What "Transitional" Means in Real Science

[Loudmouth]

Of course I'm being serious...but I'm not presenting the strawman argument you're saying i'm saying. Did you expect God to put the exact hoof on all the hoofed animals? The tweaking (reuse of similar DNA) wasn't done to make the animals work, finally get it right....but rather to work better for the animal. Perhaps you thought God would use a horse hoof on all the hoofed animals.

What you need to explain is why this tweaking would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy. You need to explain why this tweaking would not result in species with a mixture of bird and mammal features, or a whole host of other combinations of features that would violate a nested hierarchy.

 

[Larniavc]

Of course I'm being serious...but I'm not presenting the strawman argument you're saying i'm saying. Did you expect God to put the exact hoof on all the hoofed animals? The tweaking (reuse of similar DNA) wasn't done to make the animals work, finally get it right....but rather to work better for the animal. Perhaps you thought God would use a horse hoof on all the hoofed animals.

What I don't understand is why if God did build everything why he did it in the exact same way that evolution did it?

 

[Loudmouth]

What I don't understand is why if God did build everything why he did it in the exact same way that evolution did it?

Exactly. It would take an extreme amount of effort to make everything look like it evolved compared to just reusing parts, as -57 proposes.

 

[Larniavc]

Exactly. It would take an extreme amount of effort to make everything look like it evolved compared to just reusing parts, as -57 proposes.

Not to mention gradually vanishing ancestral lines from the Earth and gradually phasing in daughter species to have them show up in the fossil record for people to find and to set the ratios of isotopes in such a way that we could be sure to get their ages right.

That's some feat.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not to mention gradually vanishing ancestral lines from the Earth and gradually phasing in daughter species to have them show up in the fossil record for people to find and to set the ratios of isotopes in such a way that we could be sure to get their ages right.

That's some feat.

It almost defies logic.

 

[-57]

This is nice because it pictures God not as an all-powerful being who just spoke his creation into existence, but as a sort of honest craftsman working at his bench. "Mmm, a hoof on this one I think. Now I'm sure I had a hoof somewhere, where is it? No, that's just a claw ... Ah, here we are. Not quite right for this animal, though. I'd better take a bit off here ..."

I rather like it. You can imagine Disney doing Creation this way.

Spoken like a true atheist who doesn't have a clue. Thanks for the reply.

 

[-57]

LOL

Once again another atheist blabber mouth with nothing to say. Hey, but thanks for the reply.

 

[-57]

That doesn't explain the nested hierarchy. Reusing parts could produce a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features which would violate a nested hierarchy.



The whole point is that transitional fossils in combination with living species form a nested hierarchy. As your own posts show, "reusing parts" would not produce that pattern.

"Nested hierarchy"..you throw that around as if it has some truth and weight.
God needs a leg...Gods genetic tool box is full of genetic coding for legs.
Evolutionism hasn't demonstrated it can produce a leg.

 

[-57]

What I don't understand is why if God did build everything why he did it in the exact same way that evolution did it?

Perhaps your false science of evolutionism is trying to figure out what God did. My God is a God of order, not disorder.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps your false science of evolutionism is trying to figure out what God did. My God is a God of order, not disorder.

Oh, you can of course understand why we were confused. We thought your God was the God of the Christian Bible.

 

[Picky Picky]

Spoken like a true atheist who doesn't have a clue. Thanks for the reply.

Always a pleasure to read your thoughtful, measured comments.

 

[Jimmy D]

Once again another atheist blabber mouth with nothing to say. Hey, but thanks for the reply.

Hardly a blabber mouth, I only used three letters. I was going to write something along the lines of Larnievc's post (his is more eloquent than mine would have been) but changed my mind, I remembered how receptive you are to anything that challenges your fundamentalist view.

... gradually vanishing ancestral lines from the Earth and gradually phasing in daughter species to have them show up in the fossil record for people to find and to set the ratios of isotopes in such a way that we could be sure to get their ages right.

How does that fit into your 'theory'?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

One of the common misunderstandings is that a transitional fossil is assumed to be a direct ancestor or descendant of other fossils or living species. .

Ok...so what would science call a fossil of "a direct ancestor or descendant of other fossils or living species" and why do they not exist?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Could you write that in English?

English...or "English" English?

 

[Loudmouth]

"Nested hierarchy"..you throw that around as if it has some truth and weight.

Why doesn't it have truth and weight?

God needs a leg...Gods genetic tool box is full of genetic coding for legs.
Evolutionism hasn't demonstrated it can produce a leg.

The nested hierarchy demonstrates that Evolution can produce a leg.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok...so what would science call a fossil of "a direct ancestor or descendant of other fossils or living species" and why do they not exist?

First, we would call it an ancestor or descendant.

Second, they may very well exist. The problem is that we need DNA to establish direct ancestor to descendant relationships, and these fossils don't have DNA.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps your false science of evolutionism is trying to figure out what God did. My God is a God of order, not disorder.

Then please show us:

1. Why evolution would not produce a nested hierarchy.

2. Why ID/Creationism would necessarily produce a nested hierarchy.

3. Why life does not fall into a nested hierarchy.

A reply with a combination of those points would be appreciated.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

First, we would call it an ancestor or descendant.

Second, they may very well exist. The problem is that we need DNA to establish direct ancestor to descendant relationships, and these fossils don't have DNA.

"May very well exist"? You mean scientist have not found any? Isn't that strange how supposedly these "transitional fossils" are separated by millions of years? Wouldn't there be remains of literally millions of these ancestors or descendants between the transitional fossils showing the gradual changes from one to another? How would science explain this?

 

[Loudmouth]

"May very well exist"?

Yes. We may very well have fossils that are direct ancestors of a living species. We just have no way of knowing because those fossils don't have DNA.

Isn't that strange how supposedly these "transitional fossils" are separated by millions of years?

Why shouldn't they be?

Wouldn't there be remains of literally millions of these ancestors or descendants between the transitional fossils showing the gradual changes from one to another?

You tell me. At what rate are organisms fossilized? Of the organisms that are fossilized, how many have survived to the present? Of the ones who have survived to the present, how many are in accessible regions where we can dig them up? Of the regions where we can access fossil bearing sediments, what percentage have we searched for fossils?

Science uses evidence we do have, not evidence we don't have. Given the fact that new transitional fossils are found every year, it seems a bit foolish to think that we currently have a fossil specimen for every species that has ever lived.

 

[46AND2]

... Isn't that strange how supposedly these "transitional fossils" are separated by millions of years? Wouldn't there be remains of literally millions of these ancestors or descendants between the transitional fossils showing the gradual changes from one to another? How would science explain this?

Clearly you didn't read the entire opening post...