The watchmaker

[Jose Fly]

You explained what a transactional is right? What is the problem then?

So you agree that a "transitional fossil" is a specimen that exhibits traits from different taxa?

 

[nPeace]

So you agree that a "transitional fossil" is a specimen that exhibits traits from different taxa?

How is an ancestral group, and descendant group determined?

Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses, subject to falsification by further study (e.g., gathering of additional data, analyzing the existing data with improved methods). The data on which they are based is noisy

...taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

This idea of transitional sounds foreign to the one Darwin had in mind.... or am I missing something?
... one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened.

Why should I accept it? Is it based on what is assumed or not?

 

[Jose Fly]

How is an ancestral group, and descendant group determined?

Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses, subject to falsification by further study (e.g., gathering of additional data, analyzing the existing data with improved methods). The data on which they are based is noisy

...taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

This idea of transitional sounds foreign to the one Darwin had in mind.... or am I missing something?
... one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened.

Why should I accept it? Is it based on what is assumed or not?

This is exactly what I mean. It appears now that you don't agree with the definition I gave. Given that you claimed that there are no "transitional fossils", that must mean you have an idea of what a "transitional fossil" is.

So what is your definition of a "transitional fossil"?

 

[nPeace]

This is exactly what I mean. It appears now that you don't agree with the definition I gave. Given that you claimed that there are no "transitional fossils", that must mean you have an idea of what a "transitional fossil" is.

So what is your definition of a "transitional fossil"?

I don't know what Darwin had in mind, but it seems different than how it is view today, and I highlighted why, so don't ask, otherwise I would assume you are suffering from "denial blindness".

How do you see transitional fossils, according to Darwin?

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't know what Darwin had in mind, but it seems different than how it is view today, and I highlighted why, so don't ask, otherwise I would assume you are suffering from "denial blindness".

How do you see transitional fossils, according to Darwin?

I've presented a pretty standard definition but you refused to agree to it while also refusing to provide an alternative. I'm not sure what else I can do at this point.

So here's what we need to do if we're going to get anywhere......decide what a "transitional fossil" is. How do you propose we do that?

 

[nPeace]

I've presented a pretty standard definition but you refused to agree to it while also refusing to provide an alternative. I'm not sure what else I can do at this point.

So here's what we need to do if we're going to get anywhere......decide what a "transitional fossil" is. How do you propose we do that?

Well for one thing, I observe that you are the one demanding that your questions be answered, while refusing to answer mine. So I think if we are going to get anywhere, you could answer my last question.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well for one thing, I observe that you are the one demanding that your questions be answered, while refusing to answer mine. So I think if we are going to get anywhere, you could answer my last question.

I did answer. I noted that my definition is the standard definition (a specimen that has a mixture of traits from different taxa). That's how I "see transitional fossils".

So now what?

 

[nPeace]

I did answer. I noted that my definition is the standard definition (a specimen that has a mixture of traits from different taxa). That's how I "see transitional fossils".

So now what?

That's quite a ways back.
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-watchmaker.210491/page-20#post-5707778

 

[Jose Fly]

That's quite a ways back.
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-watchmaker.210491/page-20#post-5707778

Ok, this has gone in way too many circles. It's very simple....you claimed that there are no "transitional fossils". In order to make that statement honestly, you must have an idea of what a "tranitional fossil" is. So in your next post, please say what a "transitional fossil" is to you.

If you don't, then I can only conclude that you are just mindlessly repeating a talking point and have no idea what a "transitional fossil" is. Further, I must also conclude that the reason you refuse to agree to the standard definition I gave is because you know that as soon as you agree to it, I'll respond right back with an example that meets that definition, and that is an outcome you cannot handle.

The ball is in your court.

 

[nPeace]

Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, mathematician, geneticist, and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution.


Billions and Billions of Demons

Richard C. Lewontin
January 9, 1997 Issue
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

Of course it is obvious that no evolution scientists have any bias, and no prior agenda, and they do not create evidence to support prior godless ideas.
They are obviously saints.

Why should I not accept their assumptions?

 

[nPeace]

I think I now understand why you guys might have been so afraid to bring forward the evidence.
I was a bit confused, but now I understand why you go about creating rules, as though you are guarding some sacred secret - although this is public knowledge.
It got me thinking though - Could it be they don't believe this themselves, and were afraid of being laughed at?

