Are there transitional fossils?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They are DOING science correctly (applying the method can getting to evidence), but they are ALSO interpreting what they find and in this case (the one we are discussing) through the pre-supposition. Is there some kind of logic block that does not enable you to process this distinction? And I am not trying to insult you...

but what part of something that would be an effect cannot precede it's own alleged cause can you not grasp? I ask this because we do see that when de-programming victims of cults, or in those suffering from Stockholm syndrome. There mind causes them to default to another string of information from which they again default to yet another and so on until they return to the originally unresolved issue.

So now your turn. Please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede the cause (in this case Tiktaalik tyoe of creature) OF THE EFFECT?

Give me your logic for this.

What you are describing is neither science being done right, since you are saying that they are presupposing the evidence, is one of the single most wrong things you can do in science, and transitional fossils are not a cause and effect. The Cause is evolution and the effect is the transitionals.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but you said that "out of order fossil" like a bird before an avian dino will disprove evolution. so now you are claiming that you actually dont know? its a self contradiction.

That's not what I'm saying at all! You asked me what the borderline for the years of the appearance of the transitional fossils is and I said that I did not know the answer to that question.

Why do some people on this forum seem to have trouble with basic reading comprehension?!

 

[pshun2404]

Is it possible that they have been taught the correct explanation? Do you not think that over the course of the tens of thousands of hours of research and observation one of them might have realized something was amiss?

Francis Collins "Whoa, hold on there Craig, a bloke on the internet seems pretty sure we're interpreting our work through an assumption"

Craig Venter "What? Oh man, do I have to give back my Kistler Prize?!"

Ha ha ha very funny I can make up humorous quips as well...Okay Jim same question for you....your turn...

Please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede its own alleged cause (in this case Tiktaalik)?

 

[pshun2404]

What you are describing is neither science being done right, since you are saying that they are presupposing the evidence, is one of the single most wrong things you can do in science, and transitional fossils are not a cause and effect. The Cause is evolution and the effect is the transitionals.

See there is a great example of that block to logical thinking...I NEVER said they are presupposing the evidence. Never!

Transitional: relating to or characteristic of a process or period of transition; movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another

Just because some creature may have some anatomical or physiological characteristics "LIKE" another creature OR share some similarities with two distinct creatures DOES NOT equal "Transitional" which by definition IS an in between stage (from one into the other)

 

[xianghua]

That was not what you asked. However, I cannot speak to motive. I believe that they believe what they have been taught as the correct explanation (indoctrination not education is responsible for this) and then intepret all they find through this assumption, They are taught the hypothesis is true by the previously indoctrinated who must teach a scripted curriculum (no variance from the program allowed). Evolution is true to a great extent (speciation does produce variety for example) but NO FACTS show fish become amphibians which become reptiles and so on....not one!

the simple answer may be that they arent even aware about those evidences against evolution. even dr behe admit that he was not aware about evidence against evolution when he was study. the first time he found such evidence was when he read the book "evolution, a theory in crysis" by dr michael denton.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

See there is a great example of that block to logical thinking...I NEVER said they are presupposing the evidence. Never!

Transitional: relating to or characteristic of a process or period of transition; movement, passage, or change from one position, state, stage, subject, concept, etc., to another

Just because some creature may have some anatomical or physiological characteristics "LIKE" another creature OR share some similarities with two distinct creatures DOES NOT equal "Transitional" which by definition IS an in between stage (from one into the other)

... YES YOU DID! Post #899, right at the very top, the very first sentence: "They are DOING science correctly (applying the method can getting to evidence), but they are ALSO interpreting what they find and in this case (the one we are discussing) through the pre-supposition."

 

[xianghua]

That's not what I'm saying at all! You asked me what the borderline for the years of the appearance of the transitional fossils is and I said that I did not know the answer to that question.

but you said that "finding birds below all avian dinosaurs would falsify evolution". so if you dont know where is the limit how you can claim that such a fossil will disprove evolution?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but you said that "finding birds below all avian dinosaurs would falsify evolution". so if you dont know where is the limit how you can claim that such a fossil will disprove evolution?

