No transitional forms exist

[biblear...@hotmail.com]

It's just pure imagination.

[Boikat]

On Jun 8, 1:04 am, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It's just pure imagination.

Though this list is outdated (many more examples have been found since
the article was written), could you please go through them and show
why none of them are transitional?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Boikat

[Iain]

On Jun 8, 7:04 am, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It's just pure imagination.

So the gradient of hundreds of fossils leading from us backwards is
what if not a transition?

All Creationist-style questions on the matter are slightly peculiar.
The fossil record is nothing if not a record of transition.

-Iain

[Steven L.]

On 6/8/2012 2:04 AM, biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It's just pure imagination.
>

Do you really think you are the first person in the whole world in 150
years to come up with that particular objection???

You're not.

It's been raised again and again by critics of evolution who preceded you.

I suggest you find out how their objections were answered.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK.

Now with the Internet, Google, Wikipedia, etc., there is no longer any
excuse to plead ignorance.





-- Steven L.

[raven1]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 23:04:41 -0700 (PDT), biblear...@hotmail.com
wrote:

>It's just pure imagination.

You are correct: that no transitional forms exist *is* pure
imagination. Thanks for playing, Mr. Wonka.

[raven1]

Unfortunately, a Google search on any given aspect of evolution is
more likely to recommend a Creationist site than a scientific one.

[Bill]

On Jun 8, 1:04 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It's just pure imagination.

Feel better now?

[Karel]

Of course he could - he just won't.

Regards,

Karel

[John Harshman]

biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It's just pure imagination.
>

You could be right, but could you first define "transitional form" so we
know what to look for? What criteria should we use to determine if a
candidate fossil (presumably we're talking about fossils) is or is not a
transitional form? You clearly must have some criteria, or you couldn't
be so sure that no such forms exist.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 7, 11:04 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It's just pure imagination.

You are absolutely correct.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
species are transitional. Thus the term "transitional" is basically
meaningless. Since you accept UCD the burden is on you to lift the
concept of transitional out of meaninglessness and into a strict
meaningful criteria. Since you have a doctorate in "evolutionary
biology" the task at hand should be relatively easy? Anti-
evolutionists (like myself) are under no burden or obligation to
define claims that are false/do not exist.

Not too long ago Tony, to his credit, pointed out that continuity or
connectedness fails between nested hierarchies, that is, the
transition between hierarchies that must exist does not. So, keep in
mind this particular problem when and if you choose to offer us a
meaningful criteria.

Ray

[raven1]

Like the imaginary book you're writing?

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 8, 11:30 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:13:13 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Jun 7, 11:04 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> It's just pure imagination.
>
> >You are absolutely correct.
>
> Like the imaginary book you're writing?

Thanks for your interest, it will surely be worth the wait.

Ray

[Kermit]

On Jun 8, 11:27 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > It's just pure imagination.
>
> > You could be right, but could you first define "transitional form" so we
> > know what to look for? What criteria should we use to determine if a
> > candidate fossil (presumably we're talking about fossils) is or is not a
> > transitional form? You clearly must have some criteria, or you couldn't
> > be so sure that no such forms exist.
>
> Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
> species are transitional. Thus the term "transitional" is basically
> meaningless.

You'll note that John asked for a clear definition.
Depending on how one uses the word. transitional can mean most
species, but not the ones that went extinct.
It could mean those which illustrate the bridge between higher taxa
only.
It might be used to mean transitional between two species of genera.
And it is usually pointed out that a "transitional" species may not be
ancestral; it is pretty nearly impossible to determine the difference
between grandfather and cousin species if you go back very far.
"Transitional" is sometimes used specifically for a species that has
some traits of one earlier species, some of a later one, and perhaps
some traits which are intermediate in morphology.

> Since you accept UCD the burden is on you to lift the
> concept of transitional out of meaninglessness and into a strict
> meaningful criteria. Since you have a doctorate in "evolutionary
> biology" the task at hand should be relatively easy? Anti-
> evolutionists (like myself) are under no burden or obligation to
> define claims that are false/do not exist.

Note that the original poster declared that they do not exist. Such a
claim does imply the OP has some sort of concept in mind, however
muddled.

>
> Not too long ago Tony, to his credit, pointed out that continuity or
> connectedness fails between nested hierarchies,

I am confused by what you and he could mean by multiple hierarchies.
If you are talking about morphology and genomes, then it makes no
sense to describe a "transition" between them.

> that is, the
> transition between hierarchies that must exist does not. So, keep in
> mind this particular problem when and if you choose to offer us a
> meaningful criteria.

I am trying to envision a hierarchy that has no transition and
failing. What am I missing? Do you mean "missing links"? That the
fossil record is not as complete as we would like?

>
> Ray

Kermit

[John Harshman]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> It's just pure imagination.
>> You could be right, but could you first define "transitional form" so we
>> know what to look for? What criteria should we use to determine if a
>> candidate fossil (presumably we're talking about fossils) is or is not a
>> transitional form? You clearly must have some criteria, or you couldn't
>> be so sure that no such forms exist.
>
> Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
> species are transitional.

It doesn't until you define what "transitional" means. What is your
definition?

> Thus the term "transitional" is basically
> meaningless. Since you accept UCD the burden is on you to lift the
> concept of transitional out of meaninglessness and into a strict
> meaningful criteria. Since you have a doctorate in "evolutionary
> biology" the task at hand should be relatively easy? Anti-
> evolutionists (like myself) are under no burden or obligation to
> define claims that are false/do not exist.
>
> Not too long ago Tony, to his credit, pointed out that continuity or
> connectedness fails between nested hierarchies, that is, the
> transition between hierarchies that must exist does not. So, keep in
> mind this particular problem when and if you choose to offer us a
> meaningful criteria.

Any sentenced that contains the phrase "Tony, to his credit" is sure to
have problems. Whether there are transitional forms depends on the
definition. I choose to define "transitional" as referring to any fossil
that illuminates an evolutionary pathway, such as Tiktaalik or
Archaeopteryx. Transitional forms can be identified by the presence of
character states or combinations thereof that are intermediate between
those of two other forms. If you have a problem with that definition or
that criterion, it's up to you to present an alternative.

By the way, under that definition, you are wrong that common descent
says that all species are transitional, and you are likewise wrong that
transitional forms are missing.

[John Harshman]

Ah, then you must have a definition of "transitional" in mind in order
to be able to say this. What is it?

[Mark Buchanan]

On Friday, June 8, 2012 2:50:11 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 8, 11:30�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:13:13 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> >
> >

> wrote:
> > >On Jun 7, 11:04 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >> It's just pure imagination.
> >
> > >You are absolutely correct.
> >
> > Like the imaginary book you're writing?
>
> Thanks for your interest, it will surely be worth the wait.
>
> Ray

Your statement probably doubled the anticipation we all have to see your work - or did it cut it in half? Same result either way.

But really, why are you letting us all live with our evolutionary delusions for so long? Wouldn't be more humane to publish and put us out of our misery?

Mark

[Bruce Stephens]

John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> writes:

[...]

> Any sentenced that contains the phrase "Tony, to his credit" is sure
> to have problems.

Tony, to his credit, hasn't posted for a couple of weeks.

[...]

[John Harshman]

That assumes Tony isn't posting because he realizes how annoying he is
and wishes to spare us. But it's just the down part of his cycle; he'll
be back.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 8, 1:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>> It's just pure imagination.
> >> You could be right, but could you first define "transitional form" so we
> >> know what to look for? What criteria should we use to determine if a
> >> candidate fossil (presumably we're talking about fossils) is or is not a
> >> transitional form? You clearly must have some criteria, or you couldn't
> >> be so sure that no such forms exist.
>
> > Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
> > species are transitional.
>
> It doesn't until you define what "transitional" means. What is your
> definition?
>

Since we see no connection between any species, we will have to accept
whatever you say.

