Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 56 (9054 total)
119 online now:
(119 visitors)
Newest Member: EWolf
Post Volume: Total: 888,239 Year: 5,885/14,102 Month: 33/438 Week: 77/83 Day: 27/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would a transitional fossil look like?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 468 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 226 of 403 (850954)
04-17-2019 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Tanypteryx
04-16-2019 6:32 PM


Re: Trilobite Thought Experiment for Faith
I have been thinking about trilobites since "The Lumper*" led us down this rabbit hole. ...

* 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. ...

Except when it comes to human/chimpanzee relationships, then she becomes the consummate splitter: the different lengths of bones become criteria for lack of relationship.

Such fun

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-16-2019 6:32 PM Tanypteryx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-17-2019 3:33 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 2622
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 227 of 403 (850955)
04-17-2019 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by RAZD
04-17-2019 3:28 PM


Re: Trilobite Thought Experiment for Faith
Except when it comes to human/chimpanzee relationships, then she becomes the consummate splitter: the different lengths of bones become criteria for lack of relationship.

Multiple personality disorder?


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 04-17-2019 3:28 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Theodoric, posted 04-17-2019 4:43 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member (Idle past 43 days)
Posts: 7051
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 228 of 403 (850957)
04-17-2019 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Tanypteryx
04-17-2019 3:33 PM


Re: Trilobite Thought Experiment for Faith
Or more likely.
Liar for Jesus.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-17-2019 3:33 PM Tanypteryx has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 6082
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.4


(3)
Message 229 of 403 (850960)
04-17-2019 7:37 PM


How about a little old lady with strong opinions (all wrong not withstanding) and stronger guile. An intellect that got short circuited in church one sunny day.

She is fun to have around.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 04-18-2019 12:48 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 230 of 403 (850968)
04-18-2019 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dogmafood
04-04-2019 8:34 PM


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;

https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/647...

Think 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dogmafood, posted 04-04-2019 8:34 PM Dogmafood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by PaulK, posted 04-18-2019 10:23 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 233 by edge, posted 04-18-2019 11:16 AM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 235 by Taq, posted 04-18-2019 12:11 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2019 12:27 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 258 by caffeine, posted 04-18-2019 1:58 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 231 of 403 (850969)
04-18-2019 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by AZPaul3
04-05-2019 1:42 PM


AZPaul3 writes:

These are devil words.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by AZPaul3, posted 04-05-2019 1:42 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 04-18-2019 12:05 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 237 by ringo, posted 04-18-2019 12:19 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 289 by AZPaul3, posted 04-19-2019 3:58 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17033
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 232 of 403 (850970)
04-18-2019 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 9:07 AM


quote:

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.

If anatomically intermediate fossils were found and if they had a strong tendency to agree with the expectations of evolution it actually would be reasonable to affirm that they are transitionals.

quote:

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.

The question then would be whether the actual fossils were consistent with whatever model you produce. I will also note that sheer numbers are not sufficient - the distribution of anatomical features is also important.

By my estimation there is no chance that you could produce a model that would actually support your case without making ad hoc assumptions to explain why we see the pattern expected by evolution.

The intermediates illustrating the evolution of the mammalian jaw alone would seem highly improbable, even before we take account of the fact that they appear at the expected point in the fossil record.

quote:

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.

And we do find a history of evolution - not a random assemblage of features that by pure chance throws up an apparent intermediate here and there without rhyme or reason.

quote:

Do we find any ancestors for the cambrian phyla? They're conspicuously absent. What about angiosperms? Conspicuously absent. What about dinosaurs? Conspicuously absent.

We find possible ancestors for some Cambrian phyla - and certainly for dinosaurs. I can’t speak for the angiosperms.

quote:

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 certainly not true. The history of life on Earth is a history of change. You will not find mammals - not even whales - back in the Cambrian, or birds or even sharks, although shark’s teeth are among the more common fossils.

quote:

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

I’d say that it is far worse to ignore even the pattern of transitionals as they are found in the fossil record. That, at least, is rather easier to determine and very telling.

quote:

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)

If you have a model which fits the actual evidence - not just guesses about numbers - I would be very surprised.

quote:

Think 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?

And how many modern creatures are considered transitional? If it is pure chance then the percentage should be the same for modern life as it is for the fossil record.

quote:

It is logically impossible to get thousands of species, many of which have similar body types, without having a small percentage look like transitions.


Then you shouldn’t have problems producing examples.
(Although your claim to logical impossibility is obviously false)
However, I think you are greatly underestimating the degrees of freedom available, especially when the analysis goes beyond the superficial.

quote:

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.

It is easy to make such claims but much harder to back them up. And until you do, you really don’t have much.

quote:

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.

And that is a very weird claim when one of the first, famous transitional fossils is archaeopteryx- i’d Say that a quadruped to a bird is at least as impressive. And even stranger when it comes shortly after the discovery of another transitional in the ancestry of whales was reported.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 9:07 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
edge
Member (Idle past 769 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 233 of 403 (850971)
04-18-2019 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 9:07 AM


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.


It would seem to me that some understanding of what a transitional fossil is would be necessary in order to say that there are none. The question really asks what is your understanding of the term "transitional fossil"? Continual denial suggests to me that you have no such understanding.

