Transitional forms

[Nitron]

What do creationists define as the criteria for "transitional forms"?

 

[lemmings]

What do creationists define as the criteria for "transitional forms"?

Everything that could not fit on the Ark.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

What do creationists define as the criteria for "transitional forms"?

The only one is "impossible". If they truly objectively reviewed the fossil evidence, they would have to accept that the forms are transitional. There aren't just the textbook species of tiktaalik, archaeopteryx, and probainognathus(who doesn't get the popular press but is a stunning example of a transition), there are also the transitional series of which there are several very complete ones (like whales, horses, fish-amphibian, reptile-mammal, and humans).

 

[FoeHammer]

The only one is "impossible". If they truly objectively reviewed the fossil evidence, they would have to accept that the forms are transitional. There aren't just the textbook species of tiktaalik, archaeopteryx, and probainognathus(who doesn't get the popular press but is a stunning example of a transition), there are also the transitional series of which there are several very complete ones (like whales, horses, fish-amphibian, reptile-mammal, and humans).

There are only alleged transitional forms. There is no way to scientifically prove a transition, regardless of the criteria, that supposedly occurred millions of years ago. A scientist labelling something as transitional because it looks like it might/could be does not a transitional make. I don't care what their qualifications are.

FoeHammer.

 

[FishFace]

There are only alleged transitional forms. There is no way to scientifically prove a transition, regardless of the criteria, that supposedly occurred millions of years ago. A scientist labelling something as transitional because it looks like it might/could be does not a transitional make. I don't care what their qualifications are.

FoeHammer.

It doesn't actually take any qualifications to look at a set of fossils, all differing slightly from one another, but when arranged in chronological order, forming an obvious transition from one phenotype to another, to conclude that they actually formed a transition.

 

[FoeHammer]

It doesn't actually take any qualifications to look at a set of fossils, all differing slightly from one another...

''Slightly''? Yeah right.
Unfortunately for you you would need vast amounts of fossils showing slight differences from one alleged transitional to another. How many ''examples'' are there of alleged whale transitionals? 10? 20?
I call it clutching at straws

... but when arranged in chronological order, forming an obvious transition from one phenotype to another, to conclude that they actually formed a transition.

There is nothing ''obvious'' about it. It's guesswork however you try to dress it up.

FoeHammer.

 

[Baggins]

There are only alleged transitional forms. There is no way to scientifically prove a transition, regardless of the criteria, that supposedly occurred millions of years ago. A scientist labelling something as transitional because it looks like it might/could be does not a transitional make. I don't care what their qualifications are.

FoeHammer.

And we don't care that you still, after all this time, don't realise that science is not about proof.

You can go on disbelieveing reality for as long as you want it affects science not a jot.

You can also go on enjoying the fruits of scientific endevour, though how you can without feeling a total hypocrit is beyond me.

Back to your cave luddite!!

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

There is no way to scientifically prove a transition, regardless of the criteria... I don't care what their qualifications are.

I believe you proved my point.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Mammals and reptiles have different pairs of bones in the back of the skull that make up the jaw joint. What would be the predicted transition between the two? A fossil with both sets of jaw joints. Well, Probainognathus has a double jaw joint. Why isn't that a transitional? It doesn't just kinda/sorta look like both taxa, it has specific bone structures that would be predicted that such a transition would have.

 

[Digit]

So a creature just suddenly developed another jaw joint?

I am with FoeHammer on this, the fact that people can string a few similar creatures together and say, "Look! Transitions!" doesn't make a great deal of sense. Especially when we have been able to find fossil records of tons of different animals, yet only this handful of similar 'transitional' ones.

Digit

 

[Baggins]

So a creature just suddenly developed another jaw joint?

I am with FoeHammer on this, the fact that people can string a few similar creatures together and say, "Look! Transitions!" doesn't make a great deal of sense. Especially when we have been able to find fossil records of tons of different animals, yet only this handful of similar 'transitional' ones.

Digit

This argument makes no sense. Transitions are extremely rare occurences, fossilisation is a rare occurence why would you expect transitional fossils to make up a large percentage of all fossils.