> > Thus the term "transitional" is basically
> > meaningless. Since you accept UCD the burden is on you to lift the
> > concept of transitional out of meaninglessness and into a strict
> > meaningful criteria. Since you have a doctorate in "evolutionary
> > biology" the task at hand should be relatively easy? Anti-
> > evolutionists (like myself) are under no burden or obligation to
> > define claims that are false/do not exist.
>
> > Not too long ago Tony, to his credit, pointed out that continuity or
> > connectedness fails between nested hierarchies, that is, the
> > transition between hierarchies that must exist does not. So, keep in
> > mind this particular problem when and if you choose to offer us a
> > meaningful criteria.
>
> Any sentenced that contains the phrase "Tony, to his credit" is sure to
> have problems.

When a person has a point, regardless of who they are, it should be
recognized.

> Whether there are transitional forms depends on the
> definition.

Truth by definition (the way of Evolutionism)!

> I choose to define "transitional" as referring to any fossil
> that illuminates an evolutionary pathway, such as Tiktaalik or
> Archaeopteryx. Transitional forms can be identified by the presence of
> character states or combinations thereof that are intermediate between
> those of two other forms. If you have a problem with that definition or
> that criterion, it's up to you to present an alternative.
>

The problem with your definition is abundance of possible candidates
(meaninglessness maintained). Any worker can come along and say "this
pathway" or "that pathway" because "some pathway" is already assumed
true. My criticism shifts the focus on the assumptions of Naturalism.

> By the way, under that definition, you are wrong that common descent
> says that all species are transitional, and you are likewise wrong that
> transitional forms are missing.

Once the assumption of Naturalism is accepted to explain diversity all
species become transitional automatically. Don't hang up on the word
"all." My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter which
species are transitional; some have to be per your assumptions.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 8, 1:38 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 11:27 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > It's just pure imagination.
>
> > > You could be right, but could you first define "transitional form" so we
> > > know what to look for? What criteria should we use to determine if a
> > > candidate fossil (presumably we're talking about fossils) is or is not a
> > > transitional form? You clearly must have some criteria, or you couldn't
> > > be so sure that no such forms exist.
>
> > Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
> > species are transitional. Thus the term "transitional" is basically
> > meaningless.
>
> You'll note that John asked for a clear definition.

Note that I said the burden of definitional proof is on those who
maintain concept existence. Why the stalling?

> Depending on how one uses the word. transitional can mean most
> species,

Yep----that's the point (meaninglessness).

> but not the ones that went extinct.

Obviously.

> It could mean those which illustrate the bridge between higher taxa
> only.

Of course. Still no meaningful definition or criteria.

> It might be used to mean transitional between two species of genera.
> And it is usually pointed out that a "transitional" species may not be
> ancestral; it is pretty nearly impossible to determine the difference
> between grandfather and cousin species if you go back very far.
> "Transitional" is sometimes used specifically for a species that has
> some traits of one earlier species, some of a later one, and perhaps
> some traits which are intermediate in morphology.
>

Which reduces the possibilities down into the millions (to be
generous). Meaninglessness maintained.

> > Since you accept UCD the burden is on you to lift the
> > concept of transitional out of meaninglessness and into a strict
> > meaningful criteria. Since you have a doctorate in "evolutionary
> > biology" the task at hand should be relatively easy? Anti-
> > evolutionists (like myself) are under no burden or obligation to
> > define claims that are false/do not exist.
>
> Note that the original poster declared that they do not exist.

And I agreed.

> Such a
> claim does imply the OP has some sort of concept in mind, however
> muddled.
>

Just the opposite is true. Since the concept exists only in the
imagination of Darwinists (re-read the OP), and not in reality, we
literally have no idea as to what you are talking about.

>
>
> > Not too long ago Tony, to his credit, pointed out that continuity or
> > connectedness fails between nested hierarchies,
>
> I am confused by what you and he could mean by multiple hierarchies.
> If you are talking about morphology and genomes, then it makes no
> sense to describe a "transition" between them.
>
> > that is, the
> > transition between hierarchies that must exist does not. So, keep in
> > mind this particular problem when and if you choose to offer us a
> > meaningful criteria.
>
> I am trying to envision a hierarchy that has no transition and
> failing. What am I missing? Do you mean "missing links"? That the
> fossil record is not as complete as we would like?
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> Kermit

My understanding of Tony's point is that continuity or connectedness
**between** hierarchies does not exist.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 8, 1:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>> It's just pure imagination.
>>>> You could be right, but could you first define "transitional form" so we
>>>> know what to look for? What criteria should we use to determine if a
>>>> candidate fossil (presumably we're talking about fossils) is or is not a
>>>> transitional form? You clearly must have some criteria, or you couldn't
>>>> be so sure that no such forms exist.
>>> Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
>>> species are transitional.
>> It doesn't until you define what "transitional" means. What is your
>> definition?
>
> Since we see no connection between any species, we will have to accept
> whatever you say.

You're such a weasel.

>>> Thus the term "transitional" is basically
>>> meaningless. Since you accept UCD the burden is on you to lift the
>>> concept of transitional out of meaninglessness and into a strict
>>> meaningful criteria. Since you have a doctorate in "evolutionary
>>> biology" the task at hand should be relatively easy? Anti-
>>> evolutionists (like myself) are under no burden or obligation to
>>> define claims that are false/do not exist.
>>> Not too long ago Tony, to his credit, pointed out that continuity or
>>> connectedness fails between nested hierarchies, that is, the
>>> transition between hierarchies that must exist does not. So, keep in
>>> mind this particular problem when and if you choose to offer us a
>>> meaningful criteria.
>> Any sentenced that contains the phrase "Tony, to his credit" is sure to
>> have problems.
>
> When a person has a point, regardless of who they are, it should be
> recognized.

And when a person doesn't have a point, that should be recognized too.

>> Whether there are transitional forms depends on the
>> definition.
>
> Truth by definition (the way of Evolutionism)!
>
>> I choose to define "transitional" as referring to any fossil
>> that illuminates an evolutionary pathway, such as Tiktaalik or
>> Archaeopteryx. Transitional forms can be identified by the presence of
>> character states or combinations thereof that are intermediate between
>> those of two other forms. If you have a problem with that definition or
>> that criterion, it's up to you to present an alternative.
>
> The problem with your definition is abundance of possible candidates
> (meaninglessness maintained). Any worker can come along and say "this
> pathway" or "that pathway" because "some pathway" is already assumed
> true. My criticism shifts the focus on the assumptions of Naturalism.

You have an odd way of saying nothing at great length.

>> By the way, under that definition, you are wrong that common descent
>> says that all species are transitional, and you are likewise wrong that
>> transitional forms are missing.
>
> Once the assumption of Naturalism is accepted to explain diversity all
> species become transitional automatically. Don't hang up on the word
> "all." My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter which
> species are transitional; some have to be per your assumptions.

I'm just too tired to deal with these masses of non sequitur. Maybe some
other time.

[Kalkidas]

The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, not the one
rejecting it. There is no burden of disproof.

[raven1]

I expect to see it materialize when Hell freezes over, or when the Sun
becomes a red giant, whichever comes last.

---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[Boikat]

But not worth the paper it's scribbled on.

Boikat

[Boikat]

On Jun 8, 8:10 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 6/8/2012 12:40 AM, Boikat wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 1:04 am, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> It's just pure imagination.
>
> > Though this list is outdated (many more examples have been found since
> > the article was written), could you please go through them and show
> > why none of them are transitional?
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim,

And the evidence is on the other end of the link.

> not the one
> rejecting it.

The OP was phrased as a positive claim: "No transitional forms
exist". That is a positive claim, much in the same way that the
claim, "No elephants exist".

> There is no burden of disproof.

So, you are saying that the claim "No elephants exist" cannot be shown
to be wrong? Or, would you defend your claim by saying the elephant
is not really an elephant, but something that simply looks like an
elephant?

Boikat

[Harry K]

On Jun 7, 11:04 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It's just pure imagination.

You mean in the same sense that your god or gods are imaginary?

