Lack of Transitional Forms

[Dr.GH]

"If you bring in bones as evidence in a court of law they're going to laugh at you ~Kent Hovind

No kidding? Then why have I been paid thousands of dollars to do just that very thing?

Could it be that Kent is still talking out his butt?

Oh Here is a good start on forensic taphonomy. You can follow a series of links to my photos.

PS: Nightson, this is not directed toward you personally merely the liar extrordinair Kent Hovind.

 

[USincognito]

"truth"aboveallelse,

I posted three questions to you regarding Turkana Boy and your "hoax assertion." Why have you not responded to demonstrate how you've shown it to be a hoax or why fossil finds like Turkans boy are important regarding the uncovering Piltdown over 50 years ago.

You also haven't quantified "ugly" in such a way as to discern between "ape like" and "fully human." Any chance you could do so or are you to angry that a half-man, half-ape fossil transitional actually exists?

 

[Edx]

Hahaa, Hovind is such an idiot. I mean really some of the things that come out of his mouth. Someone really needs to collect them all up into a video or something.

 

[Godfixated]

I apologise on behalf of Christianity for Godfixated's posts.

It's really sad that you are Christian yet you reject the truth. Maybe you should read the Word of God for once.

 

[Godfixated]

So what features should a transitional fossil have between us and our common ancestor with chimps? Please be specific.



How many of them fossilized? How many of those fossils survive until this day? How many of those fossils exist in the scattered dig sites? Existence and fossilization are not the same thing.



Acutally, they have. Check out the timeline for human evolution:





Archie was most likely a sidebranch, but it is still transitional because it has both bird and reptillian features. There are also many other bird/dino transitional fossils, described here.


Why? PE is evolution.

I shouldn't have said that "no timeline exists" because you evolutionists can make a timeline out of anything no matter how illogical.

 

[Lignoba]

It's really sad that you are Christian yet you reject the truth. Maybe you should read the Word of God for once.

Its really sad that you are a "Christian"... a seemingly peaceful religion... yet you speak out against your fellow man. Here is my advice to all men. Be human FIRST then be yourselves.

 

[Godfixated]

Its really sad that you are a "Christian"... a seemingly peaceful religion... yet you speak out against your fellow man. Here is my advice to all men. Be human FIRST then be yourselves.

I tried human, but all I was was weak and stupid. God and Jesus Christ have enabled me to have spirit inside of me, so I am no longer just some human, I am a man of God. It's ok if you don't understand.

 

[Beastt]

I was asked a couple days ago to post a topic about evidence against evolution; so, I'll start with most glaring and obvious of this evidence: The Lack of Transitional forms. I had a couple big tests in the last couple of days; so, I wasn't able to post anything. I will first come out and say that we have not found any transitional forms proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Even the often touted Australipithescene australis or Homo erectus is not an exactly bonafide precursor to Homo sapiens, even though scientists will say they are, there is no proof that they actually were mankind's ancestors.

You have just jumped from evidence, (upon which science operates), to "proof", (which doesn't exist in science).

They could have been a different species all entirely. Plus, there is a lack of transitional forms from those hominids to the humans of today.

There is no lack of transitional forms. No matter how often we see charts showing multiple steps along transitional fossils, people never give up presenting the fallacy that they don't exist.

Also, there are many examples of often touted "transitional forms" being proven that they weren't the missing links that scientists were looking.

Scientists aren't looking for "missing links" because the entire concept of missing links is a complete fabrication. Point out the missing link which disproves this to be a gradual transition from 1 to 5.

1 - 1.2 - 1.9 - 2.13 - 2.4 - 2.87 - 3.05 - 3.117 - 3.992 - 4.1 - 4.27 - 4.55 - 4. 871 - 5​

When people talk about "missing links", it becomes instantly obvious that they have no real understanding of the basic premise of evolutionary theory.

Let's not forget the infamous horse series where scientists believed that the hyrax evolved into the modern day horse. Not only was this theory proven wrong by the eventual discovery of the hyrax in modern day, but also many of the fossilized animals in the series had conspicuously different amounts of ribs, sich as one species have 10 ribs, while the next species in the series had 12, and then the next had 10 again. Another example of this can be seen with the Ceolocanth, a fossilized fish who was said to be be one of the first to walk on to dry land because appendable fins.

I find it interesting that those who believe the Bible to be the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful entity don't have a problem with the dozens of demonstrably false claims it makes but when science, a mere tool developed and used by man, leads to a mistake which science itself exposes and corrects, they fly it like a flag exposing all of science as a fraud.