Here is a link to explain to you what a transitional fossil is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils

Here is a link to explain to you th eprocess of fossilisation:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilisation


pay special attention to rarity of fossilisation

The whole point about the evolution of reptiles to mammals is that they have very different jaws and the steps in the evolution between these jaws can be seen in th egeological record in the sequence expected.

What more would you want?

See here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html

 

[FoeHammer]

This argument makes no sense. Transitions are extremely rare occurences,

And that is a problem for creationists how?

FoeHammer.

 

[Baggins]

And that is a problem for creationists how?

FoeHammer.

You better ask Digit.

You are creationists and he has a problem with it.

You must have missed one of the meetings

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Tiktaalik is another excellent example of a predicted fossil that was discovered. The animals that appear chronologically before and after tiktaalik in the fish-amphibian transition had been known about for a while. The characteristics that appear in the animals ahead and behind tiktaalik are found in tiktaalik. It isn't kinda what you would predict would fill that gap, it is EXACTLY what you would predict to fill that gap. How did they find it? Did they stumble upon it haphazardly? No! They looked for it where they predicted they'd find it... and they found what they were looking for. They reliably made a prediction, and that prediction became verified. I believe that's the defintion of science.

 

[Nitron]

So what would creationists define as a transitional form?

 

[Loudmouth]

There are only alleged transitional forms. There is no way to scientifically prove a transition, regardless of the criteria, that supposedly occurred millions of years ago. A scientist labelling something as transitional because it looks like it might/could be does not a transitional make. I don't care what their qualifications are.

FoeHammer.

So no matter what a fossil looks like it can never, ever be a transitional? So what exactly are creationists looking for when they ask evolutionists to evidence transitionals?

 

[RedAndy]

''Slightly''? Yeah right.
Unfortunately for you you would need vast amounts of fossils showing slight differences from one alleged transitional to another.

Nope. Sorry, that's not correct at all.

What you are doing is shifting the goalposts to a point where no transitional fossil can ever be found - because even if we did find a gradual lineage from one species to another, we could never confirm conclusively that it really was a lineage, and didn't just look that way.

"Transitional fossil" in the scientific vernacular is a fossil that possesses some features characteristic of one type of organism and some other features characteristic of another type of organism. This indicates a link between the two types of organism - whether or not one is directly descended from the other is irrelevant. All that needs to be demonstrated is that a given fossil contains characteristics usually found in more than one specific group of organisms. There are many, many examples of such fossils.

 

[FoeHammer]

So no matter what a fossil looks like it can never, ever be a transitional? So what exactly are creationists looking for when they ask evolutionists to evidence transitionals?

To me, according to what I believe no, but I am aware that others do not share my beliefs and so, yes, for them, I suppose, it is possible, but there is no way that they could know for a fact beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is.
This is why I refer to them as alleged transitionals.

FoeHammer.

 

[TeddyKGB]

To me, according to what I believe no, but I am aware that others do not share my beliefs and so, yes, for them, I suppose, it is possible, but there is no way that they could know for a fact beyond any shadow of a doubt that it is.
This is why I refer to them as alleged transitionals.

There isn't even a good philosophical justification for the degree of certainty you require, let alone a scientific justification. Hume showed that you can't claim "beyond any shadow of a doubt" that the sun will rise tomorrow or that the floor will be there when you take your next footstep.

If you don't know this, you need to learn it. If you haven't read Hume, you need to do so. Right now, you are resting on an annoyingly inane argument that hasn't been relevant for 250 years.

Quit trying so hard to make it sound like you know what you're talking about and go do the actual work.

 

[Stinker]

I too used to think that there had to be at least thousands of these transitional fossils (for each changed species) that should have been found by now if Evolution had occurred.

It wasn't till later that I learned that it would be very, very, difficult to find any because these were so rare in nature. Well, they are now being found and I have had to re-examine my understanding of the Genesis creation account. It did not damage my faith in God at all. In fact, it made my concept of God more scarry. It seemed that God was not quite as infinite in my mind when I understood that the earth was created about 6000 years ago. Now, after learning the age of many of these fossils and seeing them......millions of years old......my how frightening!