupid that a 3rd grader could see it. Classic Dunning-Kruger effect. Every time her arguments are just so fucking stupid.It really is hard to understand what she gets out of her participation here at EvC, maybe self appointed martyrdom.

Multiple personality disorder?

And when all the rest of the evidence is taken into account, it becomes obvious that your assertion is completely wrong. Studying all the real evidence leads to understanding.What does this have to do with what a transitional fossil looks like?

This is what I like about going to scientific conferences, all the smartest people stand up and tell everyone how smart they are. Yeah right.Dunning-Kruger rides again.

This is still just as fucking stupid as claiming all insects are the same species.