Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   What would a transitional fossil look like?
Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 10 of 403 (850305)
04-05-2019 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
04-05-2019 8:05 PM

Obviously you understand nothing. You can't get a fish from a cow by microevolution. Duh. Microevolution is just another word for the variation that occurs in a given genome over the generations. The cow genome does not have any genetic stuff for making fish, it is all variation on the cow kind and nothing else. The only way macroevolution, or anything that would change its genetic makeup in the direction of a fish, or anything not-cow for that matter, is massive mutations of some very unlikely sort, and they'd have to change the structural genetic stuff for a cow along with the usual variations on superficial traits such as fur color. You guys really understand absolutely nothing about the processes required. You cannot get variation beyond the genome. Not only is it limited to the genetic makeup for the particular creature that possesses it, but as the variations occur in any particular direction they eventually run into the situation of fixed loci or homozygosity for the trait, beyond which further evolution is not possible on that line of variation. I'm rignt about this. Macroevolution or the ToE is simply impossible by the nature of genetics.
Fossils are simply not a record of evolution, they are just dead creatures of their own particular kind.
Your post makes me wish that I could give AZPaul another cheer. He has accurately caricaturized the YEC position on this subject and you have completely fallen for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 04-05-2019 8:05 PM Faith has not replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 20 of 403 (850324)
04-06-2019 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
04-06-2019 10:31 AM

Re: comic relief
... something really genetically drastic has to happen to change that genome, so drastic that it is really impossible.
That sounds kind of like a personal judgement to me.
We wouldn't want anything too drastic to happen, would we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 10:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 04-06-2019 3:30 PM edge has not replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 108 of 403 (850684)
04-12-2019 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
04-11-2019 9:30 PM

Re: Thought Experiment for Faith
I also like the example of the trilobites. According to the usual idea they span many hundreds of millions of years in the fossil record and yet they all have basically the same body structure.
Kind of like how humans and chimps have 'basically the same body structure'?
All the changes are superficial, not much of a record for the ToE which should produce far more dramatic changes if species-to-species evolution were actually true.
Why should not all members of the Class Trilobita look like trilobites?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 04-11-2019 9:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 04-12-2019 12:36 PM edge has replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 114 of 403 (850698)
04-12-2019 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Faith
04-12-2019 12:36 PM

Re: Thought Experiment for Faith
It's just that there's a lot less time in the fossil record between the very different body structures of the reptiles and the mammals than between the very similar trilobite groups. A LOT less. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of years less. Of course the trilobites didn't HAVE to evolve that much I suppose, but it strikes me as a bit odd that there should be such huge differences between the reptiles and the mammals in so much less time while the trilobites remain trilobites for so much longer. I mean the ToE would lead me to expect more changes in the trilobites over such a long span of time. However I've also mused that to get the mammalian ear from the reptilian ear is impossible anyway.
Just a pondering.
Your opinions are noted.
Nevertheless, in my opinion, trilobites show a large amount of morphological variability within their Class. I would not expect to see them evolving into cats.
Feel free to ponder away! And when you've figured out how fast evolution should occur, I hope you will publish.
But they don't. The differences are much greater than those between cats and dogs: I described the differences that define their respective genomes. The chimp's extra long muscular arms, muscular torso and short legs with hand-like feet, plus skull shape etc etc etc, amount to greater differences in body structure than those between cats and dogs.
Yes, in your opinion. If you were a cat, you might have a different opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Faith, posted 04-12-2019 12:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 04-12-2019 3:31 PM edge has not replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 141 of 403 (850744)
04-13-2019 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
04-13-2019 2:51 PM

Re: Thought Experiment for Faith
What I said scientists would likely agree with is the general three-lobed shape as the basic structure of trilobites.
Yes, that's why they are called trilobites. What did you expect?
But the willful ignorance here is really not worth bothering about. I can talk to other people who will get the point and you all can continue to deceive yourselves as you like.
Your untrained opinion is noted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 04-13-2019 2:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 04-13-2019 5:25 PM edge has replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 147 of 403 (850754)
04-13-2019 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
04-13-2019 5:25 PM

Re: Thought Experiment for Faith
The three lobed structure is the part of the trilobite that doesn't vary. I don't know why you people can't read, but enough is enough.
So, are you saying that since all trilobites have three lobes they are not variable enough to say that they evolved into separate species?
Would you say the same thing about tetrapods?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 04-13-2019 5:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 04-14-2019 12:21 PM edge has replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 167 of 403 (850795)
04-14-2019 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by Faith
04-14-2019 12:21 PM

Re: Thought Experiment for Faith
Well, as long as the three lobes are arranged as they are in all the trilobites, yes.
No because all tetrapods do not have the same body structure. There are many species of tetrapods, which all vary in many ways within their genome or body build. So as I've been considering it, dogs are a species; cats are a species. Etc.
But all of the appendages in tetrapods are arranged in the same way. So, according to your logic, cats and dogs are the same species.
According to my understanding, having the same arrangement of body parts does not mean that they are the same species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 04-14-2019 12:21 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 04-14-2019 1:59 PM edge has not replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 223 of 403 (850949)
04-17-2019 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
04-17-2019 10:18 AM