Harry K

[Harry K]

They define a "transitional fossil" in a way that none could have
existed,
e.g., 'with half a wing', etc.

Harry K

[Harry K]

At the rate you are progressing, the sun will go be a red giant first.

Harry K

[Harry K]

Unfortunately for your handwaving, you yourself obviouisly _do_ have a
"meaningful definition" of one. Everytime you are given an example
you deny it is one. So just what _is_ your definition of a
transitional fossil?


Harry K

[chris thompson]

As an additional meaning (not excluding yours, with which I agree)
would you say that a transitional species is one with a known ancestor
species and at least one known descendent species?

Chris

[Nashton]

On 12-06-08 9:58 PM, John Harshman wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 1:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> It's just pure imagination.
>>>>> You could be right, but could you first define "transitional form"
>>>>> so we
>>>>> know what to look for? What criteria should we use to determine if a
>>>>> candidate fossil (presumably we're talking about fossils) is or is
>>>>> not a
>>>>> transitional form? You clearly must have some criteria, or you
>>>>> couldn't
>>>>> be so sure that no such forms exist.
>>>> Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
>>>> species are transitional.
>>> It doesn't until you define what "transitional" means. What is your
>>> definition?
>>
>> Since we see no connection between any species, we will have to accept
>> whatever you say.
>
> You're such a weasel.

Very, very weak from your part, John. I'm so disappointed.

>
>>>> Thus the term "transitional" is basically
>>>> meaningless. Since you accept UCD the burden is on you to lift the
>>>> concept of transitional out of meaninglessness and into a strict
>>>> meaningful criteria. Since you have a doctorate in "evolutionary
>>>> biology" the task at hand should be relatively easy? Anti-
>>>> evolutionists (like myself) are under no burden or obligation to
>>>> define claims that are false/do not exist.
>>>> Not too long ago Tony, to his credit, pointed out that continuity or
>>>> connectedness fails between nested hierarchies, that is, the
>>>> transition between hierarchies that must exist does not. So, keep in
>>>> mind this particular problem when and if you choose to offer us a
>>>> meaningful criteria.
>>> Any sentenced that contains the phrase "Tony, to his credit" is sure to
>>> have problems.
>>
>> When a person has a point, regardless of who they are, it should be
>> recognized.
>
> And when a person doesn't have a point, that should be recognized too.

Only in this case, you're judging the individual not his point. Very weak.

>
>>> Whether there are transitional forms depends on the
>>> definition.
>>
>> Truth by definition (the way of Evolutionism)!
>>
>>> I choose to define "transitional" as referring to any fossil
>>> that illuminates an evolutionary pathway, such as Tiktaalik or
>>> Archaeopteryx. Transitional forms can be identified by the presence of
>>> character states or combinations thereof that are intermediate between
>>> those of two other forms. If you have a problem with that definition or
>>> that criterion, it's up to you to present an alternative.
>>
>> The problem with your definition is abundance of possible candidates
>> (meaninglessness maintained). Any worker can come along and say "this
>> pathway" or "that pathway" because "some pathway" is already assumed
>> true. My criticism shifts the focus on the assumptions of Naturalism.
>
> You have an odd way of saying nothing at great length.

Are you saying that you don't understand what he wrote or that it's
meaningless? I think it makes sense and in fact, is at the crux of the
whole issue that is debated in t-o.

>
>>> By the way, under that definition, you are wrong that common descent
>>> says that all species are transitional, and you are likewise wrong that
>>> transitional forms are missing.
>>
>> Once the assumption of Naturalism is accepted to explain diversity all
>> species become transitional automatically. Don't hang up on the word
>> "all." My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter which
>> species are transitional; some have to be per your assumptions.
>
> I'm just too tired to deal with these masses of non sequitur. Maybe some
> other time.

Of course you are ;)

[John Harshman]

Nashton wrote:
> On 12-06-08 9:58 PM, John Harshman wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Jun 8, 1:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> It's just pure imagination.
>>>>>> You could be right, but could you first define "transitional form"
>>>>>> so we
>>>>>> know what to look for? What criteria should we use to determine if a
>>>>>> candidate fossil (presumably we're talking about fossils) is or is
>>>>>> not a
>>>>>> transitional form? You clearly must have some criteria, or you
>>>>>> couldn't
>>>>>> be so sure that no such forms exist.
>>>>> Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
>>>>> species are transitional.
>>>> It doesn't until you define what "transitional" means. What is your
>>>> definition?
>>>
>>> Since we see no connection between any species, we will have to accept
>>> whatever you say.
>>
>> You're such a weasel.
>
> Very, very weak from your part, John. I'm so disappointed.

Imagine my concern. Would *you* care to define "transitional"?

The latter. And I have no great concern for your judgment. Care to
paraphrase what Ray said and explain why it's the crux of the issue?

[John Harshman]

The problem with that definition is that we have no way of determining
ancestry or descent. Or species, for that matter. It's a fine
definition, but it's completely non-operational. What are Tiktaalik's
ancestors? What are its descendants?

[Rolf]

biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It's just pure imagination.

But you represent one yourself! All forms are transitional - for a more or
less extended time, unless they become extinct.
While the existence of God, that is quite a feat of imagination...

[jillery]

What nested hierarchies are you referring to? Are you referring to
the transistions between taxonomic dividsions? If so, I think this
article does a good job of settling the issue:

http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html

And for the best explanation of transitional fossils I have read:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

[chris thompson]

Actually, I was thinking of examples in extant species, like
_Spartina_. In that case, we *know* the ancestral species, the
intermediate species, and the descendents of the intermediate species.
I agree that in extinct species, it's impossible to point to any and
say, "That species gave rise to this other one."

Chris

[jillery]

That makes no sense. Is there anything you won't say in order to
rationalize your lack of rhetorical responsibility?

[jillery]

On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 22:12:04 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:50:11 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 8, 11:30 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:13:13 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>>>
>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >On Jun 7, 11:04 pm, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> >> It's just pure imagination.
>>>
>>> >You are absolutely correct.
>>>
>>> Like the imaginary book you're writing?
>>
>>Thanks for your interest, it will surely be worth the wait.
>
>I expect to see it materialize when Hell freezes over, or when the Sun
>becomes a red giant, whichever comes last.

Don't forget pigs and elephants flying.

[Kalkidas]

On 6/8/2012 7:29 PM, Boikat wrote:
> On Jun 8, 8:10 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> On 6/8/2012 12:40 AM, Boikat wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 8, 1:04 am, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> It's just pure imagination.
>>
>>> Though this list is outdated (many more examples have been found since
>>> the article was written), could you please go through them and show
>>> why none of them are transitional?
>>
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>>
>> The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim,
>
> And the evidence is on the other end of the link.

"Evidence" is not the issue. Argument is the issue. If the argument
purporting to show that a piece of evidence is a "transitional form" is
weak, it may be rejected. The criterion for rejection is not to give a
negative argument, but to reject a weak positive argument.

In the case of "transitional forms", no one can possibly know whether or
not a particular fossilized creature is really an ancestor or descendent
of another fossilized creature. So there is no "evidence" at all, at
least not the kind of evidence that speaks for itself.

Therefore the whole case for "transition" rests on the assumptions of
paleontology and the arguments based on those assumptions. Without that,
the "evidence" per se is inconclusive.

[snip]

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 8, 5:58 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 1:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> It's just pure imagination.
> >>>> You could be right, but could you first define "transitional form" so we
> >>>> know what to look for? What criteria should we use to determine if a
> >>>> candidate fossil (presumably we're talking about fossils) is or is not a
> >>>> transitional form? You clearly must have some criteria, or you couldn't
> >>>> be so sure that no such forms exist.
> >>> Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
> >>> species are transitional.
> >> It doesn't until you define what "transitional" means. What is your
> >> definition?
>
> > Since we see no connection between any species, we will have to accept
> > whatever you say.
>
> You're such a weasel.
>

Your tactic here is quite transparent: "Insist your opponent defines
himself into falsification" (JH). Here, have a taste of your own
medicine: What is your definition of "design"?