I suppose you can produce something of substance to support your assertions?

 

[Godfixated]

You have just jumped from evidence, (upon which science operates), to "proof", (which doesn't exist in science).


There is no lack of transitional forms. No matter how often we see charts showing multiple steps along transitional fossils, people never give up presenting the fallacy that they don't exist.


Scientists aren't looking for "missing links" because the entire concept of missing links is a complete fabrication. Point out the missing link which disproves this to be a gradual transition from 1 to 5.

1 - 1.2 - 1.9 - 2.13 - 2.4 - 2.87 - 3.05 - 3.117 - 3.992 - 4.1 - 4.27 - 4.55 - 4. 871 - 5


I find it interesting that those who believe the Bible to be the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful entity don't have a problem with the dozens of demonstrably false claims it makes but when science, a mere tool developed and used by man leads to a mistake which science itself exposes and corrects, they fly it like a flag exposing all of science as a fraud.

First of all, science is not evolution. Evolution is just a theory and saw it can not be considered science. Point to me where the Bible has any contradictions and then tell me how Science contradicts the Bible. I'm sorry but people who interchange science with evolution really do not study science and if they do somehow study science then they do not follow science. Scientists can be evolutionists, but that does not mean that evolution is the same as science.

 

[Godfixated]

I find it funny that you say that science is not about proof, but I must disagree with that. Plus, evidence is, essentially, proof, so I really don't know what you are getting at.

 

[Beastt]

I find it funny that you say that science is not about proof, but I must disagree with that. Plus, evidence is, essentially, proof, so I really don't know what you are getting at.

So in just two sentences we have all the evidence necessary to demonstrate that you lack an understanding of what science is and how it works. There is a standard cliche' that you might wish to become familiar with. Proofs are for maths and alcohol, not for science. The point is that science does not operate on any concept of proof. Science utilizes objective examination of all relative evidence to present the conclusion which best describes a given phenomena.

I'm not surprised that you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof, but I'll try to give you a quick example. You walk into a room and see a man standing in the middle of the room holding a gun. You note that there is still smoke rising from the muzzle and around the ejection port. A few yards away lies a dead man with a bloody hole in the middle of his chest.

The hole, the blood, the gun, and the smoke are evidence suggesting that the man holding the gun has just shot and killed the man with the hole in his chest.

But none of these things proves that the man holding the gun is not a police officer who engaged the actual killer in a gunfight prior to the suspect fleeing the scene. Evidence does not equal proof. And science does not subscribe to the concept of proof. When you make statements suggesting that science considers anything to be proof, you expose your lack of understanding about what science is and how science works. And if you don't understand it, you're not likely to be in a position to dispute it.

 

[Godfixated]

Are you serious? Evidence proves that something is true. Proof is more of an action and evidence is a noun. I will use it in simple terms. If there was any evidence to back of evolution than that would prove (action form of proof). Not enough sufficient evidence has been found so evolution is still from from having any proof (interchangeable with evidence) that it exists. You just gave me another definition of proof, yet proof and evidence can in many cases be interchanged with evidence given the right circumstances. You already believe that I am a nut job so you perceive that I have lesser intelligence than you. You have been taught from an early age that Creationism is only for wackjobs. Whether you think it or not that is what has happened. Don't worry it is psychology and it is called prejudice. You have already formed some preconceived notion that I am a Creationist so I must be wrong and have lesser intelligence than you.

 

[jwu]

"Proving" something means establishing something as correct with 100% certainty. Not just 99.99999999999%, it really has to be 100%. Do you agree with that statement?

 

[Gracchus]

Are you serious? Evidence proves that something is true.

Evidence may demonstrate to a high degree of probability that something is true. Or it may demonstrate that something is not true. A proof is of the form: IF (The premises are true) AND (The rules of inference are followed) THEN (The conclusion must be true).

Proof is more of an action and evidence is a noun.

Proof is a noun entailing certainty. Evidence does not entail certainty.

I will use it in simple terms. If there was any evidence to back of evolution than that would prove (action form of proof).

Biological evolution, a change in the frequency of alleles in an population, has been observed. It is a fact. The “Theory of Evolution” is an explanation of the fact of evolution. It states that evolution is caused by variation and selection. The “Theory of Evolution” has survived challenges for one hundred and fifty years, and is more robust than ever. It cannot be “proved”, in the sense that there is always the possibility that it might be superseded by a theory that explained observed facts better.

Not enough sufficient evidence has been found so evolution is still from from having any proof (interchangeable with evidence) that it exists.