Being lied about is such an invigorating experience, no wonder I can't leave EvC alone.
I've always thought that you must enjoy the drubbing that you take here. It's really the only explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 04-17-2019 10:18 AM Faith has not replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

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." Flowering plant - Wikipedia
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]" Dinosaur - Wikipedia
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 replied

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

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 252 of 403 (851007)
04-18-2019 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 12:18 PM

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.
Have you not repeatedly denied the presence of transitional fossils?
Okay, I will amend my statement to reflect that YECs, in general, have continually denied transitional fossils. Your erroneous complaint of the logical fallacy of ad hominem argument is moot.
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.
I get the feeling that you confuse philosophy with science.
You state that while it is logically possible to classify something as transitional, it is not logical to project from the specific to the general. The problem you have is that this is philosophy, not science. Inductive science is still science and a logical fallacy is not necessarily fallacious.
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.
But we wouldn't expect the same evidence 'without evolution'.
And no, evidence does not 'work as proof'. Proof is a judgement (IMO) and evidence either supports a premise (proof), or not (refutation), or it is equivocal. You seem to suggest that the evidence is equivocal and therefore does not support the presence of transitional fossils. I contend that the mass of evidence (much of which you ignore) is 'proven' to the reasonable person. If only from the standpoint that you have no complete alternative to the evolutionary explanation, my opinion is that your argument is invalid.
You seem to think that if I admit that things exist that qualify as "transitionals" that this means they really were transitionals of evolution.
It appears that you did not read my previous post. Please do so.
That would be like saying if we find finger prints as we might expect at a crime scene, that this means I am guilty, ...
I'm not sure how one would draw that conclusion from what you present. How would 'finger prints at a crime' scene implicate you?
... 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.
Well, I would have to ignore certain sets of data, wouldn't I? Sound familiar? I have been saying all along that YEC ignores certain data that is inconvenient.
With transitionals of evolution, most have not been found, only a handful of candidates exist in comparison to how many species exist.
How many should there be? We have hundreds ... at least. "A handful" is misleading.
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.
That vast figure would also agree that "discovered fossils" is not the same as "numbers of organisms that ever existed". But please, you said something about calculations. Can you provide them or just make vague denials?
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.
That's silly. Any time we provide a transitional species, you would find just another two gaps. The problem is one of connecting dots through long periods of time, not a set number of frames per second. As such, you are once again, confusing evidence with proof. We cannot provide you with absolute proof, only myriad evidence. A reasonable person would attempt to explain that data and all of it.
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.
Considering that you cannot provide some kind of definition of 'transitional fossil', you pronouncement falls hollow. You ignore the data that exists while searching for absolute proof.
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.
In this case, you admit to ignoring certain data, including actual numbers and patterns. You conveniently dismiss entire fields of science.
That doesn't refute my reasoning. I spoke of slothful induction.
Yes, you presented a philosophical dismissal of scientific facts.
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, ...
Please document this number.
... 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.
I have no problem 'wrapping my mind around that'. While almost all major Phyla are present the succeeding Orders and Classes are not so represented. I mean, we are talking about pretty basic body plans here.
By providing an evolutionary link saying there is evidence of angiosperm evolution. LOL. Then can you show me all of the intermediates please.
I'm sorry but asking for complete and accurate detail by someone who can dismiss the entire field of geochronology is kind of hypocritical, don't you think? No one is saying that the known record is complete. All we are saying is that the theory of evolution explains the data. And frankly there is no viable alternative explanation unless one wishes to ignore huge tracts of data as you appear to be doing.
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.
Of course it wastes your time because you cannot face the consequences of your scenario. It's a waste of time for all of us because we know that you have no answer and no intent to attempt an answer. And yet, the point is made.
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)
Which 'stages of history' are you talking about? Do you really think that we do not see evolution of trilobites within the Cambrian Period? We do not see this homogenization of species that you appear(?) to espouse.
Evolution has no place to hide, yet it simply doesn't exist.
Well, it certainly seems to be hiding from you. And your assertion carry no weight in science or philosophy.
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.
Please document this percentage. Nevertheless, we have data. Explain it.
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.
We have already shown that you were wrong on a number of these transitions. How many times do we have to do that? Seriously, you are not going to accept any explanation anyway.
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.
The ability to deny data is an impenetrable defense. I repeat, there is a difference between the known record and the actual history of life.
We have actual data. What is your interpretation?
As to the 'gibberish', it makes a lot more sense if you studied the actual science rather than simply complain about it.
In this post you have basically asserted everything without providing any reasoning.
That is because I am attacking your reasoning. I have found that providing evidence and reason has no effect on YECists.
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;
"Unavoidably"? Sounds like someone who has never actually tried to do the proper scientific study of the data.
So I guess I am not uninformed about transitionals and when and where to expect them.
If you get your information from Fred Williams, you are likely to be misinformed. Fred once told me that the fossils in his backyard are the some ones found on top of Mount Evans. Considering that he lives on Denver Basin formations, and Mount Evans is >1ga metamorphic rock, that's a pretty bizarre statement.
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.
And it has actually been done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 12:18 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 2:12 PM edge has replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 254 of 403 (851010)
04-18-2019 1:48 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
Anyone with eyes open should be able to see the evidence for the Flood everywhere on this earth.
Weren't you the one with vision problems?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 04-18-2019 1:41 PM Faith has not replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 256 of 403 (851014)
04-18-2019 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 1:01 PM