Why would I laugh at you?
You won't be the first to believe in ridiculous stories. Don't you accuse us of that every day... well almost.

So, I found a page that I didn't have to search through an entire list of images that didn't even show the so-called transition.

[GALLERY=media, 8590]Tran-01 by nPeace posted Jul 21, 2018 at 6:56 PM[/GALLERY]
My my.

[GALLERY=media, 8591]Tran-02 by nPeace posted Jul 21, 2018 at 6:56 PM[/GALLERY]
What an interesting match.

[GALLERY=media, 8592]Tran-03 by nPeace posted Jul 21, 2018 at 6:56 PM[/GALLERY]
Even more interesting.

[GALLERY=media, 8593]Tran-04 by nPeace posted Jul 21, 2018 at 6:56 PM[/GALLERY]
My goodness.

[GALLERY=media, 8594]Tran-05 by nPeace posted Jul 21, 2018 at 6:56 PM[/GALLERY]
Ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Not laughing at you guys. Honestly. Just exercising my jaw muscles.
The artists must get paid a ton though.

I was going to do an animation but just felt too lazy to do so...
I could just see Coelacanth now, "Oh, I wonder if there is more than just this endless space of liquid. Let me
just find out."
Swim. Swim. Swim.
After what seemed like eons, Coelacanth finds himself in shallow water with sand pressing beneath his stomach. "Ooh. Look. Wow, it's beautiful! If only I could..."
So he presses his fin into the sand, and thrashes them in a desperate attempt to move forward... but to no avail.
Day after day, Coelacanth returns to that spot, repeatedly trying to get his fins to support his body, that he might take those steps out of water.

Time passes...
16 years later.

"Hey Trout. Have you seen Coelacanth?"
"Not for a week now. Maybe he found a new home. He seemed excited about his trips to God knows where."

Two miles away...
Coelacanth carcass lay dead on the land he so desperately tried to get on. Dead from old age.
[GALLERY=media, 8597]Dead by nPeace posted Jul 21, 2018 at 8:15 PM[/GALLERY]
Image: Tim Newcombe

This is probably the reason they didn't go extinct.
Fish’s DNA May Explain How Fins Turned to Feet

In the hope of reconstructing a pivotal step in evolution — the colonization of land by fish that learned to walk and breathe air — researchers have decoded the genome of the coelacanth, a prehistoric-looking fish whose form closely resembles those seen in the fossils of 400 million years ago.

@Jose Fly
I asked the question a few time - didn't get an answer, but I believe you simply refused to answer, because to do so honestly, you would have to admit that they could only link these fossils by inference, and presume the predecessor and the descendant.

Evolution of Tetrapod Vertebrates inferred from fossil record

Ancient Tracks Question Ideas About Tetrapod Origins
Indeed, since the 1980’s scientific investigations into the origin of tetrapods has exploded, and new discoveries are being made all the time. One new finding, just published in Nature, may even cause us to revise what we thought we knew about the tempo and mode of tetrapod evolution. It is a collection of approximately 395 million year old tracks from Poland, tracks that predate Tiktaalik and its kind by several million years.


I believe it's only a matter of time.

 

[Jose Fly]

I think I now understand why you guys might have been so afraid to bring forward the evidence.
I was a bit confused, but now I understand why you go about creating rules

It's quite simple. You claimed there are no "transitional fossils", yet you refuse to say what a "transitional fossil" is or even agree to the standard definition that I provided.

That begs an obvious question....how can you say there are no transitional fossils if you don't know what a transitional fossil is?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I went through this already, and I will not continue to go in circles.
Design
noun

1. 1.
   a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made.
2. 2.
   purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.

So, you never saw a painting in your life... period.

What are you talking about? What about what I said gives you the impression I never saw a painting, and what about what I said contradicts the definition of design? It literally says the same thing I did - that design is about intent being behind the object, it is not an inherent facet of the object itself.

You know about crayons. Can you come to a conclusion, assumption, whatever, that the painting was designed by someone?

Once again, you only know a painting is designed because you have seen paintings being made and know of no natural process that produces them. Comparing nature to man-made objects is asinine.

What evidence?

Thousands of transitional fossils, a nested hierarchy of forms, genetics, geology and archaeology.

You have shown nothing here. It's not relevant to what I am saying.
What are you trying to say, that scientists don't assert anything?

Why are you ignoring everything I've written and constructing strawmen?

