Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9071 total)
609 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, dwise1, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (7 members, 602 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,110 Year: 4,222/6,534 Month: 436/900 Week: 142/150 Day: 12/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would a transitional fossil look like?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 200 of 403 (850858)
04-15-2019 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Faith
04-15-2019 3:56 PM


quote:

CUZ all cats have sharp claws, with a slight exception for the cheetah I guess, whereas singular characteristics aren't structural IMHO.

All the species in that genus have similar structures. And structures are surely structural - while minor differences are surely superficial.

And I must say that I really really don’t think that you’d accept a small difference between trilobite Families as “structural” rather than “superficial” - even if the differing trait was found in every species in the Family.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Faith, posted 04-15-2019 3:56 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 211 of 403 (850879)
04-16-2019 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Faith
04-15-2019 5:30 PM


Re: Thought Experiment for Faith
quote:

...I do claim to be a creationist and I'm trying to think like a creationist

And you sometimes do a very bad job of that. For example on this thread you argue that creationists should sabotage their idea of Kinds by pretending to believe in fixity of species. Just because you don’t like the idea of speciation actually happening. Why creationists should care so much for your feelings as to deny something even you believe I have no idea. I very much doubt that you have any idea either.

quote:

...if evos are wrong they are wrong.

But you don’t care about the truth. You only care about your opinions - right or wrong.

It is obvious now that your “structural versus superficial” criterion has no objective basis - any difference between cats and dogs is considered structural, any difference between trilobites is considered superficial. That is not a rational argument, it’s just an extreme and irrational bias.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Faith, posted 04-15-2019 5:30 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(2)
Message 221 of 403 (850936)
04-17-2019 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
04-17-2019 10:18 AM


That assessment should be left to the people who are lied about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 04-17-2019 10:18 AM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(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 taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 249 of 403 (851000)
04-18-2019 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 12:49 PM


quote:

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.

We don’t - and can’t - have perfect predictions. But nonetheless the parent of transitionals is what we would expect of evolution and not what we would expect if they were simply random occurrences.

quote:

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 node

Of course the pattern is that the transitionals are found where they “ought” to be.

quote:

Or you can pretend a platypus is the expected pattern of evolution

The platypus is consistent with evolution. And a good example of the necessity of studying the anatomy rather than relying on superficial appearances.

quote:

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.

There are two very significant points here. First, the existence of a general trend - which does point to evolution. Second the fact that our knowledge of the fossil record has greatly expanded since Darwin. Darwin did not know anything like as much about it as we do now. And yet the evidence continues to be consistent with evolution.

quote:

So we don't have to break the rock record's pattern just because he wrote evolution to match it.

The fact of a non-random pattern breaks the idea that transitional fossils are mere coincidences as you argue. The fact that the many discoveries since Darwin have confirmed the pattern only make it more clear that it is real.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 12:49 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 253 of 403 (851009)
04-18-2019 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
04-18-2019 1:41 PM


Re: Transitionals are intermediate in form/features/time/location from before and after
quote:

Anyone with eyes open should be able to see the evidence for the Flood everywhere on this earth. Everywhere, and not least in the strata found all over the planet that oddly enough are stacked in the same order everwhere they are found.

Please explain what makes it the “same order” and how that supports the Flood.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 04-18-2019 1:41 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 296 of 403 (851128)
04-20-2019 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
04-19-2019 3:36 PM


Faith it is not hard to find examples where you are failing to use your intellect correctly.

Let’s take a gentle example. I will repeat the question I asked in Message 253

quote:

Anyone with eyes open should be able to see the evidence for the Flood everywhere on this earth. Everywhere, and not least in the strata found all over the planet that oddly enough are stacked in the same order everwhere they are found.

Please explain what makes it the “same order” and how that supports the Flood.

Can you actually answer that ? Or are you making a foolish error because you haven’t bothered to understand what you are talking about ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 04-19-2019 3:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 2:43 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 299 of 403 (851150)
04-20-2019 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Faith
04-20-2019 2:43 PM


quote:

The fossils of course identify the order of the strata, carried on the water of the Flood and deposited in layers of course.

Well you didn’t make the mistake I expected, but you forgot that the order of the fossil record - which is what you are talking about - can’t be explained by the Flood.

So it’s not evidence for the Flood - it’s strong evidence against your version.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 2:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 3:01 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 301 of 403 (851176)
04-20-2019 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by Faith
04-20-2019 3:01 PM


quote:

No I didn't forget and I knew you'd be right there to argue against my claim that the Flood could account for the order.

You mean you knew that I would point out the fact that the Flood cannot account for the order.

quote:

Well, it must account for it and perhaps the main argument for that is the irrationality of the usual explanation.

Obviously your ideas about the Flood can be wrong (and are wrong) and there is nothing irrational in the idea of different creatures living at different times. Even Old Earth Creationists accept that.

quote:

As I've argued at great length, you can't get a mammal from a reptile for instance, although that is the explanation for their relative positions in the strata/aka the fossil record.

