Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 20 of 49 (352343)
09-26-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by iano
09-26-2006 8:46 AM


Re: another example.
His complaint seems to be that opponants twist 'scientific definitions' whereas they are actually evolutionist definitions of fossils found. If it is as I see it then its a complaint that rings hollow. "You may oppose but you must assume our definitions to correctly describe the fossil found"
Sort of. His real complaint appears to be that if you are going to argue against what scientists say about their own fields, then you need to either argue within that context OR demonstrate that the premises are wrong. Simply changing the definition to one you like, and then arguing against that is the heart of a strawman fallacy. The mistake creationists make is in ignoring the part after "or". Now a good demonstration of why either generic or specific organisms that share traits between taxa is NOT a transitional under the definition used by science, or a demonstration that these organisms are in fact distinct and unrelated, would be a good approach. That would put paid to the contention, IMO. Simply arguing that an organism isn't transitional because it doesn't fit the creationist idiosyncratic non-scientific definition of "transitional" (most of which appear to refer to chimerae or bizarre mosaics with unusable because un- or underdeveloped features rather than shared traits which "bridge" the taxa), doesn't actually provide a good argument against the scientific terminology. Remember the premise used by scientists when discussing what they term transitional: all organisms must be functional in their environment. A mosaic or chimera that couldn't possibly survive and reproduce can't be a transitional - because it couldn't have lived.
In the context of definitions, think about how Someonewhocares is insisting that the platypus be accepted as an example of what evolution says represents a transitional. Obviously, evolution DOES NOT say this - the platypus isn't an example of what we consider a transitional organism, except in the very loose sense that all organisms living or dead are "transitional" between what came before and what comes after. However, someonewhocares is demanding we accept this "example", and attempts to use it - an example that is flat wrong - to argue against the evolutionary concept of transitional.
So in essence the challenge for creationists who wish to call into question transitional organisms that science claims share features of two distinct taxa, is to demonstrate - starting from the definition used by scientists - that the organism is in fact unrelated to either one. Demonstrate, not assert. If this can be done consistently, then the entire idea of transitional organisms as used by scientists would have to be revisited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by iano, posted 09-26-2006 8:46 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2006 9:28 AM Quetzal has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 32 of 49 (353192)
09-29-2006 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by kuresu
09-29-2006 2:16 PM


Re: another example.
methinks quetzal misrepresented S1WCs. S1WCs was saying that, because the platypus has bird, reptile, and mammal features we should accept it as a transtional of all three, somehow (I think) ending up making it the ancestor of modern reptiles, birds, and mammals.
Actually, that is precisely my point. I must not have phrased it very well. S1WC is claiming that evolutionists would HAVE TO accept the playtpus as a "transitional" because, as you noted, he claims it has features of three widely separate taxa. In this, again as you noted, this is so incredibly wrong in so many ways that it can only show the depths to which creationists will plumb in order to mis-state and mis-understand evolutionary theory.
Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by kuresu, posted 09-29-2006 2:16 PM kuresu has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 33 of 49 (353198)
09-29-2006 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Modulous
09-29-2006 9:28 AM


Re: another example.
I have no disagreement - I'm well aware that the monotremes retained many features from the mammal-like reptiles. However, see my reply to keresu. We were not talking about derived vs. primitive features, synapomorphy with reptiles, etc. S1WC is proclaiming that this organism is what evolution is talking about when we discuss transitionals. It is NOT a transitional in the sense that S1WC is claiming. He is misrepresenting the science, creating a ridiculous strawman, and then crowing that he's "disproved" transitional organisms. I keep waiting for anglagard to jump on him with both feet in their debate. Perhaps it is too minor a point, but to my mind this is clear evidence that S1WC has only a limited understanding of what he's claiming to refute.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Modulous, posted 09-29-2006 9:28 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024