Do you really maintain that tens of thousands of very smart scientists who have studied for years in the field and in the laboratory and in the library have failed to notice that there is no evidence for evolution? I think it far more likely that you simply have not even done a cursory investigation into evolutionary biology. If I were to state that iron is a liquid at room temperature, you could infer that I was ignorant of chemistry. In the same way, from your statements, we can infer that you are ignorant of the philosophy of science, the Theory of evolution, and biology.

You just gave me another definition of proof, yet proof and evidence can in many cases be interchanged with evidence given the right circumstances.

Precise thought requires precise definitions. In everyday speech among careless persons, words are very often imprecisely defined. This often produces misunderstandings.

You already believe that I am a nut job so you perceive that I have lesser intelligence than you.

We can only judge that you are a “nut job” or not from your posts. Bad grammar or spelling may be caused by ignorance, carelessness, or dyslexia. A stubborn denial of evidence may be the result of ignorance, arrogance, or some personal, political or religious agenda.

You have been taught from an early age that Creationism is only for wackjobs.

How would you know that? I was never taught that. I learned it by direct observation. I have, on occasion, though rarely, seen “wackjobs” straighten out their defective thinking.

Whether you think it or not that is what has happened.

You know this because….?

Don't worry it is psychology and it is called prejudice.

You were not pre-judged. I doubt that anyone on this forum thought you were a “wackjob” until they read your posts.

You have already formed some preconceived notion that I am a Creationist so I must be wrong and have lesser intelligence than you.

That impression was formed after the fact.

 

[Goatboy]

You were not pre-judged. I doubt that anyone on this forum thought you were a “wackjob” until they read your posts.

Yeah, but now I’m wondering, do these posts count merely as evidence godfixated is a whackjob, or proof?

For once, I’m tending to support the creationist position.

(Also, does anyone else, when asked for a transitional form, get the urge to just say “Yo momma”.)

 

[USincognito]

I find it funny that you say that science is not about proof, but I must disagree with that. Plus, evidence is, essentially, proof, so I really don't know what you are getting at.

Instead of responding with a library of commentary, let me explain something that will be valuable when discussing science. Colloquial uses of words sometimes conflict with those used by scientists. One example is "theory" which colloquially is construed to mean "conjecture" or "wild guess." That's not how it's applied in terms of the scientific method.

"Proof" is another one, and a more sticky one since it cuts right to the heart of the scientific method. You can only have real "proofs" in math, logic or the distilation of alcohol.

In math and logic, the use of "proof" is designed to deny any possible falsification. In distilation, it's a simple measurable quantification of alcohol to water, impurities or flavoring, etc. When discussing theories, since they rely on the scientific method - and thus the possibility of falsification - it can't claim to be "proof," it's just more evidence supporting a theory... which could be falsified at any time with new evidence.

As an example lets take fossil biogeography. Finding only New World Monkey fossils in the Western Hemisphere and never finding ape fossils would bolster evolutionary theory but never "prove" it, while the single find of an ape fossil in North or South America would immediately falsify it.

Do you get the difference between supportive evidence and "proof?"

 

[Jet Black]

I am a Creationist so I must be wrong and have lesser intelligence than you.

no. There are creationists who aren't stupid. Like shinbits for example.

 

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Funny, the thread seems to have been steered off course into a semantics debate but I don’t see where GodFixated conceded that there are transitional forms. Before we move into discussion on how a “scientific” creationist with so much experience can confuse evidence and proof (in the scientific sense) and say things like “just a theory”. I would like GodFixated to concede that there are, in fact, transitional forms.

 

[Loudmouth]

I shouldn't have said that "no timeline exists" because you evolutionists can make a timeline out of anything no matter how illogical.

The timeline is not made out of "anything". It is made out of fossils and radiometric dating. You can ignore the facts all you want, but it doesn't make your arguments very compelling. Imagine using your tactics in a court room:

Prosecutor: We have demonstrated that the victims fingerprints, DNA, clothing fibers, and foot prints were at the crime scene and found on the murder victim.

Defense attorney: Don't listen to this person. They can make up a scenario from anything.

It doesn't work in court and it doesn't work in science.

 

[Beastt]

Are you serious? Evidence proves that something is true.

Not true. Evidence suggests a probability that something is true. Even the theory of gravity has never been proven to be true. No scientific theory has ever been proved absolutely true. That's why science refers to them as "theories".

Proof is more of an action and evidence is a noun.

