Transitional fossils: What are they?

[The Lady Kate]

I don't know, Aggie.

I don't know how evolution really works.

I just know that I've asked some pretty pointed questions and, judging from the answers (and non-answers), I conject that it is a cheap fps movie.

You know even less than you think you do.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know even less than you think you do.

Well, like I said, judging from you guys' answers...

I can spout Chess all day.

Talk about the five ways the game can end in a draw, play the first game of the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match from memory, and tell the difference between a Zugswang and a Zwistchenzug (if I spelled those two words correctly).

But if I can't explain Chess to someone who is asking good questions about it, then maybe something is wrong somewhere.

 

[azmurath]

Well, like I said, judging from you guys' answers...

I can spout Chess all day.

Talk about the five ways the game can end in a draw, play the first game of the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match from memory, and tell the difference between a Zugswang and a Zwistchenzug (if I spelled those two words correctly).

But if I can't explain Chess to someone who is asking good questions about it, then maybe something is wrong somewhere.

Yes, your preconceived notions and fraudulent information cloud your mind.

 

[sbvera13]

But if I can't explain Chess to someone who is asking good questions about it, then maybe something is wrong somewhere.

Your questions have been answered. Repeatedly, and in detail. Inevitably, you choose to ignore those answers because they are not the answers you want. You apple challenge is a perfect example; you still state (often) that noone has answered it. It was. It just wasn't an answer you expected, and so you ignore it. The fragmented nature of the fossil record, and the continuum nature of animal populations have both been explained thoroughly in this thread. These are both direct responses to your "not enough frames" objection. Yet you have not acknowledged these answers, even to put up a counter argument. All you've done is repeat your original statement again.

If you want to hold your own pet beliefs, and let science take a hike, etc, that's fine. You can do that. But at least have the honesty to admit that it is your own doing, and don't blame other people for not being able to explain it to you. It is yourself who is unwilling to listen.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, like I said, judging from you guys' answers...

I can spout Chess all day.

Talk about the five ways the game can end in a draw, play the first game of the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match from memory, and tell the difference between a Zugswang and a Zwistchenzug (if I spelled those two words correctly).

But if I can't explain Chess to someone who is asking good questions about it, then maybe something is wrong somewhere.

You don't want to understand. That is why it took so long for you to stop using the "Periodic Table of the Elements is wrong because it is incomplete" argument. You are purposely obtuse.

Speaking of chess, however. Do you think you could explain a well known opening move to someone who doesn't understand the rules of the game? Maybe someone who doesn't want to learn the rules and says, "Chess rules can take a hike?" That is what we deal with all the time here with you.

Scoffer: "You're Opening Move is dumb and comes from Satan."
AVET: "What do you mean... what is wrong with it?"
Scoffer: "I can't tell you because I don't understand Chess. However, I know you're wrong to use it."
AVET: "Huh? How can you critisize my opening move if you don't understand the game?"
Scoffer: "Tell me then."
AVET: "Well, if I move Bishop's pawn this way and then..."
Scoffer: "I don't understand all that. don't bother."
AVET: "Does that mean you are going to stop telling me I'm wrong and my opening comes from Satan?"
Scoffer: "Of course not! I know the TRUTH!!"

 

[Aggie]

I don't know, Aggie.

I don't know how evolution really works.

I just know that I've asked some pretty pointed questions and, judging from the answers (and non-answers), I conject that it is a cheap fps movie.

I don’t think you should assume that if the people at this forum aren’t able to explain something adequately, this means an adequate explanation doesn’t exist. In most threads at this forum, I end up being disappointed by more than half of the responses from evolution supporters. (Hence my trying to point out the flaws in some of their poorer arguments, such as the claim that no modern biology books use Haeckel’s embryo drawings.)

For this reason, I wouldn’t recommend judging the validity of evolution based on the quality of responses you get at this forum. But if you’re going to do this, I think at the very least you should only consider responses from people who are actually authorities in whatever topic is being discussed. So for example, the only topic for which this is true in my case is the origin of birds. If I’m not able to provide a good explanation for a topic that I’m not particularly familiar with, such as the relationship between reptiles and mammals, the only thing this proves is that you’re asking the wrong person about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to hold your own pet beliefs, and let science take a hike, etc, that's fine. You can do that. But at least have the honesty to admit that it is your own doing, and don't blame other people for not being able to explain it to you. It is yourself who is unwilling to listen.

Is that so?

Then if evolution is so thorough, perhaps you can tell me what species birthed Homo sapiens?

Or why a bear up north goes by a different species, while another "animal" who also lives up north goes by the same binomial as one that lives on the equator?

These two questions might be thought up in the mind of a person who doesn't know much about evolution, but I'm sure you (or someone) can at least give me something other than a brush-off?

 

[AV1611VET]

For this reason, I wouldn’t recommend judging the validity of evolution based on the quality of responses you get at this forum. But if you’re going to do this, I think at the very least you should only consider responses from people who are actually authorities in whatever topic is being discussed. So for example, the only topic for which this is true in my case is the origin of birds. If I’m not able to provide a good explanation for a topic that I’m not particularly familiar with, such as the relationship between reptiles and mammals, the only thing this proves is that you’re asking the wrong person about it.

Are you kidding me with this?

I get questions about astronomy from geologists here, questions about geology from biologists here, and questions about biology from psychologists here.