John: I have said I will accept your definition of "transitional."
That said, "transitional forms can be identified by the presence of

character states or combinations thereof that are intermediate between

those of two other forms" (JH). Would you agree that as phrased
millions of forms fit the bill? The real issue, however, is the
question begging. Evolution ASSUMES the discovery of transitional
forms means evolution has occurred (past tense). Until and unless you
can show cause the effect (definition of transitional) remains an
assumption. We explain the remarkable similarity between forms as
evidence supporting the work of one Divine Mastermind.

>
>
>
>
> >>> Thus the term "transitional" is basically
> >>> meaningless. Since you accept UCD the burden is on you to lift the
> >>> concept of transitional out of meaninglessness and into a strict
> >>> meaningful criteria. Since you have a doctorate in "evolutionary
> >>> biology" the task at hand should be relatively easy? Anti-
> >>> evolutionists (like myself) are under no burden or obligation to
> >>> define claims that are false/do not exist.
> >>> Not too long ago Tony, to his credit, pointed out that continuity or
> >>> connectedness fails between nested hierarchies, that is, the
> >>> transition between hierarchies that must exist does not. So, keep in
> >>> mind this particular problem when and if you choose to offer us a
> >>> meaningful criteria.
> >> Any sentenced that contains the phrase "Tony, to his credit" is sure to
> >> have problems.
>
> > When a person has a point, regardless of who they are, it should be
> > recognized.
>
> And when a person doesn't have a point, that should be recognized too.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Whether there are transitional forms depends on the
> >> definition.
>
> > Truth by definition (the way of Evolutionism)!
>

Note that JH completely ignored.

> >> I choose to define "transitional" as referring to any fossil
> >> that illuminates an evolutionary pathway, such as Tiktaalik or
> >> Archaeopteryx. Transitional forms can be identified by the presence of
> >> character states or combinations thereof that are intermediate between
> >> those of two other forms. If you have a problem with that definition or
> >> that criterion, it's up to you to present an alternative.
>
> > The problem with your definition is abundance of possible candidates
> > (meaninglessness maintained). Any worker can come along and say "this
> > pathway" or "that pathway" because "some pathway" is already assumed
> > true. My criticism shifts the focus on the assumptions of Naturalism.
>
> You have an odd way of saying nothing at great length.
>
> >> By the way, under that definition, you are wrong that common descent
> >> says that all species are transitional, and you are likewise wrong that
> >> transitional forms are missing.
>
> > Once the assumption of Naturalism is accepted to explain diversity all
> > species become transitional automatically. Don't hang up on the word
> > "all." My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter which
> > species are transitional; some have to be per your assumptions.
>
> I'm just too tired to deal with these masses of non sequitur. Maybe some
> other time.

Either that or my argument has caused you to shut down. Perhaps you
will feel better after you wake up.

Ray

[Boikat]

So, you *are* saying that it is not an elephant, but something that
simply looks like an elephant.

Damn, you're stupid.

Boikat

[Boikat]

One of his major problems is the total absence of logic in his
thinking procxess (if you can c all what he does "thinking", and for a
broad definition of "process".).

Boikat

[Kalkidas]

I'm saying there is a rock formation that resembles the shape of an
elephant if you see it from a certain angle. From other angles it
resembles a zebra, a cat, the Empire State Building, or nothing
recognizable.

"Stupid" is the one who doesn't ever think to change his perspective.

[Kalkidas]

On 6/8/2012 4:31 AM, Iain wrote:

> On Jun 8, 7:04 am, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> It's just pure imagination.
>

> So the gradient of hundreds of fossils leading from us backwards is
> what if not a transition?
>
> All Creationist-style questions on the matter are slightly peculiar.
> The fossil record is nothing if not a record of transition.

But a transition of *what*? --- that is the question. There are many
kinds of processes that could be called "transitions". For instance, the
layers of sedimentary rock are a record of a "transition", but that
doesn't mean the each layer of rock "grew out of" the underlying layer
by a reproductive process.

Similarly, the fossil record is a record of "transition", but not
necessarily of reproductive descent. After all, it is impossible to tell
whether or not a particular fossil is the reproductive ancestor or
descendent of another particular fossil.

[Boikat]

Are you really this stupid, or do you only act this stupid when
posting to T.O?

>
> "Stupid" is the one who doesn't ever think to change his perspective.

It's even more stupid to embrace willful stupidity, as you do.

Boikat

[Kalkidas]

You're a sore loser. Shame on you.

[John Harshman]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:58 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Jun 8, 1:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> It's just pure imagination.
>>>>>> You could be right, but could you first define "transitional form" so we
>>>>>> know what to look for? What criteria should we use to determine if a
>>>>>> candidate fossil (presumably we're talking about fossils) is or is not a
>>>>>> transitional form? You clearly must have some criteria, or you couldn't
>>>>>> be so sure that no such forms exist.
>>>>> Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
>>>>> species are transitional.
>>>> It doesn't until you define what "transitional" means. What is your
>>>> definition?
>>> Since we see no connection between any species, we will have to accept
>>> whatever you say.
>> You're such a weasel.
>>
>
> Your tactic here is quite transparent: "Insist your opponent defines
> himself into falsification" (JH).

Ah, a paranoid weasel.

> Here, have a taste of your own
> medicine: What is your definition of "design"?
>
> John: I have said I will accept your definition of "transitional."

Yes, but you're lying. You have already agreed that no transitional
forms exist. If you accepted my definition, you wouldn't have said that.

> That said, "transitional forms can be identified by the presence of
> character states or combinations thereof that are intermediate between
> those of two other forms" (JH). Would you agree that as phrased
> millions of forms fit the bill?

I wouldn't go that far. First off, we really don't know millions of
forms. But yes, there are lots of such forms.

> The real issue, however, is the
> question begging. Evolution ASSUMES the discovery of transitional
> forms means evolution has occurred (past tense). Until and unless you
> can show cause the effect (definition of transitional) remains an
> assumption. We explain the remarkable similarity between forms as
> evidence supporting the work of one Divine Mastermind.

So you *don't* accept my definition of "transitional". Your confusion
among words, definitions, phenomena, and reality goes far toward
preventing communication.

>>>> Whether there are transitional forms depends on the
>>>> definition.
>>> Truth by definition (the way of Evolutionism)!
>
> Note that JH completely ignored.

Because it's just another example of your confusion of words and reality.

>>>> I choose to define "transitional" as referring to any fossil
>>>> that illuminates an evolutionary pathway, such as Tiktaalik or
>>>> Archaeopteryx. Transitional forms can be identified by the presence of
>>>> character states or combinations thereof that are intermediate between
>>>> those of two other forms. If you have a problem with that definition or
>>>> that criterion, it's up to you to present an alternative.
>>> The problem with your definition is abundance of possible candidates
>>> (meaninglessness maintained). Any worker can come along and say "this
>>> pathway" or "that pathway" because "some pathway" is already assumed
>>> true. My criticism shifts the focus on the assumptions of Naturalism.
>> You have an odd way of saying nothing at great length.
>>
>>>> By the way, under that definition, you are wrong that common descent
>>>> says that all species are transitional, and you are likewise wrong that
>>>> transitional forms are missing.
>>> Once the assumption of Naturalism is accepted to explain diversity all
>>> species become transitional automatically. Don't hang up on the word
>>> "all." My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter which
>>> species are transitional; some have to be per your assumptions.
>> I'm just too tired to deal with these masses of non sequitur. Maybe some
>> other time.
>
> Either that or my argument has caused you to shut down. Perhaps you
> will feel better after you wake up.

I do, but it doesn't make the tangle of your thoughts easier to cut through.

[John Harshman]

Sorry, but what's the intermediate species?

[UC]

Exactly. Not so if you use the word 'intermediate'.

[Boikat]

I see you also live in a fantasy world.