"Proof" is a noun and "evidence" is usually a noun. "Prove" is a verb -- an action. Though it is possible for one thing to "evidence" another, in which case, "evidence" is used as a verb.

I will use it in simple terms. If there was any evidence to back of evolution than that would prove (action form of proof). Not enough sufficient evidence has been found so evolution is still from from having any proof (interchangeable with evidence) that it exists.

Firstly, there are dozens of properly documented cases of observed speciation. This is as close to proof as anything gets. We know that one species can, through mutations across generations, become another species. There is really no doubt about that. So evolution is true and has sufficient evidence to be considered beyond dispute. The "theory of evolution" on the other hand, is a far more complex construct. It involves the mechanism by which this change from one species to another takes place. And as with any complex scientific construct, as more evidence is gathered it may add support to the theory or present contradictions to it. When credible evidence presents a contradiction to a theory, the theory must undergo adjustment. If the nature of the contradiction renders the theory beyond adjustment, it is to be abandon. So far, all of the credible evidence supports the theory of evolution. There simply isn't any which contradicts it.

There is more evidence to support the theory of evolution than evidence to support the theory of gravity. But, as with any scientific concept, neither have ever been proved, nor will they be. There is also the "law of gravity". But laws aren't considered to have been proved either. They are concepts markedly more simplistic than theories which are always observed to be true. But noting that something is always observed to be true is not the same as claiming that absolute proof of the concept is available. You can work your whole life in a quarry demonstrating that each rock lifted will always fall back to Earth when released. This makes the nature of attraction between the rock and Earth a "law", but does not prove that this action will continue to be true 10,000 years from now or even 2 hours from now.

If you flip a quarter into the air 50 times and it lands heads up every time, is that proof that a quarter will never land tails up? How many times would you need to flip the quarter and have it land heads up before you would consider it to "prove" that quarters never land tails up? No matter how many times you flip the quarter without ever seeing it land tails up, you'll never have proof that it can't. There is still a 50/50 chance that it will land tails up on the next flip.

Have you ever flipped a quarter and observed how it lands? Have you ever observed one to land on edge? If not, does that "prove" that it could never land on edge? If you flip a quarter 1,000 times and it never lands on edge, you begin to have evidence that it will never land on edge. You even have support for the hypothesis that it "can't" land on edge. To form a theory you would need to explain why the quarter cannot land on edge and continue to test these reasons. But it's still not a theory until hoards of scientists have presented every known challenge relative to your hypothesis and found that it answers each and every challenge. But as soon as someone flips a quarter and documents both their procedure and that the quarter has landed on edge, there is evidence against your theory. If this procedure and outcome can be reproduced, then the theory that quarters cannot land on edge must be adjusted or abandoned.

You just gave me another definition of proof, yet proof and evidence can in many cases be interchanged with evidence given the right circumstances.

Give us one valid circumstance under which your statement is true. Proof and evidence are not the same thing, nor is "evidence" any definition of "proof".

You already believe that I am a nut job so you perceive that I have lesser intelligence than you.

Neither is true. I don't believe you are a "nut job". But I do see a common tendency for those who believe similarly to dismiss the need to learn about scientific principles, when they believe the findings of science to be in error. But unless one understands the concepts of science, they will never be able to present an argument to them. When you attempt to present an argument against "scientific proofs", you end up demonstrating instead that you don't understand science or how it operates.

You have been taught from an early age that Creationism is only for wackjobs.

I was taught from an early age that all of creation was performed by a supreme entity. I maintained that belief and attempted to mix it with science until I was 33 years old.

Whether you think it or not that is what has happened.

You're claiming to know my history, but your claims have already been falsified.

Don't worry it is psychology and it is called prejudice. You have already formed some preconceived notion that I am a Creationist so I must be wrong and have lesser intelligence than you.

If that is what I thought, I would probably have found a diplomatic way to state that. That's not what I think so it's not what I said. But I do think that you lack a basic understanding of science as demonstrated through your posts. And before you can present a credible argument against scientific principles, you're going to need to take the time to learn more about them. You can do that through people here, through the web and/or through offline sources. I find a good mix of forums, websites, and magazines, to present a good range of information.

Scientific law; A relatively simple action or set of actions, generally accepted to be true and universal, similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Hypothesis; A rational, educated guess based upon observation.

Scientific Theory; an explanation of a set of related observations, events and/or mechanisms, based upon hypotheses which have been tested and verified multiple times by detached groups of credited researchers.

Scientific Proof; A term to describe evidence so strong that no argument can ever be presented. Since an argument can always be presented, science recognizes proof can never exist.