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.

Excellent. The you will pleas show us your calculations?

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.

The fact that such changes took place over time suggests that your logic is in error.

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.

I think that the purpose of the question was to bring up a rhetorical point. A diligent response would be to address that point rather than ascribe some motivation to "declare victory"

This matter is quantitative and there are more problems too, I won't go into all of it.

Of course you won't ...

Do we find any ancestors for the cambrian phyla?

Of course we do. We see some precursors in the Ediacaran fauna which you have been made aware of previously and no creationist has ever responded with a reasonable rebuttal.

What about angiosperms?

Again, your YEC sources are evidently incomplete or intentionally deceiving you.

"However, the fossil record has considerably grown since the time of Darwin, and recently discovered angiosperm fossils such as Archaefructus, along with further discoveries of fossil gymnosperms, suggest how angiosperm characteristics may have been acquired in a series of steps." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant#Evolution

What about dinosaurs? Conspicuously absent.

Again, I don't know where you get your information. This suggests otherwise:

"Dinosaurs evolved within a single lineage of archosaurs 243-233 Ma (million years ago) from the Anisian to the Carnian ages, the latter part of the middle Triassic. Dinosauria is a well-supported clade, present in 98% of bootstraps. It is diagnosed by many features including loss of the postfrontal on the skull and an elongate deltopectoral crest on the humerus.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_dinosaurs

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.


Okay, so where are these giant salamanders and platypus in the Cambrian record? Or even in the Cretaceous record? I would say that your story, by and large, lacks explanatory powers.

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.

Really? You are going to take something clearly designed by humans and compare it to the fossil record?

But no, once again you ignore the time factor. There is a logical progression of fossil communities through geological time. You ignore and fail to explain this key factor. The quotes above are very specific about changes over time.

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).


So, where are your calculations and where do you get your numbers from?

Even Darwin, over a hundred years ago, seemed to understand the paucity of the fossil record and yet modern creationists cannot wrap their minds around the fact that we will ever see only a tiny fraction of all lifeforms that ever existed.

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.


What numbers are you talking about here? How many transitional fossils should we expect and why do we not find them simply scattered randomly throughout the fossil record?

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.

You mean like the example you gave above which turn out to be dubious? It appears to me that your only argument is personal incredulity. "Unimpressive" to you, of course and yet you have no alternative explanation for the transition over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 9:07 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 12:18 PM edge has responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


(1)
Message 234 of 403 (850975)
04-18-2019 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 9:44 AM


mike the wiz writes:

If we find mechanics that may look, "transitional" in certain vehicles does this mean cars also evolved?

You would have to show how the transitional mechanics fit into a nested hierarchy. This is the concept creationists consistently ignore, the nested hierarchy. If we were to find a fossil that is transitional between mammals and birds it would FALSIFY evolution. It is the PATTERN of transitionals that evidences evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 9:44 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 12:28 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member (Idle past 35 days)
Posts: 8488
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 235 of 403 (850976)
04-18-2019 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 9:07 AM


mike the wiz writes:


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.

The theory of evolution predicts that humans and other apes share a common ancestor. That same theory also predicts that there were, at one time, species with a mixture of earlier ape features and modern human features. Why wouldn't a fossil with a mixture of earlier ape and modern human features be evidence in support of that prediction?

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.

Then why don't we see a smorgasboard of features? Why don't we see mammal to bird transitionals, or lizard to whale transitionals? Why do we only see the transitionals predicted by a nested hierarchy, the same pattern that the theory of evolution predicts we should see?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 9:07 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 236 of 403 (850977)
04-18-2019 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by edge
04-18-2019 11:16 AM


Edge writes:

It would seem to me that some understanding of what a transitional fossil is would be necessary in order to say that there are none. The question really asks what is your understanding of the term "transitional fossil"? Continual denial suggests to me that you have no such understanding.

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.

edge writes:

The fact that such changes took place over time suggests that your logic is in error.

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.

Edge writes:

Of course we do. We see some precursors in the Ediacaran fauna which you have been made aware of previously and no creationist has ever responded with a reasonable rebuttal.

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.

edge writes:

Again, your YEC sources are evidently incomplete or intentionally deceiving you

By providing an evolutionary link saying there is evidence of angiosperm evolution. LOL. Then can you show me all of the intermediates please.

edge writes:

Okay, so where are these giant salamanders and platypus in the Cambrian record? Or even in the Cretaceous record? I would say that your story, by and large, lacks explanatory powers.

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.

edge writes:

So, where are your calculations and where do you get your numbers from?
Even Darwin, over a hundred years ago, seemed to understand the paucity of the fossil record and yet modern creationists cannot wrap their minds around the fact that we will ever see only a tiny fraction of all lifeforms that ever existed.

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.

edge writes:

What numbers are you talking about here? How many transitional fossils should we expect and why do we not find them simply scattered randomly throughout the fossil record?

