Originally Posted by RAZD
Thanks Bex.

Quote
Do assumptions and bias interpretations equal evidence for transitional forms? Attempting to make out that the problems you're having with the bat evolution, is negated by all the other "evidences" you've apparently given is really relying on people believing it's a "done deal".
But I'm not having problems with earlier bat evolution - I don't have evidence to have problems with. Absence of evidence one way or the other means that we don't know. If you want to assume otherwise based on your biases you are free to do so, but I would not call it honest or scientific.
Scientific?

Well let's look at how evolutionists mock science here. Predictions are important in real science because they go right to the issue of falsifying incorrect ideas. Now evolutionists want it to work one-way. They only want confirmation to be available, but not falsification. That's not science.

There's a prediction that certain things would be found. They haven't been found, and even evolutionists admit there's been sufficient time and effort put into the project.

If this were science, the result is clear. The expectations have not been met. The concept fails. Back to the drawing board...

But evolutionism ain't science. And it ain't hard to tell truth from lies in this case.

Quote
To pretend that the lack of evidence of earlier bat fossils - a lack that neither confirms nor negates bat evolution - negates all this existing evidence of transition after transition after transition, is not dealing with the evidence.
Does that sound like science to you? Does that sound like owning up to a failed prediction?

Not to me it doesn't. Sounds like fanatical, religious denial.
Quote
Show me a fossil of a Homo sapiens that is older than 3 million years by geological time. If you can't find one, then don't talk to me about bat fossils.
See what I mean?

Quote
Quote
Those whom have become extinct, should not automatically = transitional forms, simply because they're lost to our past.
Strangely they don't. They become transitional because they show change from previous forms, not because they are fossils.
Flirting with circularity. Earlier RAZD said "These millions of fossils exist", and omitted to specify which millions he's talking about. If he means "all fossils are transitional" (and if you know evobabble you know the odds), then yes, they are indeed "transitional" because they're fossils.

In fact, if you look at Darwin's "original quote" you may well find this definition matches. Again, RAZD does not specify, hiding behind nebulous terminology. Darwin's first mention of the subject in their sacred text does match this definition.

But RAZD is too clever to ever spell things out and get caught, right?

Wrong!
Quote
Quote
Those with similar traits and appearance should not have to succumb to the same labelling tactics either, ...
Strangely this too is false. It is not just similarity, but the links of shared characteristics together with space and time, and especially with characteristics that are of a fine but specific detail showing relationships. There is a difference between analogous features and homologous features that taxonomists use.
Similar traits are similar traits. Whether you choose to call it 'homologous' or 'analogous', it still means similarity, and you can look it up.

The "space and time" junk is totally bogus. When they find a rhino in North America, do they not call it a rhino? When they find a bug in amber, do they not simply call it the same kind of bug, label it as a "more primitive species" even if it's identical to others, and insert it right into their charts?

Quote
Quote
Can you imagine what the Platypus would have done to an evolutionist had it become extinct before we had observed it living alongside the many creatures it shares traits with? If shared/similar traits in one creature with others, means it is a transitonal form. Then what would they have attributed to the Platypus? Consider the following: It has a bill and webbed feet like a duck for swimming, claws for digging, lays eggs like a snake/bird, eggs like a reptile, has milk glands like a mammal, has fur and tail like a beaver, yet unlike most mammals, it keeps its testes safely inside its abdomen. I think this creature is like God's wink to evolutionists
You forgot the poisonous spur on the males hind legs.

Are we, perhaps, getting carried away with imaginationary scenarios based on a total lack of knowledge about how science works?
Bex hasn't demonstrated a total lack of knowledge about how science works. But we're discussing evolutionism, so it's moot unless one's talking about evolutionism's bogus claims to be scientific.

We all know how that one would have played out: the platypus would be presented as "proof" that birds and mammals shared a "common ancestor". It's not hard at all to understand such predictable human behaviour.

