|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Not so, Rob, I face it many times a year. Unlike other habits, it doesn`t get easier with practice. If the results are academic and have no personal importance, then it's possible. But when the results are going to have personal ramifications (on one's career, for example), then bias is inevitable. This big-to-do in education about "critical thinking" is mere piety. The term "critical thinking" is meaningless. It just means "thinking." It's a reaction to "rote" learning, although memorization has its place in education. To be sure, mere memorization by itself is not good education.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits certain primitive (or basal) traits in comparison with its more derived descendants. "Missing link" is a popular term used for transitional forms. According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. That is better. The definition is tied in which the assumption that evolution occurs in the TOE sense. For a transitional fossil to exist evolution must be presumed to occur. If it wasn't then there would be no talk of "derived descendants". Thus it is not a scientific definition as such but an evolutionary science definition
So Iano, do transitional fossils exist that meet the criteria of the scientific definition? A simple yes or no eh? Had you worded it so... "So, Iano, do fossils exist that meet the criteria of the evolutionary scientific definition of transitional fossils. A simple yes or no eh?" ..then I would have answered a hearty yes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
For a transitional fossil to exist evolution must be presumed to occur. You seem to have things turned 'round bass ackwards. It is the fact that transitional fossils do exist, and the fact that populations are seen to be in transition in the real world, that support the conclusion that life evolves. Put it this way, if live evolves, there will be transitional organisms, whether we assume life evolves or not. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Put it this way, if live evolves, there will be transitional organisms, whether we assume life evolves or not. And if evolution is assumed to happen then fossils exhibiting certain characteristics will be slotted in as transitional because the assumption demands that there be some. I dealing with the rather narrow issue of defining a transitional. And the definitions so far assume the traits to be transitional (derived descendent is the term used) which make the definitions evolutionist definitions not scientific ones. Razd quoted what was described as a neutral (read: scientific) definition when it most certainly is not. 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" Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
And if evolution is assumed to happen then fossils exhibiting certain characteristics will be slotted in as transitional because the assumption demands that there be some. Nobody has ever assumed evolution happens. Science has concluded that it does based on evidence. One part of that evidence is the existence of transitional fossils. As I mentioned before, you know, the part of my previous post that you ignored, it was the existence of transitional fossils, and the transitional nature of populations, that lead to the conclusion, not assumption, that life evolves. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6354 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
Thus it is not a scientific definition as such but an evolutionary science definition As opposed to a Quantum Mechanics or General Relativity or Cosmology or Pseudo scientific definition? Well sure - but I suspect that's not what you mean Rather than me try and guess could you clarify what you really mean please? My guess is it's the usual creo attempt to sneak in the 'evolution isn't really science' inferrence, but maybe I'm wrong. Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Had you worded it so... "So, Iano, do fossils exist that meet the criteria of the evolutionary scientific definition of transitional fossils. A simple yes or no eh?" ..then I would have answered a hearty yes What's the difference? The science in question is evolution. The topic being debated is the change in species over time = evolution.
Message 19 Razd quoted what was described as a neutral (read: scientific) definition when it most certainly is not. No, what I quoted was the proper definition. "Neutral" has nothing to do with it, it's not a matter of voting on the definition, it's a matter of using the proper definition. Let me give you an example:
A dog is a quadraped because it has four (4) legs. If I disagree with this, and claim that we should use a "neutral" definition, that "leg" should be defined as "any appendage off the trunk of the body" and ... Thus a dog is really a hexapod (if female) or a septapod (if male). Does every dog suddenly start running, walking and jumping with it's head and tail (etc.) as a leg? No. Calling them legs does not make them so. A definition is derived to clarify the discussion not obfusticate it. Changing the definition does not make the revised definition true, nor valid, nor meaningful.
The definition is tied in which the assumption that evolution occurs in the TOE sense. For a transitional fossil to exist evolution must be presumed to occur. The definition is derived from the theory of evolution - that species change over time, so therefore you should see evidence of that change over time - with more change possible the more time that is involved - and any fossil found that is intermediate in time between two related specimens shoulod also be intermediate in features, having some changes but not all. But the fossils exist whether evolution is derived as a theory or not, they are the facts of the matter. Creating a false definition doesn't make the proper definition false, it makes any argument using the false definition invalid (see straw man example in OP) and irrelevant. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
I (am) dealing with the rather narrow issue of defining a transitional O.K.,how about trannies being the missing critters between the 'kinds' that wandered off the Ark, and today`s species?Too specific?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
If the results are academic and have no personal importance, then it's possible. But when the results are going to have personal ramifications (on one's career, for example), then bias is inevitable. I think you miss the point. The whole essence of 'Crit-think' is that it is intensely personal. When one applies the four elements to one`s thinking, and it necessitates altering one`s worldview, you either change or go with the flow,i.e.,lack courage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
The whole essence of 'Crit-think' is that it is intensely personal. By personal I mean practical. And what's all this talk about "courage"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Courage? How else would you define letting go of the familiar? What other quality sums up changing your cosy beliefs to the harsh light of Crit-think? We all accept certain values as the standards in our life, based on previous understanding. Then, if you remain true to the three elements and discover you are on a fool`s journey, do you compromise, or take a deep breath and realign your thinking? I doubt anyone can take the plunge without counting the cost of lost sureties, lost opportunities, possibly lost friends. So it boils down to whether CT is king, or do you accommodate the new without accepting the new boundaries? Whether the transition is something relatively mundane, or life-shaking like moving from religious to atheistic (or vice versa), rejecting scientific, political, tribal, even domestic ties in the face of new evidence, I`d say it took courage. Still think phlogiston had a lot going for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Courage? How else would you define letting go of the familiar? What other quality sums up changing your cosy beliefs to the harsh light of Crit-think? This does not correspond to my experience of life in the least. I never had any religious beliefs to begin with, but I don't think it took any "courage" to go on not having religious beliefs. It didn't take any "courage" for me to examine arguments on both sides. Just sounds like boasting to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
think about how Someonewhocares is insisting that the platypus be accepted as an example of what evolution says represents a transitional. While no modern organism is transitional with any other modern organism in any meaningful way, monotremes have retained a lot of features that 'bridge the gap' between early synapsids and modern mammals. Features such as egg laying, excreting and reproducing through the same orifice, internal testes, some skeletal features (epipubic bone for example), sperm characteristics that are both reptillian in appearance and mammalian etc etc They do highlight the kind of thing we are looking for in a transitional form purely because they have retained ancient features that placental mammals have not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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.
Which is patently false--there are no bird features in platypus to begin with. Second, reptiles were around before the earliest synapsids. Third, it's not even the ancestor of all modern mammals--it's just a branch of modern mammals that shares a common ancestor with us. yeah . . . Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024