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;

mike the wiz writes:

The above list is organisms that appear in the fossil record with no evolutionary history and remain unchanged. The purpose in showing the list is to show that you can select an organism from the list such as, for example "Tuatara Lizard, 200 million years", and because it first appeared approximately 200 million years ago, we can plot where it first would have appeared in the fossils, meaning it would have appeared in approx Triassic/Jurassic.

Now you may say; "so what?"

Well the point is, we know that lizards must have evolved AFTER amphibians had evolved from fish, according to evolution, which means we can deduce that between say, the Permian and the Jurassic, logically lizards MUST have evolved. Because obviously lizards can only evolve AFTER amphibians evolve into reptiles.

So that means between the Permian and Triassic we should see the transitionals for lizards. We don't, BUT, we do see other fossils preserved in rocks of that age.
Now before you say, "well that's just one lineage, maybe the record just didn't happen to record the intermediates," yes I thought you might say that, but the problem is, when you plot all of the organisms on the above list, the story is the same.
For example the pre-bat transitionals had to have evolved after mammals had evolved from reptiles, so between the Triassic and the Tertiary we expect to see how bats became bats, through transitionals leading to bats, we don't BUT we do see many fossils preserved in the Triassic and Tertiary.

Think about it. How many could I list, and say the same about? This logically proves there aren't any gaps in the fossil record otherwise the fossils wouldn't have organisms in those periods where the transitionals are missing

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by edge, posted 04-18-2019 11:16 AM edge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by edge, posted 04-18-2019 1:45 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19299
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 237 of 403 (850978)
04-18-2019 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 9:44 AM


mike the wiz writes:

Gee I would never expect any similarities whatsoever in things that swim...


We don't see much similarity between a whale's tail and a fish's tail two feet away in the same water.

...there couldn't possibly be any use in God designing swimmers with similar designs because they work in water.

But we do see a similarity between a whale's flipper which works in water, and a bat's wing, which works in air.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 9:44 AM mike the wiz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 12:39 PM ringo has responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 468 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 238 of 403 (850981)
04-18-2019 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 9:07 AM


Transitionals are intermediate in form/features/time/location from before and after
Hi Mike,

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.

Criteria is simple:

  1. are the form and features intermediate between those of an ancestor population/s and descendant population/s?
  2. are the time/age of the fossil intermediate between those of an ancestor population/s and descendant population/s?
  3. are the locations of the fossil intermediate between those of an ancestor population/s and descendant population/s?

For instance, Pelycodus:

quote:
Evolution of Pelycodus
an early Eocene Primate from Big Horn Basin, Wyoming

The chart documents the evolution of the Eocene lemur-like primate Pelycodus into Notharctus. The horizontal scale is an index of molar tooth size. Each horizontal bar gives the mean (vertical bar), two standard deviations (thick horizontal bar) and range (thin horizontal bar) for the indicated number of skulls from a series of fossil deposits. The index increase from 1.0 to 1.4 is an approximate doubling in size. The inset photograph shows a reconstruction of Notharctus venticolis, the species in the upper right of the series. [diagram after Gingerich]
Text material © 2005 by Steven M. Carr


Comparing the data from one level to the ones above and below:

  1. are the form and features intermediate between those of an ancestor population/s and descendant population/s?

    Yes: the major difference shown by the fossils is size, increasing over time.

  2. are the time of the fossil intermediate between those of an ancestor population/s and descendant population/s?

    Yes: the fossils are in layers that show time by depth, the deeper the fossil the older it is.

  3. are the locations of the fossil intermediate between those of an ancestor population/s and descendant population/s?

    Yes: all these fossils are from Big Horn Basin, Wyoming.


Ergo each layer is intermediate between ancestor population/s and descendant population/s. Ergo they are transitional fossils. QED.

BTW, that's several hundred transitional fossils in that diagram ...

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.

Problems with the design (or progressive creation) hypothesis:

(1) it does not explain how the design is actualized, what is the mechanism of design?
(2) it does not explain the nested hierarchy of development (why cars don't qualify)
(3) but most important, it does not explain the distribution in the temporal/spatial matrix, why there and not elsewhere/elsewhen? The Theory of Evolution does -- remember that the purpose of a theory in science is to explain all the evidence.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 9:07 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 04-18-2019 12:41 PM RAZD has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 239 of 403 (850982)
04-18-2019 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Taq
04-18-2019 12:05 PM


Taq writes:

You would have to show how the transitional mechanics fit into a nested hierarchy. This is the concept creationists consistently ignore, the nested hierarchy

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;

https://creation.com/...erarchies-and-chimeras-do-they-exist

(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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Taq, posted 04-18-2019 12:05 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by JonF, posted 04-18-2019 2:05 PM mike the wiz has responded
 Message 269 by Taq, posted 04-18-2019 2:44 PM mike the wiz has responded

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 82 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 240 of 403 (850985)
04-18-2019 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by ringo
04-18-2019 12:19 PM


ringo writes:

We don't see much similarity between a whale's tail and a fish's tail two feet away in the same water.

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.

Ringo writes:

But we do see a similarity between a whale's flipper which works in water, and a bat's wing, which works in air.

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.)

https://evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?/topic/645...

I 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by ringo, posted 04-18-2019 12:19 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by ringo, posted 04-18-2019 1:19 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021