And I'll spare you guys the details here, but when a well-known object was recently downgraded in status, 100% of all these "experts" here suddenly became consenting astronomers.

 

[sbvera13]

Is that so?

Then if evolution is so thorough, perhaps you can tell me what species birthed Homo sapiens?

Or why a bear up north goes by a different species, while another "animal" who also lives up north goes by the same binomial as one that lives on the equator?

These two questions might be thought up in the mind of a person who doesn't know much about evolution, but I'm sure you (or someone) can at least give me something other than a brush-off?

These two questions have been answered before. One of them in this thread. (scroll up and look at the geryscale/animal population analogy I posted earlier.)

Answer me this, before I answer those questions honestly. Are you asking these questions because you want an answer? Or because you want to show that (you believe) there is no answer?

 

[AV1611VET]

These two questions have been answered before. One of them in this thread. (scroll up and look at the geryscale/animal population analogy I posted earlier.)

Answer me this, before I answer those questions honestly. Are you asking these questions because you want an answer? Or because you want to show that (you believe) there is no answer?

I'm asking it because I want to believe there is no answer.

"Prove" me wrong --- so I can keep asking until I hit a missing link --- then, I promise you, I won't say it in writing, but I'll consider myself to have made my point, whether you guys agree or not.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

And yet another thread becomes all about AV1611VET... yeesh.

 

[sbvera13]

I'm asking it because I want to believe there is no answer.

Thank you for the honesty.

"Prove" me wrong --- so I can keep asking until I hit a missing link --- then, I promise you, I won't say it in writing, but I'll consider myself to have made my point, whether you guys agree or not.

And here you admit that you have a closed mind. Your goal is to prove us wrong... and you wont be willing to change your mind even after the discussion. This is why I won't try to answer your questions, because if I did, you would not care. I appreciate the honesty however, and you have my respect for that much.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you for the honesty.

And here you admit that you have a closed mind. Your goal is to prove us wrong... and you wont be willing to change your mind even after the discussion. This is why I won't try to answer your questions, because if I did, you would not care. I appreciate the honesty however, and you have my respect for that much.

Good.

Now if you'll excuse me, Captain Kangaroo is coming on in a few minutes, and he's the quintessential "missing link".

/thread

 

[Aggie]

Are you kidding me with this?

I get questions about astronomy from geologists here, questions about geology from biologists here, and questions about biology from psychologists here.

And I'll spare you guys the details here, but when a well-known object was recently downgraded in status, 100% of all these "experts" here suddenly became consenting astronomers.

No, I’m being completely serious. And in fact, what you’re describing is something I noticed before in RichardT’s case, which is one of the reasons why I stopped posting here for around a year. When a creationist asks a question at this board, there tends to be such a huge quantity of responses from people who don’t know what they’re talking about that it often makes evolution look bad. But that’s a problem with this forum, not with evolution itself.

You should keep in mind that I’m not just talking about professional credentials here, though—you don’t have to be a professional in any area to be knowledgeable about it. In my case, all of my work and training in paleontology was as a volunteer, and the person I know who’s most knowledgeable about genetics actually has a career as an artist. The relevant thing is just that a person has to be knowledgeable enough to be able to provide correct answers to the question being asked.

If the question is simple enough, most people are likely be able to answer it. Your questions about Pluto were fairly simple, so there were probably a lot of people here capable of answering those. But once we start getting into detailed information, there start being a lot fewer people on whose answers you can accurately judge evolution as a whole.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

So.... transitional fossils. Anyone want to talk about those?

 

[sbvera13]

So.... transitional fossils. Anyone want to talk about those?

Anyone figure out the continuum/individual fossil conundrum? If so I missed it.

 

[USincognito]

So.... transitional fossils. Anyone want to talk about those?

Pete, I'm with you. I don't think "all fossils are transitionals" adds any value to the conversation. That's not what Creationists or doubters are asking for anyway. They want examples that have characteristics of two different taxons and I think that's what we should stick to when arguing the issue of transitionals.

 

[sbvera13]

You might be right. It would be more accurate to say "all organisms are transitional." By extension, all fossils also are, since they were organisms once, but I suppose that does degrade the usefulness of the term.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

You might be right. It would be more accurate to say "all organisms are transitional." By extension, all fossils also are, since they were organisms once, but I suppose that does degrade the usefulness of the term.

Except for the dead ends. And not all fossils are organisms (trace fossils).

 

[metherion]

Okay, i haven't posted in the thread in a bit but all it seems I missed was some AV-derailing.

So, from when i last posted, two fossils from the same species may not be both transitional if one lacks the features labelled as transitional.

And it sounds like we need to go back and get transitional under wraps.

From my understanding the hierarchy will work something like this:
A large number of fossils are the so called 'normal' fossils, of land animals staying land animals, of reptiles staying reptiles, and so on. Just as evolution predicts.

But then there are the 'transitions' where relatively large branching offs occur. Like land animals to sea animals (ambelocetus), reptiles to birds (archaopteryx, microraptor), fish/amphibian (tiktaalik) to name some of the more well known ones.

And so a transitional species would be one that is part of these larger branching offs, as opposed to one of the llama/camel ancestors which are still more closely related.

And then a transitional fossil is a fossil of one of the transitional species that contains the transitional characteristic in question.

Is that something along the path to correct?

Metherion