Boikat

[jillery]

On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 15:29:54 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@tele2.no>
wrote:

>biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> It's just pure imagination.
>
>But you represent one yourself! All forms are transitional - for a more or
>less extended time, unless they become extinct.

Why does going extinct make any difference? IIUC a significant point
of this discussion is that "transistional form" doesn't depend on
whether or not the different forms are directly related.

[Harry K]

And that right there is the crux of the matter. If it makes sense to
_you_, it doesn't to any thinking person.

<snip>

[Kalkidas]

"Intermediate" also has numerous meanings.

[jillery]

Too bad you're using the phrase "transitional form" incorrectly.
therefore your logic is correct but your conclusion is still wrong.
GIGO.

[Ernest Major]

In message <G-6dnc1rweU...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes

The diploid hybrid (Spartina townsendii), which qualifies as a
vegetatively reproducing clonal species. Before Spartina anglica
appeared and outcompeted it, it was spreading happily along the English
coastline.

Another example is Sorbus pseudomeinichii. Sorbus rupicola (AAAA)
crossed with Sorbus aucuparia (BB) to produce Sorbus arranensis (AAB).
Sorbus arranensis (unreduced gamete) crossed with Sorbus aucuparia to
produce Sorbus pseudofennica (AABB). Sorbus pseudofennica crossed with
Sorbus aucuparia to produce Sorbus pseudomeinichii (ABB).

>
>> I agree that in extinct species, it's impossible to point to any and
>> say, "That species gave rise to this other one."
>> Chris
>>
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

I am not the least bit offended at being called a liar by a person who
misrepresents what I said and denies publically nature is the product
of chance.

General Audience: Atheists/Evolutionists most certainly believe the
wonders and complexity seen in nature were produced by chance or
accidental mutations. They deny (lie) publically because they want to
trick you into accepting evolution. Once you accept the lie, evolution
continues to claim that nature was produced by chance.

The choice is God/design or Chance.

Atheists have no choice, they believe chance produced everything.

Ray (anti-evolutionist)

[Desertphile]

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 23:04:41 -0700 (PDT),
biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:

> It's just pure imagination.

Earth isn't warming either. And it's hollow.


--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"I am not part of the problem. I am a Republican." - Dan Quayle

[Mark Isaak]

"Has" and "meanings" also have numerous meanings, but you still find
them useful.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

[Mark Isaak]

On 6/9/12 4:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> The choice is God/design or Chance.

Ever hear of Fortuna, Tyche, or the Shichi-Fukujin? They are all gods
of chance. Your choice is not either/or.

> Atheists have no choice, they believe chance produced everything.

How long have you been an atheist with that belief? I know of no other
atheist who hold that belief.

[Paul J Gans]

Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 23:04:41 -0700 (PDT),
>biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:

>> It's just pure imagination.

>Earth isn't warming either. And it's hollow.

Only on the inside... :-)

b


--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Nashton]

Again, Ray hits the nail on the head. And all this without the foul
language, ad homs and personal attacks of the Harshmans in this ng.
All they can do, Ray, is twist around what you say and attack you
personally.

Nobody is interested in discussion anything of substance (I wonder how
many actually have this capacity) in here.

[John Harshman]

Try bringing up something of substance and then following it up
honestly. You might be surprised. But of course you would be the first
creationist on TO to do anything of the sort.

Nobody believes that chance produced everything. The choice isn't god or
chance. I know you don't understand that, but we could talk about it if
you liked.

What's your definition of "transitional", by the way? Neither you nor
Ray has been forthcoming on that one.

[John Harshman]

That's nice, but I notice that in all of this you didn't dispute the
charge. Let's face it: you really are a weasel.

>
> General Audience: Atheists/Evolutionists most certainly believe the
> wonders and complexity seen in nature were produced by chance or
> accidental mutations. They deny (lie) publically because they want to
> trick you into accepting evolution. Once you accept the lie, evolution
> continues to claim that nature was produced by chance.

Aside from the deep paranoia, this doesn't even make sense on its own
terms. I'm lying to trick people, and then once they're tricked I'll
continue telling the truth?

> The choice is God/design or Chance.
>
> Atheists have no choice, they believe chance produced everything.

Nobody believes that, as far as I know.

[chris thompson]

On Jun 9, 6:10 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <G-6dnc1rweUhOk7SRVn_...@giganews.com>, John Harshman
> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> writes

Yep. Spartina townsendii is a hybrid between S. alterniflora and S.
maritima. S. alterniflora (a North American species) was introduced to
Europe in the late 1800's.

> vegetatively reproducing clonal species. Before Spartina anglica
> appeared and outcompeted it, it was spreading happily along the English
> coastline.

Allopolyploidy.

Chris

(Thanks, Ernest)

[Rolf]

Are you in doubt whether current life on the planet is the result of a
reproductive process?

As Vincent Sarich said: I know my molecules had ancestors, the
paleontologist can only hope his fossils had descendants.

[Rolf]

Steven L. wrote:

> On 6/8/2012 2:04 AM, biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> It's just pure imagination.
>>
>

> Do you really think you are the first person in the whole world in 150
> years to come up with that particular objection???
>
> You're not.
>
> It's been raised again and again by critics of evolution who preceded
> you.
>
> I suggest you find out how their objections were answered.
>
> DO YOUR HOMEWORK.
>
> Now with the Internet, Google, Wikipedia, etc., there is no longer any
> excuse to plead ignorance.
>
They don't plead igorance; they claim to know better than all science.

>
>
>
>
> -- Steven L.

[Steven L.]

On 6/9/2012 9:41 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 23:04:41 -0700 (PDT),
> biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> It's just pure imagination.
>
> Earth isn't warming either. And it's hollow.

And we all live on the *inside*:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth_theory#Concave_hollow_Earths




-- Steven L.

[Iain]

On Jun 8, 7:27 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
> species are transitional.

Except the one's the went extinct.

-Iain

[Boikat]

On Jun 9, 1:21 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> On 6/9/2012 10:59 AM, Boikat wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 9, 12:12 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> On 6/8/2012 7:29 PM, Boikat wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 8, 8:10 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/8/2012 12:40 AM, Boikat wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Jun 8, 1:04 am, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> It's just pure imagination.
>

> >>>>> Though this list is outdated (many more examples have been found since
> >>>>> the article was written), could you please go through them and show
> >>>>> why none of them are transitional?
>
> >>>>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> >>>> The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim,
>
> >>> And the evidence is on the other end of the link.
>
> >> "Evidence" is not the issue. Argument is the issue. If the argument
> >> purporting to show that a piece of evidence is a "transitional form" is
> >> weak, it may be rejected. The criterion for rejection is not to give a
> >> negative argument, but to reject a weak positive argument.
>
> >> In the case of "transitional forms", no one can possibly know whether or
> >> not a particular fossilized creature is really an ancestor or descendent
> >> of another fossilized creature. So there is no "evidence" at all, at
> >> least not the kind of evidence that speaks for itself.
>
> >> Therefore the whole case for "transition" rests on the assumptions of
> >> paleontology and the arguments based on those assumptions. Without that,
> >> the "evidence" per se is inconclusive.
>

> > So, you *are* saying that it is not an elephant, but something that
> > simply looks like an elephant.
>
> I'm saying there is a rock formation that resembles the shape of an
> elephant if you see it from a certain angle. From other angles it
> resembles a zebra, a cat, the Empire State Building, or nothing
> recognizable.

By the way, fool, when I pointed out that your idiotic claim was false
by pointing out that "there are no elephants" could be falsified, I
was not talking about piles of rocks. I was talking about
*elephants*.

>
> "Stupid" is the one who doesn't ever think to change his perspective

It's also stupid to snip out the actual text without marking the snip.

But I expect no less from you.

Boikat

[Kalkidas]

On 6/7/2012 11:04 PM, biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
> It's just pure imagination.

It actually is imagination, since no one can tell what are the
ancestors/descendents of any particular fossil.

So the idea that a fossil of one type is a descendent/ancestor of a
fossil of another type is, in fact, an imaginary idea.

