It's a garbage argument to make, no matter who says it. Since the reasons behind a consensus are variable, a consensus itself is pretty meaningless. If a consensus occurred because evidence supported a conclusion, then it is the evidence that is worthwhile, not the consensus itself.
Name a single instance of me using that argument, and I'll slap myself for it. Heck, I'll make a collection of links to every time I've made the mistake that you find.
Ancient coelacanth species may have still been transitional in that regard, just probably not whatever ones were the ancestors of the modern species. I wouldn't know the specifics of that. Although, personally, I would think that lung fishes were more obvious transitions for water to land, and later genome studies suggested as much. Hahaha, that's quite a derpy moment, in my opinion.
Demonstrated to be wrong through the same scientific process you appear to be bashing. Our ability to observe in and of itself improves with time. When Miasma theory of disease was prevalent, people were incapable of observing viruses and bacteria infect cells, so they had to work with what they could see. Each subsequent improvement of our understanding of the world is more heavily evidenced than the last, but that doesn't mean that the previous theories were entirely without merit. After all, Miasma theory of disease encouraged people to stay away from bad odors caused by rotting food, corpses, and swamps. Since those things do harbor pathogens (mosquitoes hang out in swampy areas), staying away from them was legitimately helpful in preventing disease. However, since the proposed cause of disease was less accurate to reality than modern germ theory, it also resulted in entirely useless practices, such as trying to prevent disease by surrounding oneself with things that smelled good. Yet, it was overall an improvement upon doing nothing.
That's why no one views any given theory as perfect, because there is always room for improvement, to make the theory a more accurate representation of reality. Perfection is never the goal, nor will perfection ever be reached.
I didn't, I was just giving an example of an inaccuracy about evolution prevalent in these forums.
Oh really? Then breed striped goats from non striped goats using the biblical method. Evolutionary theory would imply that attempting that would yield no such results in your lifetime, but you view that as complete bunk, so it should work in just 1 generation with all resulting offspring being striped according to the bible. If you actually do it, and a single goat in the first generation has stripes, I will be extremely impressed. If every goat in that generation born of non-striped parents has stripes, I'll convert immediately.
Sincerely, though, I have seen professional creationists lie all the time. Quote mining, faked fossils, faked science degrees, etc. Most commonly, I see inaccuracies about evolution itself in their claims. For example, that Lucy, an Australopithecus afarensis fossil, is the only transitional fossil relevant to humans ever found, or that it's the only fossil of that species ever found, or that she was a large chimpanzee. None of those claims are true in the slightest, since hundreds of different fossils for that species have been discovered (if I recall correctly, the most of any fossil species relevant to recent human evolution), and at least 6 fossil species aside from our own are put into the same genus as us, and 3 besides Lucy's species share her genus. Additionally, the skeleton definitively doesn't belong to a chimp, as the hip and foot structures are entirely different and a much closer match to humans than chimps
http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/images/pelvis_and_feet.gif . The fossil is also definitely not human, check out this skull recreation (grey marks what covers the bones found in a specific fossil, the gaps reconstructed by comparisons with other fossils from this species.
https://boneclones.com/images/store-product/product-1421-main-main-big-1415043044.jpg )
-_- ancient coelacanths were still transitional, just not in the way previously thought to be most likely. The modern species is not the same as those ancient species, you know. Furthermore, lungfish and coelacanths are both lobe-finned fishes of ancient ancestry with fairly close ancestry to each other, and both are more closely related to tetrapods than any other fish are. It is true that, without DNA, getting a precise distinction of which was more closely related would have been near impossible. Hence why "transitional" is a term for fossil species first depicting distinct traits present in modern species or extinct species that appeared later on. One can't literally trace a lineage from fossils most of the time, since DNA decays, and the majority of species that have ever existed haven't left behind any fossils for us to find.
Additionally, no creationist was claiming that lungfish were the closer to modern tetrapods than coelacanths. The creationist proposal is way far off from that. It's like a child making fun of another child for spelling the word cat as "kat" when the child poking fun spelled it as 374tyyurigygtrfig. Which kid really doesn't know how to spell?
-_- the error you mention within your own post IS a corrected error, what are you even talking about? If it had never been corrected, then people would still be claiming that coelacanths were more closely related to tetrapods than lungfish. It used to be commonly thought that large brains developed in our evolutionary line before walking upright, until fossil evidence contradicted that way of thinking and it had to be changed. Our understanding of evolutionary relationships has changed drastically, especially recently as more and more species have their genomes sequenced.
Correct? Since when was the original claim fully wrong? There was reason behind it, and the evidence to support coelacanths being the most closely related to tetrapods wasn't entirely invalidated by that DNA comparison. Now they are in the number 2 spot instead of the number 1 spot. ONE aspect of the evolutionary relationship previously upheld was found to be wrong, the rest was not. The lack walking on fins thing, by the way, is a behavioral observation of the modern species. The ancient ones might have done it, or maybe not. Kinda irrelevant, since lungfish clearly do it.
What I am trying to say is that the road of progress will never be perfect. The capacity for one side of a debate to admit error doesn't make the other side of the debate more valid, especially when the evidence for the error doesn't support that position at all. Lungfish being more closely related to tetrapods than coelacanths doesn't do jack squat for creationism.
