What would a transitional fossil look like?

Faith writes: As I said, take my definition or shut up.

You are not entitled to your own definition.
Your beliefs have no effect on reality and evidently reality has no effect on your beliefs.
And no I will not shut up. I will continue to point out your falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Faith writes: There's nothing odd about it, nothing just my own.

Actually, there's plenty odd about any belief. Beliefs that have nothing to do with God are just as odd as those that do.

Superstition is stuff like imputing power to relics or rituals

Relics like the cross?
Rituals like praying?

Or are crosses devoid of all power?
Does praying have no power?

Yes some of them supernatural, but that's not superstition if you have any respect for language.

Got it.

When you or those-you-approve-of do it, it's supernatural.
When those-you-don't-approve-of do it, it's superstition.

You do know that both are seen as equally "odd" - yes? At least, by the average functioning members of first world countries.

Everyone knows that crosses have a "more than normal" feeling about them - but that this comes from the cultural significance we put on them. They don't actually have any power. Just like Ouija boards.

Everyone knows that praying is something we (as humans) do when we don't know what to do. Sometimes that leads to epiphanies that can lead to change. Sometimes it doesn't. The prayer itself doesn't have any power. Just like cheering on your sports team from watching the game at home.

I've asked how you think [evolution occurs from microevolution times hundreds of repeats] could happen and so far nobody has really come up with a way it could

Mutations and time.

some kind of genetic change that would even start the process

Mutations

like getting a human hand from a chimp hand etc

Mutations and time.

And three, yes I sometimes try to defend the conservative point of view in politics, or such events as the movie "Ujplanned." I don't think I do a very good job of this, however.

I think you do a really good job of bringing the information of the side you're defending to the table.
It's just that taking that information and using it to "defend" the argument just doesn't hold much water.

Like "defending" square wheels.
You can bring all the information to the table you'd like on how square wheels can be used - and you can be really good at getting this information.
It just doesn't matter. Can't change reality. Round wheels are better than square wheels. Any "defense" of square wheels is going to be futile.

Take my understanding of the term as fundamental or forget having a discussion.

Faith, please consider:

This is not a discussion.

Take it from a person completely disinterested in this conversation that you have coopted this forum as your personal pulpit. All you really lack is a soapbox and a bullhorn.

If you want to preach, this is not the venue for you.

I have mine, it's a historically valid definition. You all have the Rationalist anti-supernatural definition. There is no way we are going to agree and no way I'm giving in or you are giving in.

Therefore this needs to be considered an impasse and the topic brought to an end. Agree to disagree or just stop talking about it.

quote:

---

I have mine, it's a historically valid definition. You all have the Rationalist anti-supernatural definition. There is no way we are going to agree and no way I'm giving in or you are giving in.

---

But essentially your point is that you get to dictate what definitions are permitted. Obviously that is an unreasonable demand and you should give in.

You are misusing the terms I use. Dogs are a species, cats are a species, chimps are a species, human beings are a species, trilobites are a species, etc etc etc. You do not get to use my terms to establish your own definitions and impute them to me.

Just applying your definition.

Basic body plan the same, not counting different size or length.

No. You do not have some sort of personal dispensation to make up your own definitions for words. Words have meanings. Either use them in the manner they are defined, use different words or drop the argument.
Classic troll behavior and demands.

quote:

---

You are misusing the terms I use. Dogs are a species, cats are a species, chimps are a species, human beings are a species, trilobites are a species, etc etc etc.

---

I note that you do not quote what RAZD actually said:

Then dogs and cats are a "Kind or species (faith usage)" and chimps and humans a "Kind or species (faith usage)" ... where "species (faith usage)" means some original fantasy "species genome" and NOT species as used in biology, science, reality.

And that seems to be true. We have seen no valid criteria for identifying species which allows us to say that trilobites are a species - and still keep cats, dogs, chimps and human beings as separate species.

Edited by PaulK, : Correct qs tag

No, crosses have no power, that would be superstition. Also prayer has no power in itself but God's answers do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

At least you said a few things that address the question of how to get from species to species:

I've asked how you think [evolution occurs from microevolution times hundreds of repeats] could happen and so far nobody has really come up with a way it could Mutations and time.

some kind of genetic change that would even start the process Mutations

like getting a human hand from a chimp hand etc Mutations and time.

Unfortunately this is on the same level as the answer that "microevolution just continues for millions of years."

It's an assertion of what is really no more than belief or faith, there is no substance to it. You are not saying HOW this is possible, trying to imagine just what changes mutation needs to bring about to make the change from chimp hand to human hand. Its proportion in relation to the body has to change, so does the size of fingers in relation to thumb have to change, so does the skin covering have to change etc etc etc. None of the human hand is in the chimp genome: that genome always produces a chimp hand. Something drastic has to change to make the chimp genome do something new. What mutations would do that and what makes you think they would happen anyway? Why wouldn't mutations add a few fingers or subtract a few or turn the fur into scales or whatnot? If you kept getting mutational trials of that sort they could last for millions of years and never produce a human hand.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I don't care what you've "seen," the definitions I gave are my definitions.

As usual this "discussion" has become a farce. Nevertheless for a while I will resist the impulse to leave this popstand and go on Inactive because the stupidities and misrepresentations do keep temping me back.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I don't care what you've "seen," the definitions I gave are my definitions.

---

You haven’t got a definition of species that supports your claims.

quote:

---

As usual this "discussion" has become a farce. I will resist the impulse to leave this popstand and go on Inactive for a while nevertheless because the stupidities do keep temping me back.

---

Then maybe you should use your intellect from something better than creating stupidities you want to post here.

Calling a person insane, "off her rocker," for holding the standard Protestant belief really ought to be cause for suspension from the forum on the basis of disrespecting another's "sincerely held belief." I know of course that the Rules are no longer prosecuted, so I'll have to content myself with pointing out the infraction myself.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No I'm not dictating what definitions get to be used, I'm saying the whole discussion needs to be suspended and NO definitions used. And if you continue with your nitpicky arguments you aren't getting an answer.

Faith writes: Dogs are a species, cats are a species, chimps are a species, human beings are a species, trilobites are a species, etc etc etc.

Science has identified 50,000 trilobite species. You appear to be (very) wrong again.

Chimps btw, *are* a species - Pan troglodytes - and so are bonobos - Pan paniscus. They have very similar body plans so I guess they're the same species according to you?

But so is Homo sapiens which according to DNA sequencing shows Pan to be our closest living relative. Same body plan, same species, according to you.