Why Evolution is True (3)

[Loudmouth]

This is so hard to get creationists like Grady to understand. The only classification in this that has any reality is speciation. We can give speciation a working definition, something we can measure and thus test. The rest are just names and there is no working or operational definition for them just what taxonomists agree on.

I suspect this is just too abstract for the concrete thinking of many creationists.

Dizredux

Perhaps it is too difficult for them to understand.

I guess it is a bit like history. We tend take periods of time and give them an important sounding name, like the Middle Ages or Hellenistic Greece. If someone was living during the Middle Ages they wouldn't have written "It sure is a nice day here in the Middle Ages" in their diary. That group of years was devised after the fact by historians. Even more, there was no difference between the movement of one day to the next within the Middle Ages than there was a movement from the very last day of the Middle Ages and the first day of the Modern Era.

The same for speciation. Every "day" is a speciation event. The passage from one human constructed group of species to another is no different than the passage of time from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era.

 

[dad]

What is your definition then?
What structural features must a fossil contain for it to be considered a transitional between 2 species/families?

Quite simple, really. Before moving onto 'what transitioned from what', we need to ask, 'what was there to transition to start with'? Otherwise it is foolish talking about transitionals. You may compile a little list and say 'these things appear to have transitioned from another species, but we are not sure'.

 

[dad]

Then tell us what your definition is. What features should a transitional fossil have if it is to evidence the evolution of modern humans from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

No such thing. Why waste time dreaming up definitions for imaginary hypotheticals...godless ones at that!?

 

[Loudmouth]

No such thing.

Based on what criteria?

 

[dad]

Based on what criteria?

Based on the criteria that you made it up. Chimps are chimps and man is man. The would be common parent is a fabrication from the godless dream factory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Based on the criteria that you made it up. Chimps are chimps and man is man. The would be common parent is a fabrication from the godless dream factory.

Then tell me the correct criteria to use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. If my criteria are wrong, then tell me what features a real transitional would have.

 

[dad]

Then tell me the correct criteria to use to determine if a fossil is transitional or not. If my criteria are wrong, then tell me what features a real transitional would have.

The correct approach is not a criteria. Your criteria are just a religious agenda apparently. Science is dead as a doornail to the facts of the real creation by the Living God. How could we expect THEM to have 'criteria' as to what was created and what may have later adapted? They attribute ALL things to adapting and evolving! They not only do that, but they do it IN a theoretical imaginarium based on only our present state laws! Not only that, but they haven't even a clue there was a big change in nature!!! Asking them to figure out the mysteries of creation past is like asking a chimp to enter an airplane factory and build you a jumbo jet.

Zombie science has been overrated.

 

[Loudmouth]

The correct approach is not a criteria. Your criteria are just a religious agenda apparently.

Then show me the non-religious agenda criteria for determining if a fossil is transitional or not.

 

[dad]

Then show me the non-religious agenda criteria for determining if a fossil is transitional or not.

The religious one you use is unsupported. Just because you toss out a phony one doesn't mean intelligent honest people need to make stuff up, trying to compete with zombie science.