Of course, to attribute an unobserved/unobservable property to anything
is imagination.

[raven1]

ie: religion.


---
raven1
aa # 1096
EAC Vice President (President in charge of vice)
BAAWA Knight

[jillery]

Most species went extinct.

[Kalkidas]

On 6/10/2012 10:01 AM, raven1 wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:55:18 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
>> On 6/7/2012 11:04 PM, biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> It's just pure imagination.
>>
>> It actually is imagination, since no one can tell what are the
>> ancestors/descendents of any particular fossil.
>>
>> So the idea that a fossil of one type is a descendent/ancestor of a
>> fossil of another type is, in fact, an imaginary idea.
>>
>> Of course, to attribute an unobserved/unobservable property to anything
>> is imagination.
>
> ie: religion.

Then either paleontology is religion or your definition of religion is
wrong.

[raven1]

Alternately, you could be misrepresenting paleontology, and missing
the irony of your statement.

[Rolf]

Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Jun 8, 5:58 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Jun 8, 1:42 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>>>>>> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> It's just pure imagination.

>>>>>> You could be right, but could you first define "transitional
>>>>>> form" so we know what to look for? What criteria should we use
>>>>>> to determine if a candidate fossil (presumably we're talking
>>>>>> about fossils) is or is not a transitional form? You clearly
>>>>>> must have some criteria, or you couldn't be so sure that no such
>>>>>> forms exist.

>>>>> Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all
>>>>> species are transitional.

>>>> It doesn't until you define what "transitional" means. What is your
>>>> definition?
>>

>>> Since we see no connection between any species, we will have to
>>> accept whatever you say.
>>
>> You're such a weasel.
>>
>
> Your tactic here is quite transparent: "Insist your opponent defines

> himself into falsification" (JH). Here, have a taste of your own

> medicine: What is your definition of "design"?
>
> John: I have said I will accept your definition of "transitional."

> That said, "transitional forms can be identified by the presence of

> character states or combinations thereof that are intermediate between

> those of two other forms" (JH). Would you agree that as phrased

> millions of forms fit the bill? The real issue, however, is the

> question begging. Evolution ASSUMES the discovery of transitional
> forms means evolution has occurred (past tense). Until and unless you
> can show cause the effect (definition of transitional) remains an
> assumption. We explain the remarkable similarity between forms as
> evidence supporting the work of one Divine Mastermind.
>

With the huge number of forms, how could they NOT express remarkable
similarity?

To pick among the alternatives, what about four legs, two eyes, one each of
head and tail, a heart, two lungs ..., you get the gist? We explain the
evidence as evidence of evolution, and DNA and embryology points the same
direction. What is it that you fail to understand?

Or plants: A root, a stem, branches, leaves, fruits. It goes on and on,
evidence of relatedness, diversity caused by natural selection. NATURAL
SELECTION, spelled out just for you. NATURAL SELECTION. Do you know what
that is? Say to yourself when going to bed each night: I shall dream about
natural selection. About how nature works. And get some sense into my head.
Just try, maybe it isn't too late?

Why are there no six legged vertebrates? Why are there no single footed
primates? Two headed? Four armed? Three footed? Natural Selection rules, not
theology.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> Thus the term "transitional" is basically
>>>>> meaningless. Since you accept UCD the burden is on you to lift the
>>>>> concept of transitional out of meaninglessness and into a strict
>>>>> meaningful criteria. Since you have a doctorate in "evolutionary
>>>>> biology" the task at hand should be relatively easy? Anti-
>>>>> evolutionists (like myself) are under no burden or obligation to
>>>>> define claims that are false/do not exist.
>>>>> Not too long ago Tony, to his credit, pointed out that continuity
>>>>> or connectedness fails between nested hierarchies, that is, the
>>>>> transition between hierarchies that must exist does not. So, keep
>>>>> in mind this particular problem when and if you choose to offer
>>>>> us a meaningful criteria.
>>>> Any sentenced that contains the phrase "Tony, to his credit" is
>>>> sure to have problems.
>>

>>> When a person has a point, regardless of who they are, it should be
>>> recognized.
>>
>> And when a person doesn't have a point, that should be recognized
>> too.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>>> Whether there are transitional forms depends on the
>>>> definition.
>>

>>> Truth by definition (the way of Evolutionism)!
>>
>
> Note that JH completely ignored.
>

>>>> I choose to define "transitional" as referring to any fossil
>>>> that illuminates an evolutionary pathway, such as Tiktaalik or
>>>> Archaeopteryx. Transitional forms can be identified by the
>>>> presence of character states or combinations thereof that are
>>>> intermediate between those of two other forms. If you have a
>>>> problem with that definition or that criterion, it's up to you to
>>>> present an alternative.
>>

>>> The problem with your definition is abundance of possible candidates
>>> (meaninglessness maintained). Any worker can come along and say
>>> "this pathway" or "that pathway" because "some pathway" is already
>>> assumed true. My criticism shifts the focus on the assumptions of
>>> Naturalism.
>>
>> You have an odd way of saying nothing at great length.
>>

>>>> By the way, under that definition, you are wrong that common
>>>> descent says that all species are transitional, and you are
>>>> likewise wrong that transitional forms are missing.
>>

>>> Once the assumption of Naturalism is accepted to explain diversity
>>> all species become transitional automatically. Don't hang up on the
>>> word "all." My ultimate point is that it doesn't really matter which
>>> species are transitional; some have to be per your assumptions.
>>
>> I'm just too tired to deal with these masses of non sequitur. Maybe
>> some other time.
>
> Either that or my argument has caused you to shut down. Perhaps you
> will feel better after you wake up.
>

> Ray

[Rolf]

No no no! Chance is a component of events in the universe, but that doesn't
mean everything is random. We have identified laws of nature; events proceed
accoring to well known and understood laws all the way from physics,
chemistry and biology.

Before you understand nature you are just another ignorant idiot. But you
have to protect yourself against knwledge and understanding; that would ruin
your world, you'd suffer mental collapse. You are safe with what you have,
the unknown is a looming danger. Basic stuff.

The choice is nature at work or superstition, idiocy.

[Kalkidas]

Paleontology doesn't assume that the fossil record is a record of
reproductive descent with modification?

That this is an *assumption* rather than an *observation* is clear from
the fact that all individual fossils are mute concerning the identity of
their parents and children, so that no observed direct lineage exists
between fossils. It has to be assumed.

[jillery]

I'm still waiting for you to discuss how chimps and gorillas
outcompted neanderthals.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 08:56:44 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Iain
<iain_i...@hotmail.com>:

Them, too; they transitioned to nonexistence. ;-)
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless

[raven1]

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:35:39 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:

>On 6/10/2012 11:13 AM, raven1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 10:15:03 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/10/2012 10:01 AM, raven1 wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 09:55:18 -0700, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/7/2012 11:04 PM, biblear...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> It's just pure imagination.
>>>>>
>>>>> It actually is imagination, since no one can tell what are the
>>>>> ancestors/descendents of any particular fossil.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the idea that a fossil of one type is a descendent/ancestor of a
>>>>> fossil of another type is, in fact, an imaginary idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, to attribute an unobserved/unobservable property to anything
>>>>> is imagination.
>>>>
>>>> ie: religion.
>>>
>>> Then either paleontology is religion or your definition of religion is
>>> wrong.
>>
>> Alternately, you could be misrepresenting paleontology, and missing
>> the irony of your statement.
>
>Paleontology doesn't assume that the fossil record is a record of
>reproductive descent with modification?

Taken as a whole, it is an observation, not an assumption.

>That this is an *assumption* rather than an *observation* is clear from
>the fact that all individual fossils are mute concerning the identity of
>their parents and children, so that no observed direct lineage exists
>between fossils.

Which is why paleontologists don't make such claims.

> It has to be assumed.

You're the one making assumptions here about what paleontologists do
and do not claim about transitional fossils. And you still miss the
point that your initial statement is perfectly applicable to religion.

