The catch-22 of creationist demands for fossil transitions

[pitabread]

Either that, or you're not listening.

And guess which one I think it is?

Kind is genus.

I can't make it any simpler.

Maybe that's why you don't understand?

Science has a way of messing things up.

But you subsequently tried to argue that "kind" is based on organisms that can reproduce. Which implies that it's more akin to species than genus.

 

[pitabread]

Then don't worry about it.

Believe me, I don't.

 

[Chesterton]

The same as Wikipedia's: 'A transitional fossil is any fossilised remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil. Later in the same paragraph, the article explains that 'Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups'.

The problem with the definition is the built-in assumption of ancestors and descendants. There's circular reasoning going on: "We call this fossil 'transitional' between A and C, because we already assume there was a transition between A and C. And why do we assume there was a transition? Because we have this fossil..."

They are, and, so far as I understand it, that is the whole point of the allopatric speciation model. Fossils are preserved from the large non-isolated central populations, but because these populations are not the source of new species, their fossil record is one of evolutionary stasis. This, again, is what is observed; for the most part the fossil record, which is the record of the large non-isolated populations, shows little or no change in an individual species or genus from its first appearance to its extinction.

That model makes sense as far as it goes, but I don't see the relevance to what we're talking about here. It could explain geographic distribution of different critters, but how does it explain the lack of continuous linkage (for lack of a better term) in any given place?

 

[AV1611VET]

But you subsequently tried to argue that "kind" is based on organisms that can reproduce.

Organisms have binomials.

Kind is on the left; species is on the right.

What's so hard to understand?

Canis latrans.

Canis is the kind, latrans is the species.

 

[Job 33:6]

The problem with the definition is the built-in assumption of ancestors and descendants. There's circular reasoning going on: "We call this fossil 'transitional' between A and C, because we already assume there was a transition between A and C. And why do we assume there was a transition? Because we have this fossil..."

Either the B exists between A and C or it doesn't. It has nothing to do with assumptions, its just a matter of if something exists or not.

For example, in the fish to amphibian transition. Either tiktaalik exists or it doesnt. Nobody assumes it to be a transition, it simply is because it contains both fish and amphibian traits. ie it has scales like a fish and fins like a fish, but its head is flat like a salamander and it has bulky shoulders, an unfused skull and rotating wrists.

We call it transitional because it morphologically and temporally is a link between A and C. And nobody assumed that tiktaalik existed. Its called a prediction. If A transitioned into C then one might predict that B exists. And not only that but it can be disproven to be a transitional as well, for example if C is found before A, then it would break the chain.

But in the case of the fish to tetrapod transition, it falls in order, A B and C, fish to amphibian without C coming before A. Therefore the transition and predictions stand.

 

[pitabread]

The problem with the definition is the built-in assumption of ancestors and descendants.

How is that a "built-in" assumption? Do you not think that organisms reproduce?

 

[Job 33:6]

That model makes sense as far as it goes, but I don't see the relevance to what we're talking about here. It could explain geographic distribution of different critters, but how does it explain the lack of continuous linkage (for lack of a better term) in any given place?

You should give an example of what you think is a lack of linkage, that way the question may be addressed, directly.

 

[Chesterton]

Either the B exists between A and C or it doesn't. It has nothing to do with assumptions, its just a matter of if something exists or not.

For example, in the fish to amphibian transition. Either tiktaalik exists or it doesnt. Nobody assumes it to be a transition, it simply is because it contains both fish and amphibian traits. ie it has scales like a fish and fins like a fish, but its head is flat like a salamander and it has bulky shoulders, an unfused skull and rotating wrists.

It's a problem of taxonomy. Humans, and watermelons, and clouds, all have water in them. What does that actually tell us about the relationship between these things? Nothing, except that we all contain water.

We call it transitional because it morphologically and temporally is a link between A and C.

You're doing the same thing as the Wiki definition - making an assertion. As I pointed out above, being morphologically related gives us no information about a possible temporal relationship.

And nobody assumed that tiktaalik existed. Its called a prediction. If A transitioned into C then one might predict that B exists. And not only that but it can be disproven to be a transitional as well, for example if C is found before A, then it would break the chain.

But in the case of the fish to tetrapod transition, it falls in order, A B and C, fish to amphibian without C coming before A. Therefore the transition and predictions stand.

Who predicted tiktaalik, and when?

 

[Chesterton]

How is that a "built-in" assumption? Do you not think that organisms reproduce?

