What would a transitional fossil look like?

I am not sure if you want an answer to the question, "what would a transitional fossil look like."Call me silly but it seems you would be implying that if one is qualified that we can then affirm the notion that it actually was one, which would seem like an extremely basic error in reason from my perspective.Yes, it is okay to "qualify" what a transitional may look like, the problem is presented in the question, "does that therefore mean it certainly was one?" To answer that question you have to look at the big picture.You see your problem is, mathematics alone can prove we can find things that look like transitionals in any designed things as long as there are enough of them.With forms such as amphibians, fish, whales, there are so many variances anatomically that this almost guarantees a smorgasboard of features of which a small percentage may appear to be transitioning from one form to another, but here is the important point; EVEN IF LOGICALLY NO SUCH TRANSITION IN ACTUALITY, TOOK PLACE.CONCLUSION: The problem with your argument is that a reasonable prediction for a history of evolution in the rock record, would be to find by and large, a history of evolution. So in actual fact it is not as simplistic as just finding a few "transitionals" and declaring victory.This matter is quantitative and there are more problems too, I won't go into all of it.Do we find any ancestors for the cambrian phyla? They're conspicuously absent. What about angiosperms? Conspicuously absent. What about dinosaurs? Conspicuously absent.SO what does the record show by and large? Basically the same things unchanged, that turn up no matter how far back you go, and some are even specialised examples such as the funnel-nose ray or the giant salamander or the platypus. Of every kind of thing no matter how far back you find them they will appear the same, with no history of evolution BY AND LARGE.That is the general picture.Of course informed creationists know that there can be an appearance of a transition with some features. But the point is if those features function viably and do their job well, they weren't necessarily "going anywhere". So from the perspective of design, if there are many similar types of design, this can also give an appearance of a transition. Don't believe me? Just look at different types of differential in cars from simple to complex, even if they didn't go in that order in reality, you could line them up in an order to say they evolved, but that doesn't answer for why so many variations are possible. If variations are possible, the designer may choose to modify X design or tweak it, if the designer knows that is all that is required in that particular situation, for that particular animal. That is why a platypus has a bill, because the designer simply knew it would work best, but to believe evolution created the same feature is absurd.The problem is that it is an IMPLICIT slothful-induction fallacy if you are not counting the percentage of transitionals found with the percentage expected from an evolutionary history.Evolutionists of course will use hindsight to pretend we would expect the portion of transitionals we have found. (Lol).The percentage of transitionals that exist are about the amount expected from the APPEARANCE of an evolution given by large numbers, as shown with driving vehicles. (a small percentage)I wrote more about it here in message 1 of this thread with I confess, a very simple example but it highlighted the point which was that if you take two shapes or even body plans which are already similar somewhat or close enough to each other anatomically, you may occasionally get something that looks like it is transitioning;Bot VerificationThink about it. We have life, the planet is TEAMING with life. Question: how would it be possible with millions of species many of which can be grouped approximately, of which will have similar body plans based on necessity, to have no appearance of transitions?It is logically impossible to get thousands of species, many of which have similar body types, without having a small percentage look like transitions.So we actually can predict based on known numbers that we expect transitional species had evolution not happened (ironically), as long as we find them as a small percentage which is precisely what we find.Also the examples of transitions evolutionists commonly give are usually unimpressive such as migrating nostrils or changed beak shapes, nothing truly difficult to evolve is ever found such as quadruped mammal to bat.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

I don't see why. Are they devil words if we look at what makes a truck and a car steer round corners? If we find mechanics that may look, "transitional" in certain vehicles does this mean cars also evolved?So let me see, you are looking at features of two things that swim and expecting to find similarities in some you compare? Gee, we would never expect that, after all I expected a spider to have echolocation when I compared it to a bat.Gee I would never expect any similarities whatsoever in things that swim, there couldn't possibly be any use in God designing swimmers with similar designs because they work in water. (my turn for sarcasm).

