What would a transitional fossil look like?

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

You would do well to dispense with the snark. I am not constrained by the ToE and that was the point as you well know. And if I see a trilobite that has a different body plan I most certainly will rethink it. I have nothing against the idea of there being another species that is similar but not a trilobite.

Faith writes: 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

What an odd thing to say. Why would you possibly think I don't "take into account" that these scientists are dedicated to science and knowledge and evidence? I read their books and papers for fuck sake.

Faith writes: and if the ToE is wrong, which of course it is, they are being misled.

If the ToE is ever shown to be incorrect it will not be by you. It will be done by scientists.

Faith writes: It isn't as if they approach their study without bias.

Yep, I know. Truth, ethics, curiosity, a life long quest for knowledge.

Faith writes: I'm not so hampered.

Really? I'm surprised.

Faith writes: However, if I run across a seriously different trilobite body plan I may have cause to rethink things.

Well, study never hurt anyone.

You are missing the point. If the ToE is wrong a lot of the study is going to be wrong too.

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

This is still a stupid argument. Insects always have the same body plan, but they are not all one species.

And what the fuck is your point anyway? Why are you arguing so stubbornly for a position that is so silly? What difference does it make to you since you will never study them anyway?

It makes the trilobite one Kind and contradicts the ToE which is the big splitter, creating apecies where there are really only variations built into a species genome..

Faith writes: You are missing the point. If the ToE is wrong a lot of the study is going to be wrong too.

What point?

Data is being collected, observations are being made and recorded and often published. If it turns out the Toe is wrong, the data, the observations, the evidence will be how we know it is wrong, not because you say it is.

Faith writes: It makes the trilobite one Kind and contradicts the ToE which is the big splitter, creating apecies where there are really only variations built into a species genome..

So?

Sorry, I don't see how an unsupported argument contradicts the ToE. It's not like you have your own H.E. Gilbert Fossil Gene Sequencing Kit.

Insects always have the same body plan, but they are not all one species.

ALL insects? Dragonflies, beetles, ants etc? Or do you just mean all dragonflies, all ants etc? In the latter case I'd probably argue that they ARE all one species.

Insects always have the same body plan, but they are not all one species. ALL insects? Dragonflies, beetles, ants etc? Or do you just mean all dragonflies, all ants etc? In the latter case I'd probably argue that they ARE all one species.

Yep. Adult insects.

1. Three distinct body parts that may be divided into segments: head, thorax, abdomen.
   
2. Three pairs of legs, each attached to a thoracic segment. The legs may be highly modified.
   
3. Two pairs of wings attached the rear two thoracic segments. The wings may be highly modified or even lost.
   
4. The head has 2 antennae that may be highly modified.
   
5. The head has at least 2 eyes when eyes are present, that may be highly modified or even lost.
   
6. The head contains the mouth which may have mandibles, a labrum, a labium, and two pairs of maxillae. All these mouthparts may be highly modified or absent.
   
7. The reproductive organs are in the abdomen and may be highly modified.

There are more details, but this only fits insects. The guys who study Trilobites will have a similar list of basic characters.

In the latter case I'd probably argue that they ARE all one species.

No one cares what someone who doesn't know ANYTHING says. You are not a taxonomist. You are a bullshitter and you have no credibility.

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.

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.

Faith writes: if I see a trilobite that has a different body plan I most certainly will rethink it.

A trilobite with a non-trilobite body plan would not be a trilobite.

That's how taxonomy works.

That's what I think too.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

H. E. Gilbert! Ah, memories.