Missing Links

[Belk]

Take two numbers: call one ONE, and the other TEN.

1.........10

Those two numbers have 8 missing links between them.

Now let's say 5 is found.

Now you have 1...5....10.

What have you done?

Nothing.

You found a 5. Wow.

In the meantime, some people go around saying, "There's no such thing as missing links."

Yeah! Who cares about that adding to the sum of human knowledge thing?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Science could find 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 and creationists will still demand 0.5, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 6.5, 7.5, 8.5, and 9.5.

There will never be enough evidence to satisfy a creationist.

Creationists every time a new "missing link" they demanded is discovered:

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists every time a new "missing link" they demanded is discovered:

Please show what goalpost was moved from where to where in my OP.

I started with ten numbers.

Others featured-creeped it to much more numbers,* which is a typical academic ploy.

I said a 5 was discovered.

That 5 was within the boundaries of the numbers I gave.

So where was the goalpost moved? from 1-4? 6-10? where exactly?

* Notice they did it by moving the decimal point as needed? I could QV you to post after post where I have complained about academians moving the decimal point as needed to make their points look valid.

 

[MIDutch]

Please show what goalpost was moved from where to where in my OP.

If you read Gene Parmesan's post carefully, you will note that it said "creationists", as in creationist in general, not you in particular. He was responding to one of my posts, which was an observation I have made in 10+ years of "debating" creationists using your number analogy, but not directly addressing your post.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Please show what goalpost was moved from where to where in my OP.

I started with ten numbers.

Others featured-creeped it to much more numbers,* which is a typical academic ploy.

I said a 5 was discovered.

That 5 was within the boundaries of the numbers I gave.

So where was the goalpost moved? from 1-4? 6-10? where exactly?

* Notice they did it by moving the decimal point as needed? I could QV you to post after post where I have complained about academians moving the decimal point as needed to make their points look valid.

My goof was directed at Creationists in general. In fact, it backs up specifically what you said. It doesn't mean anything to you if a new missing link is found. Any creationist that is demanding a missing link is being dishonest. An honest one would be like you, "who cares?"

Your intellectual consistency with your beliefs is what makes disagreeing with you a usually pleasant experience. We won't likely change each other's minds but at least it's not as frustrating as with others who are constantly trying to contort their beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you read Gene Parmesan's post carefully, you will note that it said "creationists",

Yes.

I caught that.

I call that an "escape hatch."

Using some word or phrase that one can fall back on, when his post is rebutted or challenged.

 

[AV1611VET]

My goof was directed at Creationists in general.

If I can't get across what a "missing link" is by using a simple set of ten whole numbers, with eight of them missing, something's ... missing.

Look at Post 3, where the poster went out of his way to add to the OP.

He couldn't make his point without doing so.

Yet he's debated creationists for 10+ years.

Makes me wonder who those creationists were.

 

[MIDutch]

Yes.

I caught that.

I call that an "escape hatch."

Using some word or phrase that one can fall back on, when his post is rebutted or challenged.

He wasn't even responding to you or your post so it was hardly an escape hatch.

Further, moving the goalposts is something creationist in general do all the time. You may be challenging his post, but there is no evidence of a rebuttal.

 

[MIDutch]

If I can't get across what a "missing link" is by using a simple set of ten whole numbers, with eight of them missing, something's ... missing.

Look at Post 3, where the poster went out of his way to add to the OP.

He couldn't make his point without doing so.

Yet he's debated creationists for 10+ years.

Makes me wonder who those creationists were.

Well, it's not like your OP made much sense in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, it's not like your OP made much sense in the first place.

Oh, of course it didn't.

It just made enough sense to remind you to feature creep it, Arab phone it, and move the decimal place, right?

Only then did it make sense, I take it?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

If I can't get across what a "missing link" is by using a simple set of ten whole numbers, with eight of them missing, something's ... missing.

Look at Post 3, where the poster went out of his way to add to the OP.

He couldn't make his point without doing so.

Yet he's debated creationists for 10+ years.

Makes me wonder who those creationists were.

Unless we have a record of every single generation, there will always be "missing links" between any given point. Which is why you are correct to say, "who cares," if we find something directly in the middle of whatever 1 and 10 represents. Even in the cases where we can map the entire adaptation of a wolf to a chihuahua there's still so much of what preceded it that is incomplete. We get these glimpses of adaptation (or microevolution if you want), but the rest is extrapolation. We can't have all of the missing links. And if missing links are used to attempt to chip away at the Theory of Evolution, then that's good news for Creationists because there will always be TONS to pick from. It's not bad news for Evolutionists because the Theory does not rest on having to find every fossil that has ever existed though.

 

[AV1611VET]

And if missing links are used to attempt to chip away at the Theory of Evolution, then that's good news for Creationists because there will always be TONS to pick from.

But you can't give that good news to those who don't know or deny what missing links are.

In other words, you have to convince someone what a missing link is first, before you can claim it's missing.

Someone ... and I don't remember who ... told me straight-up there are no missing links in evolution.

And if that's so, I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

But you can't give that good news to those who don't know or deny what missing links are.

In other words, you have to convince someone what a missing link is first, before you can claim it's missing.

Someone ... and I don't remember who ... told me straight-up there are no missing links in evolution.

And if that's so, I'm Genghis Khan.

Definitions are important. Could you give an example of what 1 and 10 and 5 represent in your post?

 

[AV1611VET]

Definitions are important. Could you give an example of what 1 and 10 and 5 represent in your post?

Oh, boy!

Okay, let 10 represent Homo sapiens, 1 represent Homo erectus, and 5 Homo habilis.

I'd rather stick to numbers though, which are much easier to use.

If you can visualize numbers missing on a line like this: 1 ........ 10, then we can skip anything that might cause you confusion.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Oh, boy!

Okay, let 10 represent Homo sapiens, 1 represent Homo erectus, and 5 Homo habilis.

I'd rather stick to numbers though, which are much easier to use.

If you can visualize numbers missing on a line like this: 1 ........ 10, then we can skip anything that might cause you confusion.

I think the "5's" of evolution are particularly interesting if they are predicted. Like, "we think 10 descended from 1, so somewhere between there we should see something that has these specific traits." And then a 4 or a 7 or whatever is found that meets the predicted criteria.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think the "5's" of evolution are particularly interesting if they are predicted. Like, "we think 10 descended from 1, so somewhere between there we should see something that has these specific traits." And then a 4 or a 7 or whatever is found that meets the predicted criteria.

And to this end I agree with you 100%.

But that's just a fancy way of glossing over missing links.

In my opinion.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

And to this end I agree with you 100%.

But that's just a fancy way of glossing over missing links.

In my opinion.

If I can't be convincing I can at least be fancy.

 

[Belk]

And to this end I agree with you 100%.

But that's just a fancy way of glossing over missing links.

In my opinion.

Yes, but to be fair you have very many strange opinions.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If I can't get across what a "missing link" is by using a simple set of ten whole numbers, with eight of them missing, something's ... missing.

Where did the highlighted word appear from? It's not in the OP, it appears you are trying to change what you said while pretending it's others who added to your OP by "moving the decimal point". Another cheap creationist trick.

Look at Post 3, where the poster went out of his way to add to the OP.

He couldn't make his point without doing so.

Yet he's debated creationists for 10+ years.

Makes me wonder who those creationists were.

Nobody added to your OP until you did. You got caught out and you don't like it.