This is an argumentum ad hominem, it doesn't address the reason but the reasoner. There was no, "continual denial" which is an ad hominem. I do not deny that logically it is possible to qualify something as a transitional, I am merely saying that this isn't leading to any conclusion that it actually was one in actual history.It is you that does not understand affirmation of the consequent. If expected evidence P for evolution may exist, in a small number, something which we may expect, if it can be shown we would also expect the same evidence without evolution then it is inconsequential that it qualifies as consistent with evolution. Evidence does not work/operate as proof, with a theory, confirmation evidence only allows you to continue with the hypothesis, so to speak until there is found falsification evidence via the modus tollens.You seem to think that if I admit that things exist that qualify as "transitionals" that this means they really were transitionals of evolution.That would be like saying if we find finger prints as we might expect at a crime scene, that this means I am guilty, but if there are other reasons for why those finger prints are there, such as that I live or work at that location, then even if it is evidence that may be consistent with a crime, that doesn't mean it actually is from that crime.With transitionals of evolution, most have not been found, only a handful of candidates exist in comparison to how many species exist. If you need showing the maths you also need showing why two add two is four. Even evolutionist scientists would admit that the true and actual portion of transitionals that would have had to exist in the past, would be a vast figure compared to what they find.Now if I am wrong I would be quite happy to see a direct transition of a jellyfish, or an octopus or a platypus or a winged insect or a bat/pterosaur/pterodactyl. You see just randomly naming a few if most transitionals exist, should mean you should be able to provide examples for that portion I request. Let's try it again; Ichthyosaurs, dragon flies, snails, pine trees.Got any? Of course you haven't, because no matter how far back they are in the fossil record they always appear identical with no evolution.
(oh and I don't want things you call transitionals, I want you to actually show me how arms became wings, legs became arms, arms became fins, but also I want examples of sophisticated changes such as the useful stages between a pterosaur's elongated finger and it's ancestors.THERE ARE NONE. Begging-the-question fallacy. We have not accepted terms of debate. I don't accept the terms of debate that things preserved in rock represent time. I am not going to assume eons for your sake. That doesn't refute my reasoning. I spoke of slothful induction. If I show you 400 successful things the eye does, I don't have to refute you if by small percentage you complain about the blind spot, if 99.999% of the eye is well designed. Similarly, generally speaking 99.999% of the evidence of cambrian phyla evolving is missing, to satisfy the claim they evolved you have to show the expected evidence for all of them since what I said pertains to a quantity (percentage). So your claim has to show that all of the cambrian phyla's ancestors are by majority present. Seems you ah, "can't wrap your mind" around that. By providing an evolutionary link saying there is evidence of angiosperm evolution. LOL. Then can you show me all of the intermediates please. Red-herring fallacy. I only have to show the earliest ones we find remain unchanged. Or are you saying if creation is true and evolution is false that I would expect to find an evolving ancestor in an earlier layer rather than say a funnel-nose ray?The "show me a bunny in the cambrian" nonsense isn't worth my time. I am afraid that doesn't rescue you from deductive reason. You see your problem is even if the fossil record is very incomplete we have stages of history allegedly, from each era, and in each era there is generally a lack of evolution even though there isn't a lack of life. So even if you desperately plead the old canard of "the record is a tiny fraction" by analogy if I throw sweets ubiquitously in all layers of sand in a tank, as long as the sweets must be in all deposits, no matter how small the portion, we should find them. (this is a true analogy of evolution because evolution claims to have been happening in all eons)Evolution has no place to hide, yet it simply doesn't exist. All you can do is pleads a handful of candidates like with your dino and angiosperm examples, but you can't ignore all of the forms have no intermediates whatsoever, meaning the transitionals are 99.9999% absent. If I am wrong it is easy to disprove me, simply show me intermediates for something pre-bat, pre-pterosaur, pre-pterodactyl. Show me the intermediate for the insect wing, as it evolved. Got any intermediates for how Ichthyosaurs evolved? Oh I forget, a homplastic dorsal fin by Darwin magic dust, from nothing.Sorry you can quote all the evolutionary gibberish you want, that won't change that if life evolved 99.999% of the transitionals are simply not there. Appealing to a few that are there, won't impress me. In this post you have basically asserted everything without providing any reasoning.Perhaps message one will inform you of where and when we should find transitionals, since you don't seem to know when they would UNAVOIDABLY be expected to be found, but never are; https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/668...So I guess I am not uninformed about transitionals and when and where to expect them. The logic is clear, you can nail them down to segments in "pre-history" as they call it, and look for where and when they MUST have evolved, according to the evolution fairytale.