[Ray Martinez]

So true.

All the evos do is misrepresent the lunatic claims of their theory for
the sake of stupid Christians who are dumb enough to think these
misrepresentations are true. We can never get past this line of
defense. When attempted JH and his gang feign honesty, then proceed to
slander all anti-evolutionists as liars.

I **did tell** JH that I have no problem accepting his definition of
"transitional." He then called me a liar. He's upset because I reject
his assumption that acceptance of a definition equates to existence of
the concept in nature. In response I told him that the definition
corresponds to a claim/effect and said effect/claim is not true until
and unless an agent of causation is identified and explained.

In short JH wants the facts of the definition to stand on their own.
In other words where ever a mixture of traits is found the same means
transition has occurred. I counter by saying, "not until causation is
established." JH then throws a tantrum. We have a better explanation
of said facts: the work of one Divine Mastermind. Why wouldn't God
make a similar species? It becomes a signature, evidence of one Divine
Mastermind.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Nothing so general. I merely said that you had lied about one particular
thing.

> I **did tell** JH that I have no problem accepting his definition of
> "transitional." He then called me a liar.

Yes. Because you don't really accept it. You proceeded to reject it
immediately thereafter. I will admit you might be merely very, very
confused. But it seems more likely that you were just going limp for effect.

And of course I call you a weasel because you refuse to define
"transitional" for yourself.

> He's upset because I reject
> his assumption that acceptance of a definition equates to existence of
> the concept in nature.

This is must more of your bizarre confusion of words, concepts, and
phenomena. I make no such assumption.

> In response I told him that the definition
> corresponds to a claim/effect and said effect/claim is not true until
> and unless an agent of causation is identified and explained.

And that's a confusion of cause with phenomenon.

> In short JH wants the facts of the definition to stand on their own.

Definitions don't have facts. More confusion.

> In other words where ever a mixture of traits is found the same means
> transition has occurred.

I never said anything about that.

> I counter by saying, "not until causation is
> established."

And that's just absurd. We can recognize the reality of many phenomena
without knowing their causes.

> JH then throws a tantrum. We have a better explanation
> of said facts: the work of one Divine Mastermind. Why wouldn't God
> make a similar species? It becomes a signature, evidence of one Divine
> Mastermind.

It isn't a signature unless (at the least) there's no other reasonable
explanation. You don't consider a smooth stone evidence of god (well, a
reasonable person doesn't) when there is a perfectly natural
explanation: erosion by water. Intermediate species and the nested
hierarchy they inhabit are easily explained by common descent. If god
had wanted a signature he could have avoided producing all those
intermediates. He would have done something inexplicable. You can of
course always fall back on "god works in mysterious ways and we just
don't understand". But that explains everything and nothing.

[Slow Vehicle]

<snip>

We have a better explanation
> of said facts: the work of one Divine Mastermind. Why wouldn't God
> make a similar species? It becomes a signature, evidence of one Divine
> Mastermind.
>
> Ray

>>"Of course, to attribute an unobserved/unobservable property to anything
>>is imagination."

>>-Kalkidas

>>>"How anybody can subscribe to such fairy tales is astonishing."

>>>Nashton

[Ray Martinez]

I do accept your definition: it makes perfect sense.

> You proceeded to reject it
> immediately thereafter.

Not true.

> I will admit you might be merely very, very
> confused. But it seems more likely that you were just going limp for effect.
>
> And of course I call you a weasel because you refuse to define
> "transitional" for yourself.
>

And I told you why. Since I accept your definition the issue is moot.

> > He's upset because I reject
> > his assumption that acceptance of a definition equates to existence of
> > the concept in nature.
>
> This is must more of your bizarre confusion of words, concepts, and
> phenomena. I make no such assumption.
>

Yes you do.

We both know that you can apply your definition to reality/species/
animals. You can produce "intermediates." In this precise context I
then say said intermediates are not intermediates until and unless you
can identify cause because God (our Cause) could have made similar
species after similar species, which is exactly what the Bible
implies.

> > In response I told him that the definition
> > corresponds to a claim/effect and said effect/claim is not true until
> > and unless an agent of causation is identified and explained.
>
> And that's a confusion of cause with phenomenon.
>

Your "intermediate phenomenon" remains an unsupported assumption or
claim until cause is established. The phenomenon corresponds to a
claim of effect. Now show cause or the claim remains an assumption or
unsupported claim.

You want mere establishment of the facts of the definition to mean
transitional evolution has occurred. I am simply reminding you that
the same is an effect or claim that is dependent upon cause or the
effect/claim is false.

> > In short JH wants the facts of the definition to stand on their own.
>
> Definitions don't have facts. More confusion.
>

Rubbish.

The ToE says X is true by definition. If allele change occurs =
evolution has occurred. Evolution is defined as allele change
therefore when said changes occur evolution has occurred.

Your definition of transitional is comprised of claims of facts. You
can easily show species that exhibit the claims of facts
(intermediates) therefore the claim is factual.

> > In other words where ever a mixture of traits is found the same means
> > transition has occurred.
>
> I never said anything about that.
>

Sort of.

> > I counter by saying, "not until causation is
> > established."
>
> And that's just absurd. We can recognize the reality of many phenomena
> without knowing their causes.
>

See, you are attempting to say existence of the facts contained in
your definition means evolution has occurred. Again, I respond by not
contesting the existence of your facts, but ask to see a cause or you
don't, in fact, know transitional evolution has occurred.

> > JH then throws a tantrum. We have a better explanation
> > of said facts: the work of one Divine Mastermind. Why wouldn't God
> > make a similar species? It becomes a signature, evidence of one Divine
> > Mastermind.
>
> It isn't a signature unless (at the least) there's no other reasonable
> explanation.

It's our explanation, which is offered as a better explanation than
your explanation.

> You don't consider a smooth stone evidence of god (well, a
> reasonable person doesn't) when there is a perfectly natural
> explanation: erosion by water. Intermediate species and the nested
> hierarchy they inhabit are easily explained by common descent. If god
> had wanted a signature he could have avoided producing all those
> intermediates. He would have done something inexplicable. You can of
> course always fall back on "god works in mysterious ways and we just
> don't understand". But that explains everything and nothing.

Perhaps I will address these points in the near future.

Ray

[Slow Vehicle]

How is all that different from you saying your god did it, by
definition?

[Slow Vehicle]

On Jun 10, 4:59 pm, Slow Vehicle <oneslowvehi...@gmail.com> wrote:
><snip to fix formatting kerfluffle>

[John Harshman]

Then why do you deny that any transitional forms exist? I don't mean
that they must exist by definition. I merely point out that a large
number of fossils exist that fit that definition. You might deny that
transitional forms prove evolution, but you can't deny that there are
transitional forms.

>> You proceeded to reject it
>> immediately thereafter.
>
> Not true.
>
>> I will admit you might be merely very, very
>> confused. But it seems more likely that you were just going limp for effect.
>>
>> And of course I call you a weasel because you refuse to define
>> "transitional" for yourself.
>
> And I told you why. Since I accept your definition the issue is moot.
>
>>> He's upset because I reject
>>> his assumption that acceptance of a definition equates to existence of
>>> the concept in nature.
>> This is must more of your bizarre confusion of words, concepts, and
>> phenomena. I make no such assumption.
>
> Yes you do.
>
> We both know that you can apply your definition to reality/species/
> animals. You can produce "intermediates." In this precise context I
> then say said intermediates are not intermediates until and unless you
> can identify cause because God (our Cause) could have made similar
> species after similar species, which is exactly what the Bible
> implies.

That flies in the face of the simple, common-sense meaning of
"intermediate". It's possible to say that 3 is intermediate between 1
and 5 without presenting any theory of a mechanism or any claim that 1
turns into 3 which turns into 5.

