Transitional Fossils Explained!

[JGL53]

Not true. Some fossils are the end of a species that became extinct. They didn't evolve into anything else so they wouldn't be transitional....

You are obviously either thick or dishonest. My complete original post was:

Nice job.

Also, someone pointed out on another thread that ALL fossils are transitional fossils.

How could each and every one not be, as 1. no two fossils are exactly alike and 2. each fossil, at least as a general type, lies between all other fossils on the scale of evolution, even though there are multi-branches and many individual fossils were dead ends (did not have progeny).

As anyone can plainly see, by leaving out the pertinent part of my previous post and then commenting on an except from it, you, as I say above, reveal yourself to be either thick or dishonest. So -which is it?

 

[MarcusHill]

I think you'll find that you claimed that only fossils of individual animals could be dead ends and that "each fossil, at least as a general type, lies between all other fossils on the scale of evolution". That would tend to imply that there are no non-transitional species.

Even if you had been clearer in stating the exceptions, there still isn't any call for Christian bashing. If that's the way you intend to debate, I'd rather you weren't on my side.

 

[JGL53]

I think you'll find that you claimed that only fossils of individual animals could be dead ends and that "each fossil, at least as a general type, lies between all other fossils on the scale of evolution". That would tend to imply that there are no non-transitional species…

I read somewhere – I think it was in The Ancestor’s Tale by Richard Dawkins - that “species” may just be a created category by humans and that, in actuality, all of life is more correctly viewed as continuous rather than being some series of discontinuous specific types of, in some real way, separate things. Thus, the term "transitional" may be empty of meaning, in the final analysis.

…Even if you had been clearer in stating the exceptions, there still isn't any call for Christian bashing. If that's the way you intend to debate, I'd rather you weren't on my side.

I gave the choice “thick” vs. “dishonest” because I could honestly see no other explanation for the distortion of my previously posted statements by philididdle.

I have a tendency to call'em as I see’um. As for “bashing Christians” I think you will find I am an equal opportunity “basher”. I “bash” what I see as ignorance, willful or not, and/or dishonesty. It matters not to me what the person I am “bashing” happens to label his or herself. – and that includes “atheists”.

I actually agree with “Christians” all the time here on this forum on many and varied subjects (though granted it usually is what we might call liberal, progressive, or modernistic Christians).

 

[Nitron]

I gave the choice “thick” vs. “dishonest” because I could honestly see no other explanation for the distortion of my previously posted statements by philididdle.

Maybe (gasp!) he'd missed that part of your post.

 

[philadiddle]

You are obviously either thick or dishonest. My complete original post was:

As anyone can plainly see, by leaving out the pertinent part of my previous post and then commenting on an except from it, you, as I say above, reveal yourself to be either thick or dishonest. So -which is it?

Why the attack? You said:

Nice job.

Also, someone pointed out on another thread that ALL fossils are transitional fossils.

Seemed like you were stating that as truth.

How could each and every one not be, as

Also implies you think every fossil is transitional, give the question and the word "as" followed up by 2 reasons.

1. no two fossils are exactly alike and 2. each fossil, at least as a general type, lies between all other fossils on the scale of evolution, even though there are multi-branches and many individual fossils were dead ends (did not have progeny).

number 2 says that all fossils lie between other fossils, which would imply they are all transitional. Then you say some branches are dead ends, which contradicts the rest of your post. It's actually not clear what you were saying so I was giving some input. It was not a personal attack and there's no need to get defensive.