That's like asking that if a person knows how to drive a car but not know the intricacies of the internal combustion engine, that means people can't drive cars.
A person can know the generalities but not the specifics.

 

[Jimmy D]

Ha ha ha very funny I can make up humorous quips as well...Okay Jim same question for you....your turn...

Please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede its own alleged cause (in this case Tiktaalik)?

I don't understand the question.

Are you asking how the prediction that we would find a particular transitional form was made before the actual fossil was found?

 

[doubtingmerle]

xianghua,

Perhaps there is a language issue that is blocking our communication, but it is very frustrating to try to continue.

so if i will prove to you that the zebra was designed, you will have no problem to accept a speciel creation instead of evolution, right?

Unbelievable!

You are responding to my statement that, even if you could prove design, that would not prove evolution false.

How can you possible respond to a statement that says your claim would not prove evolution false, by saying I agree that it would prove evolution false?!?

Forget it, xianghua, I am tired of explaining these things over and over to you.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because they want it to be true and interpret the actual data through the hypothesis, instead of letting the actual data SHAPE the hypothesis (which is what good science does).

Then some make idiot assumptions like this quote from doubtingmerle..."I find it hard to believe a designer kept putting more and more advanced animals out there, popping them into existence out of nothing, until finally it created the zebra" as if that's what educated people who believe in a creator (like Francis Collins for example) actually believe. He really is so clueless.

Uh, no that was not an idiot assumption. I have been asking over and over what creationists here offer as the alternative to evolution and they refuse--refuse!--to answer, so I have been putting forth my best guesses.

If I guess wrong, you could actually answer. How do you think the first zebra came into existance? I think it evolved from an animal like the Merychippus, which evolved from an animal like Hyracotherium over many millions of years. How do you think it happened?

 

[pshun2404]

... YES YOU DID! Post #899, right at the very top, the very first sentence: "They are DOING science correctly (applying the method can getting to evidence), but they are ALSO interpreting what they find and in this case (the one we are discussing) through the pre-supposition."

You accused me of saying they "presupposed the evidence" and I DID NOT say that as your post back proves. The presupposition effected the conclusion they claimed, not the science they did, OR the evidence they found. Are you sure you are able to represent what I actually post? You made this same error misrepresenting what I said in post 879.

Now back to my question for you....I certainly have responded to your inquiries as well as your misrepresentations. So here is my question for you....please respond to it....

Can you please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede its own alleged cause (in this case Tiktaalik)?

It is a simple question in very clear terms

 

[pshun2404]

I don't understand the question.

Are you asking how the prediction that we would find a particular transitional form was made before the actual fossil was found?

No! I realize there is a logic block that cannot allow you to conclude the obvious, but I will ask again and if you read it and think about it maybe you can respond honestly (assuming intellectual integrity is important to you).

Can you please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede its own alleged cause (in this case Tiktaalik)?

It is a simple question...I know you actually DO understand, but let's see how objective you can be regarding only the evidence (minus the story attached).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You accused me of saying they "presupposed the evidence" and I DID NOT say that as your post back proves. The presupposition effected the conclusion they claimed, not the science they did, OR the evidence they found. Are you sure you are able to represent what I actually post? You made this same error misrepresenting what I said in post 879.

Now back to my question for you....I certainly have responded to your inquiries as well as your misrepresentations. So here is my question for you....please respond to it....

Can you please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede its own alleged cause (in this case Tiktaalik)?

It is a simple question in very clear terms

You did say that. You have claimed that scientists have a presupposition, since, in your view, to accept evolution, they would have to presuppose that evolution is what occurred, so they worked from that presupposed viewpoint. It is that simple. If they didn't have the presupposed notions you claim they have, they would not search for evidence in the way they do.

And I did answer your question. What you are describing is not cause and effect since both examples are effects of the cause of evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No! I realize there is a logic block that cannot allow you to conclude the obvious, but I will ask again and if you read it and think about it maybe you can respond honestly (assuming intellectual integrity is important to you).