First, the evidence says that we did get mammals from reptiles. Second, while evolution makes more sense of the order - giving us reasons for the order - even without it we would still have a better explanation than you.

quote:

And the huge variety of trilobites over what are thought to be hundreds of millions of years just adds another kind of argument: there is no evolution over all those hmy, just variations on the Trilobite species/genome.

In reality the evidence shows plenty of evolution among the trilobites. The fact that you ignore the evidence doesn’t change that.

But thanks for proving that you are wasting your intellect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 3:01 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 6:04 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 11:54 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 304 of 403 (851182)
04-20-2019 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by Faith
04-20-2019 5:38 PM


quote:

Insects are not all the same species but trilobites are.

Your wilful ignorance doesn’t change the fact that trilobites are many, many species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 5:38 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 5:46 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 306 of 403 (851185)
04-20-2019 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by Faith
04-20-2019 5:46 PM


quote:

Trilobites are clearly all variations on one species programmed by the trilobite genome, like varieties of dogs that all come from the dog genome.

Given the variation in trilobites - as shown in previous discussion - that obviously isn’t the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 5:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 5:55 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 309 of 403 (851188)
04-20-2019 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by Faith
04-20-2019 5:55 PM


quote:

Sorry, you can't refer to previous posts without repeating their contents. That's just obfuscation.

Except that you do that all the time. e.g. Message 535

Try Message 2269. Those two trilobites are certainly NOT obviously the same species.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 5:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 6:07 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 326 of 403 (851223)
04-21-2019 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Faith
04-20-2019 6:04 PM


quote:

There is no actual evidence that mammals came from reptiles

Of course there is. The pattern of the tree of life is evidence, so are the transitional fossils that have been found.

quote:

And when you try to figure out how many trials it would take before you got an ear arrangement even remotely similar to the mammalian ear from the reptilian you ought to see that the sheer numbers defeat the whole idea.

Show your work, taking into account the transitional fossils which show evidence that the changes occurred.

quote:

Anyway, it's clear that the whole fossil record "evidence" for evolution is a pipe dream. The very idea that time, hundreds of millions of years of time, sorted itself into separate stacks of sediments containing particular life forms that fossilized, is nonsensical.

In reality it is the explanation that fits the evidence. The really ludicrous idea is that a global Flood did it. That really is crazy.

quote:

One "time period" of millions or hundreds of millions of years, is identified by, say, nothing but sandstone, another by, say, nothing but limestone, another by shale, and some by mixtures of sediments, you find them illustrated and labeled as time periods, such as "Devonian" or "Permian" or "Jurassic" or whatnot so don't tell me I'm confusing the time scale with the geological column, they are thoroughly well confused all over the internet without my help

Now there is the mistake I expected you to make when you were talking about the “same rocks” above. You managed to do better that time, but you just can’t stick to the truth. As you obviously know The strata were originally assigned to geological eras based on their fossil contents - where present. Not the sort of rock, because that varies by location.

And, of course, there is nothing silly about working out when the material that became the strata was deposited. And again, the type of rock only comes into play where it is relevant through it’s composition or form (e.g. turbidites are deposited rapidly, shales are deposited slowly)

quote:

Not to mention that if you try to figure out how a given layer of sediment formed in the time period in question you can't do it, it's impossible.

Of course we can. Geologists have been doing it for a long time now. Indeed, they discovered that certain fossils could be a quite reliable guide well before radiometric dating came in.

quote:

Such nice neat layers too, with nice neat separation from the sedimentary layers above and below. Supposedly formed over multiplied millions of years. But I'm just a stupid creationist so you can pretend I'm not saying anything.

Except that they are often not as neat as you assume.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 6:04 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 327 of 403 (851224)
04-21-2019 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by Faith
04-20-2019 11:54 PM


quote:

The trilobite body is always the same body plan which is what argues for its being one species.

In other words trilobites vary so much that they are obviously not a single species.

As you know, wild species are not hugely variable. The variations in domesticated species are created and maintained by selective breeding.

And obviously we should work on the basis that trilobites are wild species. The idea that they are a selectively bred domestic species is massively implausible.

So, obviously - taking the evidence at face value - there are many species of trilobite. Saying otherwise is just silly.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 11:54 PM Faith has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 336 of 403 (851254)
04-21-2019 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 335 by Faith
04-21-2019 1:51 PM


Re: It makes the trilobite one Kind ??? Lolling on the floor
quote:

Yes, one species or one Kind, that's how I see all those trilobites climbing up the fossil record for the supposed hundreds of millions of years represented there, and it is the sameness of their body structure that enables me to classify them that way

No it isn’t. It’s your inability to accept the fact that you are obviously wrong. As I pointed out wild species do not show anything like the range of variation seen in trilobites. It is obvious that trilobites are not a single species. Even to you if you bother to look.

quote:

And where did I call it bias to classify other creatures the same way:

I can guess. But what is your reason for refusing to classify other creatures the same way ? Why the glaring, obvious double standard ? And how can you possibly expect to get away with it ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by Faith, posted 04-21-2019 1:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by Faith, posted 04-21-2019 1:59 PM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022