Your post ...
You get a lot of "half-smart" evolutionists online. ...
Weren't you the one complaining about ad hominem arguments somewhere above?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 1:01 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 275 of 403 (851043)
04-18-2019 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 2:12 PM

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?
If you read carefully, I'm saying that if you refuse to provide some kind of information showing otherwise, I have to question if you understand the concept of a transitional fossil, all the while stating categorically that they do not exist.
It is clear from the scientifically accepted definitions that they do, indeed, exist.
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)
Very intelligent people often believe weird stuff. And I do not recommend presenting personal information here as some YEC will casually dismiss it.
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.
Sorry but you disqualify yourself with the 'handful' business. IIRC, the actual number is in the hundreds.
And I would expect the proportions to be tiny. It's a geological fact.
In the meantime we have data. The idea is to explain it.
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.
As I have said before, this is science, not philosophy.
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.
Actually that's not quite right. There are plenty of intelligent and informed creationists. But as Twain(?) once said, 'we are all ignorant of something'. I would add that most of us are susceptible to rigid belief systems.
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.
I"m sorry that nature has not given you a perfect and complete record of life. However, we do have hard data that most of us would like to explain. I realize that most YECs do not care about explanations, but it is human curiosity to learn about these things.
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 is nonetheless, a data point.
... 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.
That would seem to be a judgement call. Which is my whole point. Of all those superficial design flaws, I can feel every one of them.
There he goes again with "a reasonable person". What goal must I score through to count as a "reasonable person".
It's not quantifiable. It has to do with an open mind and critical analysis skills.
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?
But it's not 'critical thinking', it is simple criticism that you practice. All you do is criticize the theory of evolution. You don't really have an alternative that you support in this forum.
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.
We have precursors (which you still refuse to acknowledge) for the Cambrian fauna. And I have not disagreed that the record is sparse. In fact, I expect it. That you reject this geological reasoning out of hand suggests that you are not even interested in the evidence or the explanation.
So do I qualify as "reasonable".
Perhaps on some other subjects.
Let's be honest again - you would only qualify a "reasonable" person as someone that accepts evolution.
Not at all. I have actually conversed with reasonable YECs. They respect my opinions and don't make unreasonable statements such as "TRASITIONAL FOSSILS DO NOT EXIST, period, end of story!" The just agree to disagree based on their religious preference.
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."
It is only your opinion that they are 'fantastic'. I would think that a person as logical as you would understand that you only express your viewpoints.
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.
I see no reason for miracles or supernatural intervention.
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;
So, since humans design stuff, the nature is designed? Isn't there a logical fallacy in there someplace?
Question: 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.
Well, for one, you seem to be pretty stubborn and dismissive. A combination of traits that I do not see as virtues.
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
I will check it out. However, I reiterate that you confuse philosophy with science.
If 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).
I'm sure you are logical about some things.
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.
Well, you could have an open-minded conversation here. That would be an excellent start. Simple, adamant complaining about evolution isn't working for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 2:12 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 3:16 PM edge has not replied
 Message 292 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-19-2019 10:07 PM edge has not replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 315 of 403 (851211)
04-20-2019 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by Faith
04-20-2019 9:33 PM

You fail to take into account that the scientists who study these things are first of all dedicated to the ToE which colors how they think about all these things, and if the ToE is wrong, which of course it is, they are being misled. It isn't as if they approach their study without bias. I'm not so hampered.
True enough. You are not constrained by things such as facts, evidence, principles ... or even reality.
However, if I run across a seriously different trilobite body plan I may have cause to rethink things.
I'm sure you won't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 9:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 11:57 PM edge has replied

Member (Idle past 1821 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002

Message 331 of 403 (851233)
04-21-2019 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Faith
04-20-2019 11:57 PM

You would do well to dispense with the snark.
You would do well to dispense with the stubborn denial and unsupported assertions.
I am not constrained by the ToE and that was the point as you well know.
I understand that you are constrained by myth and your own personal pride.
And if I see a trilobite that has a different body plan I most certainly will rethink it.
Utter nonsense. You will not see a different body plan for trilobites and if you did, your blind denial will reject any such information.
And why should a different species have a different body plan?
I have nothing against the idea of there being another species that is similar but not a trilobite.
No body does. This is a meaningless statement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Faith, posted 04-20-2019 11:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Faith, posted 04-21-2019 12:23 PM edge has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024