Spineless evolutionists smoking stinkweed

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
But saying there are thousands of wonderful transitionals in the fossil record without being able to produce A SINGLE SERIES OF 8 from 99.9% of the available fossils is honesty, right?

Yes because "thousands of transitionals" and "a fine-graded sequence of non-polyploidal specimens illustrating a major morphological change" are two different things.

In other words, we're supposed to believe that those thousands among the 99.9% of the record are out there, in spite of the fact that you can't find a series of 8 fossils from 99.9% of the record that represent the same kind of change that you believe you can build from 8 incomplete fossils from 0.015% of the record.

99.9%?  Where did you get that number?  And are you looking for transitionals or transitional sequences?

Have you ever worked as a used car salesman?  You seem to have perfected the bait and switch.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie

Yes because "thousands of transitionals" and "a fine-graded sequence of non-polyploidal specimens illustrating a major morphological change" are two different things.

But unless you can chart out a sequence, why do you think they were transitionals? Because they share some characteristics? That makes EVERY fossil a transitional.

99.9%?  Where did you get that number? 

I explained where I got it. Whether my numbers are right or wrong, you DO realize, don't you that 95% of today's species are invertebrates? Add to that plant species, and are you honestly suggesting that the number of vertebrate fossils makes up more than 0.02% of the fossil record? What is the number, then -- 0.1%? Or even 1%?

So does that mean you have an excuse for failing to meet the challenge because now you only have 99% of the fossil record to choose from instead of 99.9%? I'm sure that will be a wonderful excuse, since it cuts out SO many fossils.

And are you looking for transitionals or transitional sequences?

I think my challenge was quite clear. Go back and read it.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
But unless you can chart out a sequence, why do you think they were transitionals? Because they share some characteristics?

Transitionals are identified as such because they bridge the gap between two related groups of organisms, both in terms of morphology and chronology.  This doesn't mean that every transitional can be placed into a strict sequence, however.  Archaeopteryx is a perfect example of this.  It clearly shares some of the characteristics of dinosaurs and of birds, it lived during the time when the dinosaur-bird transition occurred, but it cannot be placed into a fine-grained sequence.

That makes EVERY fossil a transitional.

Technically, yes.  But the term is typically reserved for those specimens that are particularly useful for understanding some larger transition.

I explained where I got it. Whether my numbers are right or wrong, you DO realize, don't you that 95% of today's species are invertebrates? Add to that plant species, and are you honestly suggesting that the number of vertebrate fossils makes up more than 0.02% of the fossil record? What is the number, then -- 0.1%? Or even 1%?

I am fully aware of the current vertebrate species ratio, I'm just not sure that is indicative of the state of the fossil record.

So does that mean you have an excuse for failing to meet the challenge because now you only have 99% of the fossil record to choose from instead of 99.9%? I'm sure that will be a wonderful excuse, since it cuts out SO many fossils.

Have I used it as an excuse?

I think my challenge was quite clear. Go back and read it.

Oh, your challenge was clear enough.  However, you are accusing evolutionists of lying about transitional forms, and then attempting to demonstrate it by replacing their term "transitional form" with your "fine-grained non-polyploidal well-understood photographs-on-the-internet transitional sequence" mumbo jumbo.

That's the bait and switch.  And that's dishonest.

 

 

[randman]

Well, it needs to be understood that the evolutionist idea of what is a transitional forms means nothing, and provesd nothing except that it is possible for evolutionists to imagine different ways that extinct species could have evolved. It certainly does nothing to actually show the actual transitions. It is mere conjecture, and evolutionists should admit to that.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Well, it needs to be understood that the evolutionist idea of what is a transitional forms means nothing, and provesd nothing except that it is possible for evolutionists to imagine different ways that extinct species could have evolved.

And that we already knew that the fossils with transitional morphology would be there at the time our theory says that different lineages diverged, whereas you had to figure out some other way to account for them when they were found. That's why God as a self-cribbing artist is such an attractive notion for you.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Oh yeah.. and that the claim that there are no transitional fossils is a false one.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
Well, it needs to be understood that the evolutionist idea of what is a transitional forms means nothing, and provesd nothing except that it is possible for evolutionists to imagine different ways that extinct species could have evolved.

Of course a transitional proves something -- it proves that a species with characteristics intermediate between two other groups did exist at the proper time.

 It certainly does nothing to actually show the actual transitions. It is mere conjecture, and evolutionists should admit to that.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#intro:

Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly ancestral to the next-youngest fossils (i.e., they may be "cousins" or "uncles" rather than "parents"). However, they are assumed to be closely related to the actual ancestor, since they have intermediate morphology compared to the next-oldest and next-youngest "links".

Sounds like an admission to me.

 

 

[USincognito]

Bump. For 2 reasons. First, I thought the thread title was funny. And second, to show that after two years, we're still getting the same pig giving birth to a dog arguments from creationist here.

 

[GlAsYaLaBoLaS]

This thread was a pretty entertaining one.