We do do we? We consistently ignore this right?Oh well what is this link then, it must be a figment of my imagination, when I see a hierarchy for how the unicycle evolved;Walking whales, nested hierarchies, and chimeras: do they exist? - creation.com(when evolutionists start to say at forums like this, "creationists do this, creationists do that, creationists can't wrap their minds around this" that is nearly always a sign of 100% B U L L S H I T.What that really means is this; "mike it's way easier to just call creationists names than to deal with your reasoning properly. So I shall provide no reasons for my position and simply give one-liner bare assertions consisting of twenty words per sentence coupled with some comments about how you don't know or understand evolution or transitionals.Boys, boys, boys..............that may convince YOURSELVES and impress yourselves that you all agree I am something I am not, but as for me, it confirms all my suspicions that I am, "LAUGHING at the 'superior' intellect." - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.

No you quote-mined me. In context I said something different to how you are portraying this. If you read all of my explanation I am saying that with thousands of species, where there are thousands on land and thousands of marine forms, you will pretty much as 100% probability, find things that look like transitions, if a morphology is required in some of them which may make use of "either,or".That is why I gave examples with a link explaining it. They share the pentadactyl pattern, yes. The problem is, the Ichthyosaur has bones which seem to greatly differ in their flipper, even though if you trace back on the "phylogenetic tree" both the Ichthyosaur and the whale, they both would have had to had the same ancestor with the pentadactyl pattern.amphibians-> reptiles -> mammals -> marine mammals
amphibians -> reptiles -> sea reptiles.So both would have a reptilian ancestor meaning we would reasonably expect a similar sort of "hand" in an Ichthyosaur as we would in a dolphin or whale.This is the problem with predictions for evolution, you can TOY with predictions.If you are honest the correct prediction would be to not find any reptiles or mammals in the sea, if they evolved onto land. It's an inconvenience for the ToE to have to try and explain how creatures have been in and out of the sea more times than I've had fish and chips, pretty much without a trace, if we don't do what evolutionists want us to do, and only focus on a few negligible "whale ancestors" and forget about all the transitionals for dugongs, manatees, ichthyosaurs, mososaurs and everything else that the fairytale said invented itself.here in this picture I show the difference with the Ichthyosaur and whale; (as you can see some of the links I give are years and years old, it's funny the way evolutionists always assume they are informing me of things)(the very last post on this page shows the picture.)Bot VerificationI think the logic is clear. When it suits you you point to similarities (homologies) and when it doesn't suit you, you revert to Darwin magic dust via convergence (homoplasies)Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

We don't see the "pattern expected from evolution", you can only argue that with hindsight. We didn't "expect" from evolution a prediction of some 40 odd homoplastic eyes by, "convergence". That is not the expected pattern.So I think you're wrong because there is no expected pattern from evolution. 99.999% of the transitional of evolution is missing, so any "pattern" you say is evolution, is basically based on trees not based on finding any transitionals. That is to say there are no ancestors at the nodes.The "tree" of evolution by majority has to be illustrated.With creation we would expect homoplasies wherever there is a use for them. So we might expect homoplasies in whales, oil birds and bats if there is a use for sonar.So we would predict as our model, that similarities, similar traits will be found where the particular trait is most useful.SO Paul you can pretend to yourself if you want to, that finding echolocation in those three is a prediction of evolution's tree, or 40 odd homoplastic convergent eyeballs (wide ones when I read it. Or you can pretend a platypus is the expected pattern of evolution.In reality Darwin argued a pattern posteriori. He first saw the general trend in the rock record THEN (after the fact) said that certain things evolved from others according to where generally found.So we don't have to break the rock record's pattern just because he wrote evolution to match it.Sorry if I can't address everything there are a lot of posts to my one post which may make my messages more scruffy, tatty, perhaps even a bit less well thought out since I am one against many, whereas each of you only has to pour your concentration into my one post.

You get a lot of "half-smart" evolutionists online. best to ignore them though they can be tedious admittedly. personally I will usually only respond to the civil ones like RAZD, but it can be tempting to respond to the more idiotic posts occasionally.But if they live from 70% personal attack like my atheist brother agrees with me about, the first person to get the insults out is the first person that has lost the debate.Basically they appear smarter and more knowledgeable than they are because they basically repeat what the biggest bully says. (mainstream science) That way they can portray the false dichotomy that we are religious, science-denying people of faith with no reason and they are rational, superior beings of evolution, fully versed in science.In actual fact if there was no science articles into the thousands they could appeal to, they'd be like the emperor with no pants.Have you noticed so few of them come up with any original thoughts themselves, or anything creative or any clever deduction? That's because most of them are simply loud mouths that only exist to shout at creationists because of their insecurity because our position is so strong when we actually look at all of the evidence of the miraculous all around us. Direct evidence which doesn't require mental contortions and 95% conjecture such as with proto-feathers and magically occurring homoplastic dorsal fins that just happen to be the perfect design and be analogue to other fins which we must believe were exapted rather than de-novo Darwinian magic, ho, ho, don't you know!You're a tough old bird, Faith. Remember your shield - you do not have to accept any negative words against you. It literally is just air. That we don't respond in the same manner and that you are a class act in keeping your cool and not entering their war of venom, shows you are wise enough to know that their poor display of their sinful nature only confirms what they are - outside of God's will, and just happy to use lies, deception and insults because they have no true sense of morality and only feign it.NO CLASS.