Can you please explain how an effect (in this case the alleged result of an alleged transitional form) can precede its own alleged cause (in this case Tiktaalik)?

It is a simple question in very clear terms...

It's so bloody funny watching you winge about intellectual integrity when you constantly lambaste scientists for no other reason than you don't like what scientists find.

 

[pshun2404]

Uh, no that was not an idiot assumption. I have been asking over and over what creationists here offer as the alternative to evolution and they refuse--refuse!--to answer, so I have been putting forth my best guesses.

If I guess wrong, you could actually answer. How do you think the first zebra came into existance? I think it evolved from an animal like the Merychippus, which evolved from an animal like Hyracotherium over many millions of years. How do you think it happened?

Me also! These are early varieties of what we now call "horse".... I am not making the claim that a designer produced the first few varieties. From horse kind to horse kind just like Darwin's finches eventually came from earlier varieties of avians (not from reptiles).

 

[pshun2404]

You did say that. You have claimed that scientists have a presupposition, since, in your view, to accept evolution, they would have to presuppose that evolution is what occurred, so they worked from that presupposed viewpoint. It is that simple. If they didn't have the presupposed notions you claim they have, they would not search for evidence in the way they do.

And I did answer your question. What you are describing is not cause and effect since both examples are effects of the cause of evolution.

NO, no, no! You cannot avoid the misrepresentation you made, I did not say "scientists presuppose the evidence" which was your accusation.

And NO you did not answer my question. IF Tik IS a transitional FROM fish (the former) TO Tetrapods (the latter), THEN based only on the actual evidence, how can Tetrapods already have existed? You ARE putting the proverbial horse before the cart.

Now I am no prophet or psychic but I already knew you would refuse to just state the obvious. You will not or else cannot. The result of an alleged transition (tetrapods) cannot pre-exist itself.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

NO, no, no! You cannot avoid the misrepresentation you made, I did not say "scientists presuppose the evidence" which was your accusation.

That is what you said! For a process like evolution, scientists cannot just solely have a presupposition for one part of the process of finding. They have to have the presupposition FOR THE WHOLE THING. That's how presuppositions work!

And NO you did not answer my question. IF Tik IS a transitional FROM fish (the former) TO Tetrapods (the latter), THEN based only on the actual evidence, how can Tetrapods already have existed? You ARE putting the proverbial horse before the cart.

Now I am no prophet or psychic but I already knew you would refuse to just state the obvious. You will not or else cannot. The result of an alleged transition (tetrapods) cannot pre-exist itself.

Your question is wrong purely because you're treating tiktaalik like it is the only transitional fossil for fishapod to tetrapod. No scientist will make that claim. So it is possible to find a transitional that is earlier than tiktaalik, but you will not find a true tetrapod before tiktaalik, which is not what has been found.

 

[pshun2404]

That is what you said! For a process like evolution, scientists cannot just solely have a presupposition for one part of the process of finding. They have to have the presupposition FOR THE WHOLE THING. That's how presuppositions work!

Your question is wrong purely because you're treating tiktaalik like it is the only transitional fossil for fishapod to tetrapod. No scientist will make that claim. So it is possible to find a transitional that is earlier than tiktaalik, but you will not find a true tetrapod before tiktaalik, which is not what has been found.

The first comment shows you not capable of separating what I actually said (my real words mean what they said) from what you think I mean. I get it...

And my question to you cannot be be answered directly you must re-interpret and redirect. I get it...

Finally, I did not say there may not be others which are transitional and yes it is POSSIBLE we may find one or more at some point. I said TIK is not a transitional, and it is not!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The first comment shows you not capable of separating what I actually said (my real words mean what they said) from what you think I mean. I get it...

And my question to you cannot be be answered directly you must re-interpret and redirect. I get it...

Finally, I did not say there may not be others which are transitional and yes it is POSSIBLE we may find one or more at some point. I said TIK is not a transitional, and it is not!

Tiaktaalik IS a transitional. Just because you keep saying it isn't, does not mean that you are right. Again: you making claims while not providing evidence does not mean you are right.