Your definition is unacceptable as it assumes your conclusion.
The fossil record shows there never was evolution.
- Thread starter Elia
- Start date
The same way we don't have to define the orbit of the sun around the Earth.
It's your idea, you define it. Just don't do it in a way that requires the assumption of your Darwinism.
Jose Fly
New member
So you have no idea what a "transitional fossil" is, yet you're absolutely sure they don't exist. I'll just let that speak for itself. :kookoo:
Educate yourself on how science works. If we hypothesize that humans share a common evolutionary ancestry with other primates, we can use that to make several predictions that can be used to test the hypothesis. One of those is that we would expect to find fossil specimens that evidence this evolutionary past, specifically ones that show a mixture of human-like and primate-like traits.
That's how science works.
You've told us the definition you like numerous times. :idunno:
The problem is, it assumes the truth of your Darwinism. So it's perfectly clear what your definition is. The problem is, it's not in the least bit useful.
Educate yourself. We believe all life had a common creator. Those things He created that work in similar ways will have similar features.
That's how science works.
6days
New member
Taxa is often based on evolutionary beliefs, and organisms continually get reclassified. Darwin's tree of life has been re-drawn thousands of times.
Also similar characteristics do not mean common ancestry. A good designer uses similar plans quite often. For example, a beaver has webbed feet, but that does not mean its great grandmother was a duck.
And, the definition is also a bit circular assuming that there is such a thing as transitionals.
IOW... I like Stripes simple answer to the question... "No."
6days
New member
Exactly. They start with the conclusion, then try make the evidence fit.
Jose Fly
New member
No, it's a prediction that is a test of the hypothesis. It's no different than an archaeologist hypothesizing that there was a Mayan influence in an ancient culture and predicting "we should expect to find Myan-style artifacts in the remains of this ancient village" as a way to test that hypothesis.
So you disagree that under a hypothesis of evolutionary common ancestry between humans and other primates, we should find fossil specimens with a mixture of human-like and primate-like traits?
And what specific scientific organization utilizes that framework? Also, I thought you agreed that creationism isn't science?
Jose Fly
New member
So what is your definition of "transitional fossil"?
genuineoriginal
New member
It is not a definition, it is a testable (and falsifiable) hypothesis, unlike so-called "transitional fossils"
Here it is again:
The changes in DNA needed for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will result in non-fertile animals that are incapable of propagating those changes to any new generations.
No? We asked for a definition, you gave it — and now "no"? :AMR:
Not really. We can look at extant creatures running around and see the same similarities that you claim as evidence for evolution.
No. Learn what begging the question is.
You can have your idea; what you can't have is definitions that assume the truth of your idea. Not as part of a debate over the validity of Darwinism.
Uh, all of them. :idunno:
Shows what you know.
Creationism is science.
Jose Fly
New member
Again, pay attention. You complained that the definition assumes the conclusion, and I corrected you by noting that it is a prediction, not an assumption.
If you disagree that evolutionary theory predicts the existence of transitional fossils, why do you creationists spend so much time and effort arguing that transitional fossils don't exist? :idunno:
Then what do you think evolutionary theory predicts regarding the fossil record?
Then name one.
How do you propose we test it?
This is why your definition is wrong. This is an assumption on your part goes far beyond what you claim Kose did with his definition.
Pay attention. You accused us of having "no idea what a transitional fossil is, yet you're absolutely sure they don't exist." You've told us numerous times your definition of a transitional fossil. We reject their existence based on your definition.
You gave your definition numerous times. The problem is, it assumes the truth of your Darwinism.
I wouldn't deny that. Why would you say I did?
Given that your definition of transitional forms requires the assumption of Darwinism, it's difficult to deny that evolution predicts them.
However, it's not much of a prediction; we can line up creatures running around today to show "evolutionary progress."
Because they don't.
We should see a broad spectrum of change between one kind and another. In fact, there should be no need to look at the fossil record. We should examples of a fine-scale range between two distinct kinds. For example, there should be at least one example of something like a range of creatures linking the dog kind and the cat kind.
One of these populations should be running around today.