What does this prove?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

It "proves" nothing because, a I have already explained, science deals with "evidence" - not "proof".

However, what it DOES prove is that your assertion - that there are no transitional fossils - is wrong. We have thousands of them.

 

[nPeace]

What are you talking about? What about what I said gives you the impression I never saw a painting, and what about what I said contradicts the definition of design? It literally says the same thing I did - that design is about intent being behind the object, it is not an inherent facet of the object itself.


Once again, you only know a painting is designed because you have seen paintings being made and know of no natural process that produces them. Comparing nature to man-made objects is asinine.


Thousands of transitional fossils, a nested hierarchy of forms, genetics, geology and archaeology.


Why are you ignoring everything I've written and constructing strawmen?


It "proves" nothing because, a I have already explained, science deals with "evidence" - not "proof".

However, what it DOES prove is that your assertion - that there are no transitional fossils - is wrong. We have thousands of them.

Thousands of assumptions apparently led to thousands of transitional. I already get that. What evidence is there - I'm not asking you, I'm saying - There is None.
Peace.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thousands of assumptions apparently led to thousands of transitional. I already get that. What evidence is there - I'm not asking you, I'm saying - There is None.
Peace.

No, a claim of "thousands of assumptions" is bearing false witness. Unjustified assumptions are not allowed in the sciences. I know that is the stock and trade of literalist Christians so I can see how you might be confused. You appear to be assuming that scientists are guilty of the same sins that science deniers are well known for making.

 

[Jose Fly]

Thousands of assumptions apparently led to thousands of transitional. I already get that. What evidence is there - I'm not asking you, I'm saying - There is None.
Peace.

Again, how can you say anything about transitional fossils when you don't even know what a "transitional fossil" is?

Also, where exactly have you looked for such specimens? Be specific.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thousands of assumptions apparently led to thousands of transitional. I already get that. What evidence is there - I'm not asking you, I'm saying - There is None.
Peace.

Then you are simply wrong. You've already denied that there are transitional fossils and been shown a list of thousands of them. Now you're just sticking your head in the ground.

If you are unwilling to debate honestly and admit mistakes or ignorance, why are you on a debate forum?

 

[nPeace]

Then you are simply wrong. You've already denied that there are transitional fossils and been shown a list of thousands of them. Now you're just sticking your head in the ground.

If you are unwilling to debate honestly and admit mistakes or ignorance, why are you on a debate forum?

It's a good thing I have patience.
You say I am wrong, but have not been able to prove me wrong, but I must say I am dishonest and wrong. I'm not the one who can't debate.
You guys are lacking seriously in ability to show that someone is wrong.
I'm not the one burying my head in the sand.
Should I throw the same thing over and over again, and you just close your eyes and duck, and pretend you saw nothing, and then keep parroting your previous statements.

I already told you, I don't like Merry-Go-Rounds.
Why don't you show me that I am wrong, instead of screaming for me to take your view.

I said what I said, and I showed why.
I'd appreciated if you did the same. Thanks.

How can someone even judge another of dishonesty. I mean, are there gods on these forums?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a good thing I have patience.
You say I am wrong, but have not been able to prove me wrong, but I must say I am dishonest and wrong. I'm not the one who can't debate.
You guys are lacking seriously in ability to show that someone is wrong.
I'm not the one burying my head in the sand.
Should I throw the same thing over and over again, and you just close your eyes and duck, and pretend you saw nothing, and then keep parroting your previous statements.

I already told you, I don't like Merry-Go-Rounds.
Why don't you show me that I am wrong, instead of screaming for me to take your view.

I said what I said, and I showed why.
I'd appreciated if you did the same. Thanks.

How can someone even judge another of dishonesty. I mean, are there gods on these forums?

You are at best fooling yourself here. You refuse to even to try to learn. That alone is dishonest.

But I am endlessly patient. Since you do not understand what evidence is, a very simple idea, then lets cover that first.

Scientific evidence is simply evidence that supports or opposes a scientific hypothesis or theory. Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[nPeace]

You are at best fooling yourself here. You refuse to even to try to learn. That alone is dishonest.

But I am endlessly patient. Since you do not understand what evidence is, a very simple idea, then lets cover that first.

Scientific evidence is simply evidence that supports or opposes a scientific hypothesis or theory. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Is there a difference between Scientific evidence and evidence?