These claims against me are false. I don't bully, and in fact you are the one getting personal with "crawl back under your rock". My posts always are focused on being informational, I don't even mention the person. If you had paid closer attention you would see that any personal disrespect of belief has been aimed at me with generalisations such as "creationists wrap their mind around" and other gibberish aimed at creationists this, and creationists that, and creationists the other.Please quote where I didn't follow the rules, I am responding to posts that are off topic, so naturally I will go off topic.Talk about a case of the pot calling the kettle black, some of the evolutionists here should have been banned twelve times over because ALL THEY SEEM to do is insult and bully.Where have I bullied anyone? if the admins read my posts and think there is something breaking the rules I will then stop doing what they say is wrong.

Paul K my second post in this thread showed what I meant pertaining to homoplastic features such as echolocation;https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/683...

Not sure if I'm allowed to respond to this post of yours RAZD. It would seem I am not allowed to talk about things off topic but others can. Lol No offence meant to you Sir, as I wouldn't mean this in a negative way RAZD but this does seem to be a little bit ignorant of creation geology explanations. There really is in modern times a growing list of evidence which is better explained as coming from a mage catastrophe.In fact the record itself is expected from a flood, especially with 100 million years worth of flat gaps in place in many locations, where there is no erosion at the contact points. In other words there are many areas where there is no Cambrian, or no pre-cambrian. With a flood if the rock was laid down by depositions, a series of them, we would expect this because the rock would not be an "era" but a deposit.I don't want to get into this too much but there is the B.E.D.S model which a flood explains better, as well as paraconformities. Also recent experiments on bloat-and-float fossils indicate that local floods wouldn't be sufficient to counter the buoyancy from depositional gases in large critters.It would seem absurd to say that such a huge hydraulic force would not leave giant sediment hauls. It also explains many strange geomorphological features such as water-gaps and planation. Erosional remnants are also well explained given a famous one we know happened because of an ice-age flood. (steamboat inselberg)Huge remnants such as devil's tower tend to change in their explanations and timing.We also have the rates of erosion which just don't match millions of years.I am not intending to elephant-hurl this all at you, I just think that if you are going to give a fairly quick argument/summary, for "not a flood" it's also fair for me to summarise. I really don't see how at all to be honest. "All" the evidence? Lol. Even if evolution was true I think that's wishful thinking for true theories. Life will never be as binary as evolutionists make out when they utter their P.R.A.T.T. of "all the evidence is for evolution and NONE for creation."If that were the case what do you expect that a funnel nose ray fossilised, should look like if creation was true? Are you saying if it is identical to it's living counterpart that what I should have expected as evidence of creation and unchanging living things without evolution, would be to expect ancestors of that ray?Think about it. I agree Faith's response seemed flippant considering the work you put in. However things like the Dunnig-Kruger RAZD, to be honest I am not sure how you can mention that with a straight face after reading some of the low-value responses I get to my posts with evolutionists, that seem to be founded on extraordinary over-confidence despite no evidence to suggest they are beyond average IQ level.