Quote
To learn something about how scientists actually do this kind of work (rather than making stuff up), and the terms they actually use, see Cladistics (wiki) for a simple explanation (although it contains a lot of information, the concept is really simple).

Notice that it talks about "primitive" and "derived" and prefers the terms "plesiomorphic" and "apomorphic"
Evolutionists do prefer morphic terms, alright. Any predictions on what these will morph into next?

Quote
And yes, you can do cladistics to place organisms in trees of relationships in spite of having missing representatives, ...
Well duh! Like you'd have any "trees" at all if you couldn't?

Quote
Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades.
Right...

And the DNA evidence "linking" whales to hippos? I guess the bogus nature of such "links" means one can cherry pick which ones go to press, eh?

Quote
In 1978, paleontologist Phil Gingerich discovered a 52-million-year-old skull in Pakistan that resembled fossils of creodonts -- wolf-sized carnivores that lived between 60 and 37 million years ago, in the early Eocene epoch.
And evolutionists were so desperate for whale ancestors they built one from a skull.

Latest one's built from teeth BTW.

Quote
Curiously the whale evolution, and the "profusion of intermediate fossils" show that such "trouble" does not mean that evolution is falsified by such absences from the fossil record.
So manufacturing a whale from a wolf-like skull is all it takes? Call that "science", do you?

Do you really think for a minute I couldn't find some trivial feature on a corncob that makes it relatively more whale-like than another corncob?

Quote
Quote
No doubting the ancient fossil bats are as batty as their modern day counterpart
And if you were going to do an honest and scientific comparison of each of these bats and all the modern species, you would do this with cladistics and not with pictures, ...
How is one to do cladistics without pictures? Looking at pictures (and assuming evolutionism)is part of doing cladistics!

But to be honest and scientific, one should practice Taxonomy. Cladistics is just a punk excuse to practice circular reasoning.
Quote
...especially with pictures from known falsehood purveyor Harun Yahya (whom we have also previously discussed and shown to be dishonest in his quotes of Stephen Jay Gould among others -- scroll back if you don't remember).
:: OH NO! Don't do THAT!

Shoot, maybe reverse psychology? I'll give it a shot.
Quote
With cladistics you compare all the features and their relative differences and simiarities.
Without looking at them?

Quote
And yet this STILL does not change the fact that the intermediate varieties shown on other posts with transitions from one form to another exist in profusion, that the evidence of transitions clearly show stages easily taken by the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation and this change is no more than the kind of change we see in dogs and their evolution from wolves.
You're arguing which side?

Quote
You forgot to include the highly likely reply that they are frauds, a hoax, based on the demonstrated fact that the Harun Yahya is a liar and a fraud ... as well as a pervert.
I wouldn't call it a "demonstrated fact". Your sources are pretty shaky themselves, and one reports
Quote
Also politicians such as Celal Adan (Member of the Parliament) and Mesut Yilmaz (former Prime Minister of Turkey) have been victims of this group. Oktar’s group arranged fake (photomontage) photos of Mesut Yilmaz in Freemason clothes and ceremonies, and forged a fake certificate of Freemasonary for him
Such a report could easily result from a frame-up job, if HY's group actually did expose the politician and he actually was a freemason.

Shoot, if you read down Dawkins' blog, you'll find the pathetic dupes who follow him don't even buy the story at face value, and they hate HY. We may not find out the real story in this lifetime, but it's easy to see there's more to it than got reported.
Quote
But even if there were true you would still not have a case that evolution does not happen, because you are ignoring the evidence of transitions.

Oh look water in this pot sitting on the table does not boil (ignore that one on the stove boiling away) this proves that water does not boil.

To put it bluntly, and as noted previously in the referenced discussions (see "scrolling up" by scrolling up ... ), the oldest known life on earth is a cyanobacteria similar to ones living today:
Claiming even more immunity to falsification? It's funny the things you think strengthen your arguments.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson