It is not a "redefinition" of transitional.
No. It
is a redefinition of transitional. This is perfectly clear. (Let the reader observe and decide.)
The article clearly refers to the concept that creationists base their claims of "no transitionals" on a definition of transitional that differs from the parameters used by paleontologists.
Why can't [you?] see this? Is it because you so desire evolution to be true?
No. I can't see it because your interpretation of what is written there doesn't match normal interpretation of English prose.
Creationists redefine transition such that it is impossible to have one.
No. This is simply not true.
Ok
Then what would the characteristics of an acceptable transitional be? You can use an example if you like.
The reason we use the word "transition" is because these fossils are supposed to provide evidence of transitional forms.
They (talk origins) redefine "transitional" to a new broad definition in order to avoid having to show us any real evidence of transitional forms. The tactic they are using is perfectly clear and very common among disinformation providers.
Every paleontologist is trying to misinform the public. Probably because they get paid so much from the secret organizations that fund the evolution scare.
The fact is, we have no fossils that provide clear evidence of transitional forms. We only have mosaics. These are not evidence of transitional forms and should not be called "transitional fossils". The use of the word "transitional" in this context is deceptive and makes the reader think they are seeing evidence of transitional forms when they are actually seeing nothing more than mosaics.
The morphology is between two forms and the time location is between two forms. That is evidence of being a transitional. You may not think it is strong evidence, but it is evidence none-the-less.
Dog gone lying paleontologists!!!
These fossils listed on talk origins show differences that are so large that they cannot possibly be caused by a single (or even a small number of) mutation. In fact, when you consider that most of these changes are symmetrical, you have to admit that they simply cannot be explained by mutation processes because of simple mathematical improbability?
Your symmetry is impossible claim is pretty hollow without support. Perhaps you could support it better in the thread where you started it. However, I do have a question: How many genes need to change to alter the length of both your legs?
Saying an ear formed on both sides of this jaw. An ear formed? Do you know how many changes that entails, not to mention that they are symmetrical.
Answer the question about the length of your legs and you might have a better idea about the symmetry problem.
The ridiculousness of these claims are off-scale.
Translation: "I don't know how this stuff happened and am not interested in finding out, so it must be ridiculous.
Your position is not defensible nor is it intellectually honest. It is politics, not science.
Claiming it does not make it so. I feel that I am being intellectually honest because I actually read both sides of the issue. Do you?
Fossils with similar features to two other fossils that are not the same type of creature, and one of those fossils is found in earlier sediments and the other is found in later sediments.
Of course, the categorization of creatures is a function of human interpretation. More mundane is the assumption that deeper layers are older. It is well known that this is not only untrue, but it is the bases for the so-called fossil record.
Show me one location in the geologic column where no upheavals have occurred (folding/inverting/subduction) where the lower layers are younger than the higher ones.
We should not be so naive.
The so-called fossil record is based on broad, assumptive speculation and circular reasoning, not evidence.
Show me some.
Creationists have redefined what they accept as a transitional such that it is impossible (short of time travel) to find one. Then they say that since science has not found any "transitionals", that evolution did not happen. That is dishonest, in my opinion.
Your position is steeped in deep denial.
The real question, without all the semantics is:
Have fossils been found that provide strong enough evidence to be called "transitional fossils", i.e., that provide strong evidence that transitional forms existed?Paleontologists have concluded that the fossils provide this evidence. Except for the fact that every paleontologist is dishonest and on the payroll of the secret and powerful "evolution" cartel, they should be a good judge of the evidence.
I deal with this issue in my previous post. Even the talk origins website admits that this cannot be proven.
They said that you cannot prove that a particular fossil is the direct ancestor of another particular fossil. That's not the same thing as showing that a fossil shows transitional characteristics between two other fossils.
Furthermore, finding mosaics provides no evidence for transitions. Claiming that they do (as the talk origins website does) is dishonest.
So they're liars along with the paleontologists that they reference.
Therefore, by their own admission, there are no transitional fossils, unless of course you redefine the meaning of the phrase "transitional fossils" to mean "mosaics", which of course, is exactly what they've has done.
They never claimed that they (or paleontologists), have redefined what a transitional is. They are using the working model of a transitional that has been used in paleontology for quite some time.
I honestly can't believe I have to argue this point. It's right there in front of you.
You have to argue it because the statements on talk origins do not say what you claim.
The point they were making is that there is no way to show that a fossil is a direct ancestor of another fossil. That is, unless you have come up with a method of doing so.
Of course, but that's not necessary to provide strong evidence for the existence of transitional forms...
Good. So what is necessary to provide strong evidence for the existence of transitional forms? What should a transitional look like?
If those fossils are not transitionals then why are they found in between (in the sediment time line) the creatures that they are categorized as the transitionals for?
Because sediments are not linear in time and they are often are not even sequential. This is one of the huge ridiculous assumptions about the so-called fossil record that Hovind effectively points out. (
http://urlbam.com/ha/K )
Right. Geologists are stupid and can't figure out that a sediment layer was laid down in a moving stream or if it was in still waters. Please point out a set of layers that are in the Earth and are not in sequential order.
Any honest scientist has to admit that the fossil record is based on junk science and is no more credible than the claimed cause of global warming or a flat Earth. (
http://urlbam.com/ha/M001k )
Yet 99% of scientists disagree with this emotionally charged claim. I guess they aren't honest.
If there are no transitionals, the how is it that predictions can be made for the sediments in which they will be found, the morphology of the transitional being sought, and those predictions be show true through subsequent finds?
(1) Predictions made about the sediments are not always accurate (but they don't tell you that)...
please provide an example of one that was not accurate.
...and most likely have everything to do with density and habitat, not timelines, but they never bring that up either.
Density? How is a dinosaur more dense than a buffalo? What does density have to do with it anyway?
TiktaalikIf there are no transitionals and all creatures were made in the beginning, then why can't we find rabbit fossils in the Pre-Cambrian sediments?
Because the categorization of those sediments as precambrian is a fallacy based on enormous assumptions and circular reasoning.
Show me the circular reasoning used to identify which fossils can be used as index fossils. Show me the circular reasoning used in radiometric dating.
The dating of the sediment layers is simply junk science designed to support the evolution faith. This is a subject in and of itself that deserves exposure, not unlike the science that shows that mercury in vaccines is safe or that amalgam fillings don't leak mercury.
Way to go! That's all your faithful followers needed to completely bust up my argument. Just compare it unfavorably to mercury and I'm toast.
Again, this is typical soviet-style indoctrination.
thanks for avoiding emotionalism.
They distribute false information and then base conclusions on that information, and then they use the acceptability (emotional appeal) of the conclusions as evidence that the original (false) information was correct.
And you probably wrote this with a straight face.
Again, this is not science and it is not even honest.
Again...99% of all scientists disagree with you on this. Would you say that they are dishonest?
The talk origins website pages that I've read are generated in the same style as the junk-science found on the quackwatch website. It has no credibility.
You mean things like
thisor
this or
this or
this?
Nothing complicated here. Simply propaganda being used to accomplish a political end.
Evolution is a social control.
You keep saying this. Perhaps someday you will show evidence of social control happening because of evolution. Well, I am an optimist!
Circle-of-Life Forums - Welcome