I don't see how, isn't it you saying I don't understand this and that? In EvC debates don't you think it's predictable for evolutionists to always fall back on the, "you just don't understand the science", type argument?From my perspective have you any idea how tedious that is for someone with a high IQ and more knowledge than most evolutionists likely have? (I can show you my test scores if you wish) No I think I have it right because that's just the way it is in life, sometimes there are types of evidence we expect that are consistent with many proposals. With the handful of "transitionals" they proclaim as proving evolution, the portion is simply tiny. Also you have to basically INVOKE as part of the argument, that all those millions of transitionals existed, yet we can explain the small amount of them without evolution rather easily. Yeah but you're wrong IMHO. It is slothful induction fallacy to pretend that a tiny percentage is proven "to the reasonable person". I am a reasonable person, I score 95% on university level logic tests, and close to 90% on all critical thinking evaluation tests.So my reason tells me you appeal to "reasonable" people so as to lump me into the "unreasonable" category, which is a false logical disjunction called a limited choice fallacy, where all the evolutionists get to be smart, informed, reasonable people and anyone who disagrees with you is not in that group.The truth of the matter is that the transitionals argument is the same as the "bad design" argument, it is slothful induction, because if we put all the transitionals of evolution in a museum, and then we created waxworks of all the missing ones, we would need perhaps five museums to be filled with waxworks but perhaps only one tenth of one museum's area for the transitionals. My last estimate based on what an evolutionist argued was that about 250 thousand fossils have been found, of which about 0.8% they call "transitionals". Some if you look at the wiki-list, are appalling examples, they really don't even qualify as transitions, the closest thing to an Ichthyosaur was some sort of four legged lizard like thing, that basically you could tell they just picked to represent it. LOl. it's the same with the bad design argument, for any feature the evolutionist picks, eyes, pharynx, whatever, just ask for their one complaing, just how many viable designs there are that do good jobs pertaining to that system. You will get something like 200 miraculously wonderful intelligent designs compared to perhaps one or two superficial evolution-arguments of "bad design" which most of the time aren't even bad design. There he goes again with "a reasonable person". What goal must I score through to count as a "reasonable person".I say that it's simply that my standard of reason is a higher standard of critical thinking. My test scores agree. Shouldn't a reasonable person accept what objective test scores say about my intellect?The difference is I know what I am talking about. When I say the transitionals are missing, the percentage is real, because it doesn't matter what type of organism you name, you highly likely won't have transitions for it. The cambrian phyla all came out of nowhere, it seems to me a "reasonable" person would just admit that there is practically nothing for the cambrian phyla. Or are you saying you have intermediates for trilobites, and one of the most sophisticated eyes ever created (in some) What about all the other strange forms? It's okay to be honest and admit they are not there because they simply aren't friend. I am not lying, this is common knowledge.So do I qualify as "reasonable".Let's be honest again - you would only qualify a "reasonable" person as someone that accepts evolution. But you're wrong on that too, as a claim the theory of evolution is a FANTASTIC claim, and as such a fantastic claim according to a correct logical axiom, "must also have fantastic evidence". but the evidence for evolution is inflated. You guys use a rhetorical device called, "playing it up."You PLAY UP circumstantial evidence but a claim that miraculous life created itself, and beas, cheese, fleas, trees and the chinese then ensued, is basically a miracle without a miracle worker. So you are in fact highly unreasonable to expect me to think evolution is a better explanation given the very obvious signs of a much, much greater intelligent designer in life, than anything we could create;
Biomimeticsengineers copying the Creator - Media Center - creation.comQuestion: how reasonable must I be? It seems to me you qualify a "reasonable" person as those that agree with your worldview, BUT ACTUAL REASON, shows that worldview is shot full of holes.These fallacies I mention, I do not invent them. These mistakes I argue, they are real mistakes that REASON has informed me of, as I figured it out myself. Here is my blog about slothful induction, you should read how reasonable it is;
Creation and evolution views: Evolutionists Argue Bad Design In Life Because They Commit Slothful Induction FallacyIf you still think "mike, you're not reasonable you don't have any logic." Okay, here's a logic game, as you can see I am in 1st place "mike the wiz", and it's been played pretty much 50 thousand times. If I couldn't use logic and reason would I be in first place? (that's an example of reductio ad absurdum).Zoobiedoku - MindGames.com("Ridis "was a hacker as you can see by his absurdly false score.)I don't know what else I can do to convince you that this creationist is indeed a high reasoner. Want my test scores for university level critical thinking and my scores for population genetics?I mean what do I have to do to convince an evolutionist I am a reasonable person? We all know the question is rhetorical because we all know the answer; become an evolutionist.