What aspect? Be specific.
Sonnet
New member
Imanuel Velokovsky - Earth in Upheaval - (page 25)
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/earth-upheaval.pdf
Darwin in South America
Charles Darwin, who had previously dropped his medical studies at Edinburgh University, upon his graduation in theology from Christ College, Cambridge, went in December 1831 as a naturalist on the ship Beagle, which sailed around the world on a five-year surveying expedition. Darwin had with him the newly published volume of Lyel's Principles of Geology that became his bible. On this voyage he wrote his Journal, the second edition of which he dedicated to Lyell. This round-the-world voyage was Darwin's only field-work experience in geology and palaeontology, and he drew on it all his life long. He wrote later that these observations served as the "origin of all my views." His observations were made in the Southern Hemisphere and more particularly in South America, a continent that had attracted the attention of naturalists since the exploration travels of Alexander von Humboldt (1799—1804). Darwin was impressed by the numerous assemblages of fossils of extinct animals, mostly of much greater size than species now living; these fossils spoke of a flourishing fauna that suddenly came to its end in a recent geological age. He wrote under January 9, 1834, in the Journal of his voyage: "It is impossible to reflect on the changed state of the American continent without the deepest astonishment. Formerly it must have swarmed with great monsters: now we find mere pygmies, compared with the antecedent, allied races." He proceeded thus: "The greater number, if not all, of these extinct quadrupeds lived at a late period, and were the contemporaries of most of the existing sea-shells. Since they lived, no very great change in the form of the land can have taken place. What, then, has exterminated so many species and whole genera? The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe; but thus to destroy animals, both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the Cordillera of Peru, in North America up to Behring's [Bering's] Straits we must shake the entire framework of the globe"
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/earth-upheaval.pdf
Darwin in South America
Charles Darwin, who had previously dropped his medical studies at Edinburgh University, upon his graduation in theology from Christ College, Cambridge, went in December 1831 as a naturalist on the ship Beagle, which sailed around the world on a five-year surveying expedition. Darwin had with him the newly published volume of Lyel's Principles of Geology that became his bible. On this voyage he wrote his Journal, the second edition of which he dedicated to Lyell. This round-the-world voyage was Darwin's only field-work experience in geology and palaeontology, and he drew on it all his life long. He wrote later that these observations served as the "origin of all my views." His observations were made in the Southern Hemisphere and more particularly in South America, a continent that had attracted the attention of naturalists since the exploration travels of Alexander von Humboldt (1799—1804). Darwin was impressed by the numerous assemblages of fossils of extinct animals, mostly of much greater size than species now living; these fossils spoke of a flourishing fauna that suddenly came to its end in a recent geological age. He wrote under January 9, 1834, in the Journal of his voyage: "It is impossible to reflect on the changed state of the American continent without the deepest astonishment. Formerly it must have swarmed with great monsters: now we find mere pygmies, compared with the antecedent, allied races." He proceeded thus: "The greater number, if not all, of these extinct quadrupeds lived at a late period, and were the contemporaries of most of the existing sea-shells. Since they lived, no very great change in the form of the land can have taken place. What, then, has exterminated so many species and whole genera? The mind at first is irresistibly hurried into the belief of some great catastrophe; but thus to destroy animals, both large and small, in Southern Patagonia, in Brazil, on the Cordillera of Peru, in North America up to Behring's [Bering's] Straits we must shake the entire framework of the globe"
I was actually saying that about GO's attempt at a definition, not Jose's.
Jose offered a definition of what we might reasonably expect to find in a transitional fossil.
GO complained that it was a bad definition because it assumed its conclusion (it did not).
GO then made a statement that included this "The changes in DNA needed for one kind of animal to evolve into another kind of animal will result in non-fertile animals that are incapable of propagating those changes to any new generations." GO did EXACTLY what he claimed Jose did.
I was merely pointing that out to GO. And everybody else.
genuineoriginal
New member
We are hoping some of you evolutionists can recognize that transitional fossils is a failed prediction.
Elia
Well-known member
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
Gould, Stephen J., "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?," 1982, p. 140