Yes of course, organisms reproduce things of their own kind. They don't produce, they can only re-produce.

 

[Chesterton]

You should give an example of what you think is a lack of linkage, that way the question may be addressed, directly.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Mixed_onions.jpg/220px-Mixed_onions.jpg

Onions and horses, and other onions. Onion. Read the article, look at the pictures, think about what we decide is an onion, and what is not an onion. Perceived linkage is utterly arbitrary.

 

[pitabread]

Yes of course, organisms reproduce things of their own kind. They don't produce, they can only re-produce.

The point of course is that there is no assumptions about ancestors or descendants. We know that organisms reproduce.

 

[Chesterton]

The point of course is that there is no assumptions about ancestors or descendants. We know that organisms reproduce.

I did not say there were no such thing as ancestors and descendants, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[AV1611VET]

The point of course is that there is no assumptions about ancestors or descendants. We know that organisms reproduce.

So do we.

We also know that bacteria have have been having baby cooties every nine hours for the past six thousand plus years.

And guess what?

They're still bacteria.

 

[Job 33:6]

It's a problem of taxonomy. Humans, and watermelons, and clouds, all have water in them. What does that actually tell us about the relationship between these things? Nothing, except that we all contain water.


You're doing the same thing as the Wiki definition - making an assertion. As I pointed out above, being morphologically related gives us no information about a possible temporal relationship.

Who predicted tiktaalik, and when?

All animals have bones, but you wouldn't call a giraffe by the name of a frog just because they both have bones.

Regarding tiktaalik, you should do research on the topic before picking a side.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140113154211.htm

The second video is a bit long, but honestly, if you are truly interested in having an honest conversation about fossils, if you aren't familiar with the science, you should invest the time to watch.

 

[pitabread]

I did not say there were no such thing as ancestors and descendants, so I'm not sure what your point is.

You said it was a "built-in assumption" regarding transitional fossils:

The problem with the definition is the built-in assumption of ancestors and descendants. There's circular reasoning going on: "We call this fossil 'transitional' between A and C, because we already assume there was a transition between A and C. And why do we assume there was a transition? Because we have this fossil..."

All I did was point out that this isn't really an assumption given what we know about life. We know living things reproduce; it's in the basic definition of life.

 

[lifepsyop]

Because they're bad at it. Nobody has ever demonstrated what creationists keep claiming. Hence, why it seems every creationist has their own definition of what a "kind" is. And in some cases, more than one definition.

Kinds are just separate ancestral groups.

As an evolutionist, you actually believe in a single "kind" - a single ancestral group for all of life

Creationists assume a boundary separating ancestral groups.
Evolutionists assume there are no boundaries, and thus one universal group.

The funny part is where evolutionists demand creationists prove the biological boundaries exist, while simultaneously demanding acceptance (without any proof) that NO boundaries exist....

To an evolutionist, the default 'reasonable' position is that nature has the intrinsic power to organize the same common substance into both a mushroom and a horse. How this magical-thinking is regarded as common wisdom today is truly astounding.

 

[Jimmy D]

The funny part is where evolutionists demand creationists prove the biological boundaries exist

Not proof, just evidence, any evidence. But of course there is none, in fact all the evidence we have points to common descent.

while simultaneously demanding acceptance (without any proof) that NO boundaries exist....

No evidence for common descent? LOL

Only if you reject the findings of modern science.

To an evolutionist, the default 'reasonable' position is that nature has the intrinsic power to organize the same common substance into both a mushroom and a horse. How this magical-thinking is regarded as common wisdom today is truly astounding.

But replace the word "nature" with invisible and undetectable supernatural deity and it makes more sense?

It's not the dark ages anymore chief.

 

[lifepsyop]

No evidence for common descent? LOL

Only if you reject the findings of modern science.

Oh.. did a bacteria do something interesting with a broken enzyme again? Can't wait to learn how this proves a fish can turn into a giraffe, if only given enough time and the right environment....

But replace the word "nature" with invisible and undetectable supernatural deity and it makes more sense?

Does it make you feel better to hide your god behind a word?

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh.. did a bacteria do something interesting with a broken enzyme again? Can't wait to learn how this proves a fish can turn into a giraffe, if only given enough time and the right environment....

Good for you, we should all strive to learn new things.

Does it make you feel better to hide your god behind a word?

I don't have a God, what are you prattling about?

 

[Valetic]

Not proof, just evidence, any evidence. But of course there is none, in fact all the evidence we have points to common descent.

Like the Cambrian explosion?