It's amusing when people say, "you don't understand this" then state some simple things I do understand.Kind of like if I said, "you don't understand maths, if you X the radius by two you get the diameter."If I write that simple thing out, does that prove you did not know that?Because if you think it does, I seriously have worries about your mental health.I do understand a nested hierarchy but you are wrong that they always fit with evolution. Can you show where these homoplasies would fit? Just saying "no creationist can ever score a goal I say he can't" is a bare assertion nonsense JonF, didn't you learn that in logic 101?I mean do you expect me to expect you to ever admit to anything a creationist says?LOL!
https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/595... Please quote where I said this. This is a strawman fallacy. I see a nested hierarchy as a clade within a clade. I have no trouble understanding the concept simply because you explain it out loud."The groups are called clades; each clade consists of an ancestor and all of its descendants. The relationships between clades are shown in a branching hierarchical tree called a cladogram. ... Nested clades within a larger clade in a phylogenetic tree."So it's true I am no expert in these things of course but it seems to me clades within clades can be said to be nested.As you can see from the link "Bonedigger" shows all of the technical reasons why these hierarchies don't favour evolution as they tell us.I think a focus on nested hierarchies is a subtle attempt to not have to talk about what I was talking about; the missing transitionals. For these hierarchies do not include the missing transitionals. They should be found, reasonably, they aren't. Cladograms can be created from designed things whether you like it or not.

See, that's good logic. I can't believe it a coincidence that the one who understood what I meant also produced a good logic.That earlier, more, "hand-like" set-up could of course be argued to precede the more paddle-like one. But as with many organisms, there is also the possibility that micro evolution acted the other way where selection pressure might favour a more robust rather than gracile, arrangement.Technically the strange phalange could have been the first design, or vice-versa. I admit it might be the type of transitional you might expect but when we "zoom out", we still only really see Ichthyosaurs, and no real ancestors for more sophisticated changes of anatomy.How is it that when it comes to the real stuff, the real meat on the bone, evolution is never there? Because to change a quadruped lizard like reptile thingymajig into an Ichthyosaur depends on a lot more than a slightly differently shaped fin. It is not UNIMAGINABLE that we are simply seeing a variety of Ichthyosaurs, especially when there would be nothing for the dorsal fin to be exapted from. (exaptation).Gould said something about that but apparently creationists aren't allowed to quote evolutionists. Lol

No Theodoric I was not the first person to get the insults out, I was responding to Faith's comments after all the insults from evolutionists were already in.There are loud mouthed evolutionists that aren't as smart as they think but suffer Dunning-Krueger effect, so since I did not pick on anyone as such as this was a true generalisation, I think it's fair game considering all of the attacks on Faith and me that you seem to somehow COMPLETELY and CONVENIENTLY ignore. I guess you can't read. It was AZPaul that started with the sarcasm and all the others with their statements about creationists that I RESPONDED to, by giving my opinion.And I don't see how I bully or harass. I think that is a bizarre statement. Have you anything more than a bare assertion for us that I do such a thing? Judging from the opinions you have formed about me and have not realised all the much worse things from some evolutionists here, I predict your examples will also be misconstrued.Just admit it, I annoy you, and that's why you are saying these things, because I am a creationist that has answers.

Well I'll start by evaluation your comment then.You say "convince us that you can reason at all" even though I can provide evidence I know a lot more about reason that you.So then you are asking me to do something I have been doing for years. meaning the predicate, "convince me" is a false predicate because all of my correct reasonings at this forum, seemed to go in one ear and out the other.I think to prove I can reason I have to show I can form syllogisms, describe fallacies, mistakes in reason, know when arguments are strong.Your argument in this post is RHETORIC, because you take something out of context that was only a rhetorical question and PRETEND I am genuinely asking evolutionists what I must do to convince them I am reasonable. In other words you try and put SPIN on what I said, to make out I asked something stupid.As for "reasoning away centuries of science" that's a false statement because I all of the actual science-facts many of which are contained WITHIN the theory of evolution. I accept genetic drift, speciation, allele frequencies. I in fact accept possibly about 85% of what mainstream science says.So reason tells me you are a binary thinker that thinks in terms of "accept evolution you're reasonable, don't accept it you reject years of science".That's a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that if I do not accept the final conclusions of the ToE that I reject the parts. That would be an implied compositional fallacy of, "if you reject the whole you must reject the parts". That would be like saying that if I rejected the notion that a functional plane is non-flying that I must also accept that the individual parts are also flying parts in and of themselves.In fact even of the ToE I likely accept perhaps 75% of the "science".So this shows that you are the poor reasoner, because you thought it followed that I "reason away" years of science.What a silly error. Thanks for proving that you are the one guilty of the thing you accuse me of rather than I.Sorry if you feel a bit silly now, but I think you sort of brought it on yourself.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.