>>> In response I told him that the definition
>>> corresponds to a claim/effect and said effect/claim is not true until
>>> and unless an agent of causation is identified and explained.
>> And that's a confusion of cause with phenomenon.
>
> Your "intermediate phenomenon" remains an unsupported assumption or
> claim until cause is established. The phenomenon corresponds to a
> claim of effect. Now show cause or the claim remains an assumption or
> unsupported claim.

You have merely shifted your rejection of words and definitions from
"transitional" to "intermediate". This is not progress.

> You want mere establishment of the facts of the definition to mean
> transitional evolution has occurred. I am simply reminding you that
> the same is an effect or claim that is dependent upon cause or the
> effect/claim is false.

I want nothing of the sort. And "facts of the definition" is word salad.

>>> In short JH wants the facts of the definition to stand on their own.
>> Definitions don't have facts. More confusion.
>>
>
> Rubbish.
>
> The ToE says X is true by definition.

What is X, and where does this happen?

> If allele change occurs =
> evolution has occurred. Evolution is defined as allele change
> therefore when said changes occur evolution has occurred.

That is what definitions do. All this is saying is that we define
evolution to be a change in allele frequency. So naturally, a change in
allele frequency is evolution. Without definitions, communication would
be impossible.

> Your definition of transitional is comprised of claims of facts. You
> can easily show species that exhibit the claims of facts
> (intermediates) therefore the claim is factual.

No, my definition of transitional is no claim of fact at all. It's a
definition. I can then find fossils that fit the definition, and if I do
they are by definition transitional fossils. But the definition itself
makes no claim about facts.

>>> In other words where ever a mixture of traits is found the same means
>>> transition has occurred.
>> I never said anything about that.
>
> Sort of.

Not even "sort of".

>>> I counter by saying, "not until causation is
>>> established."
>> And that's just absurd. We can recognize the reality of many phenomena
>> without knowing their causes.
>
> See, you are attempting to say existence of the facts contained in
> your definition means evolution has occurred. Again, I respond by not
> contesting the existence of your facts, but ask to see a cause or you
> don't, in fact, know transitional evolution has occurred.

Again, no facts are contained in any definition. You have a wealth of
basic epistemological confusions that make communication with you range
from difficult to impossible. And I repeat that we can identify many

phenomena without knowing their causes.

>>> JH then throws a tantrum. We have a better explanation
>>> of said facts: the work of one Divine Mastermind. Why wouldn't God
>>> make a similar species? It becomes a signature, evidence of one Divine
>>> Mastermind.
>> It isn't a signature unless (at the least) there's no other reasonable
>> explanation.
>
> It's our explanation, which is offered as a better explanation than
> your explanation.

It isn't an explanation, and you need to leave your tapeworm out of this.

>> You don't consider a smooth stone evidence of god (well, a
>> reasonable person doesn't) when there is a perfectly natural
>> explanation: erosion by water. Intermediate species and the nested
>> hierarchy they inhabit are easily explained by common descent. If god
>> had wanted a signature he could have avoided producing all those
>> intermediates. He would have done something inexplicable. You can of
>> course always fall back on "god works in mysterious ways and we just
>> don't understand". But that explains everything and nothing.
>
> Perhaps I will address these points in the near future.

I doubt it.

[Kermit]

On Jun 8, 4:37�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 8, 1:38�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 8, 11:27 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > It's just pure imagination.
>
> > > > You could be right, but could you first define "transitional form" so we
> > > > know what to look for? What criteria should we use to determine if a
> > > > candidate fossil (presumably we're talking about fossils) is or is not a
> > > > transitional form? You clearly must have some criteria, or you couldn't
> > > > be so sure that no such forms exist.
>
> > > Universal common descent (continuity or connectedness) says all

> > > species are transitional. Thus the term "transitional" is basically
> > > meaningless.
>
> > You'll note that John asked for a clear definition.
>
> Note that I said the burden of definitional proof is on those who
> maintain concept existence. Why the stalling?

This is an awkward sentence. I'll try to parse it.

"Burden of definitional proof"
I don' t*think you mean "proven that the definition exists".
Do you mean "prove that transitional fossils exist"?

What is "concept existence" - existence of the concept?

I suspect you are claiming there are no transitional fossils, but I'm
not sure.

>
> > Depending on how one uses the word. transitional can mean most
> > species,
>
> Yep----that's the point (meaninglessness).

No. It's hardly meaningless, given that evolutionary theory describes
transitions from one species to another over time. It was, in fact,
partly Darwin's effort to explain transitional species.

But it's certainly not meaningless.
The definition I favor:
Characteristics of one earlier species, characteristics of another,
later species, and possibly intermediate features as well.

>
> > but not the ones that went extinct.
>
> Obviously.

So... you *do have a concept for transitional?

>
> > It could mean those which illustrate the bridge between higher taxa
> > only.
>
> Of course. Still no meaningful definition or criteria.

How can it be "obvious" that a species that went extinct is not
transitional if you have no meaningful definition?

>
> > It might be used to mean transitional between two species of genera.
> > And it is usually pointed out that a "transitional" species may not be
> > ancestral; it is pretty nearly impossible to determine the difference
> > between grandfather and cousin species if you go back very far.
> > "Transitional" is sometimes used specifically for a species that has
> > some traits of one earlier species, some of a later one, and perhaps
> > some traits which are intermediate in morphology.
>
> Which reduces the possibilities down into the millions (to be
> generous). Meaninglessness maintained.

Considering that there are millions of metazoan species right now,
that's what we would expect. I doubt that we have more than a tenth of
that known, however.

>
> > > Since you accept UCD the burden is on you to lift the
> > > concept of transitional out of meaninglessness and into a strict
> > > meaningful criteria. Since you have a doctorate in "evolutionary
> > > biology" the task at hand should be relatively easy? Anti-
> > > evolutionists (like myself) are under no burden or obligation to
> > > define claims that are false/do not exist.
>

> > Note that the original poster declared that they do not exist.
>
> And I agreed.

<scratches head>

How can you say they don't exist and claim there are no definitions
for them at the same time?

>
> > Such a
> > claim does imply the OP has some sort of concept in mind, however
> > muddled.
>
> Just the opposite is true. Since the concept exists only in the
> imagination of Darwinists (re-read the OP), and not in reality, we
> literally have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Those two claims seem to be contradictory. I have a pretty clear
concept of "centaur". The claim that it exists is quite a different
matter from its definition.

In fact, I trust mainstream science, which means that I think there
are a number of things which exist but which I could not meaningfully
define. In physics there are a number. However, "transitional
species" is not difficult.

If you are in fact claiming that there are no transitional species (by
my definition above), then here's one:
archaeopteryx.

Why do you think the handful of fossils from this species do not
establish that it once existed, or given that, that it is not
transitional (see above)?

>
> > > Not too long ago Tony, to his credit, pointed out that continuity or
> > > connectedness fails between nested hierarchies,
>

> > I am confused by what you and he could mean by multiple hierarchies.
> > If you are talking about morphology and genomes, then it makes no
> > sense to describe a "transition" between them.

Could you give me an example of two nested hierarchies for which you
think there are no transitional species?

>
> > > that is, the
> > > transition between hierarchies that must exist does not. So, keep in
> > > mind this particular problem when and if you choose to offer us a
> > > meaningful criteria.
>

> > I am trying to envision a hierarchy that has no transition and
> > failing. What am I missing? Do you mean "missing links"? That the
> > fossil record is not as complete as we would like?
>
> > > Ray
>
> > Kermit
>
> My understanding of Tony's point is that continuity or connectedness
> **between** hierarchies does not exist.
>
> Ray

Kermit

[jillery]

Excellent.

[Kalkidas]

On 6/10/2012 8:07 AM, Rolf wrote:
> Kalkidas wrote:
>> On 6/8/2012 4:31 AM, Iain wrote:
>>> On Jun 8, 7:04 am, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> It's just pure imagination.
>>>
>>> So the gradient of hundreds of fossils leading from us backwards is
>>> what if not a transition?
>>>
>>> All Creationist-style questions on the matter are slightly peculiar.
>>> The fossil record is nothing if not a record of transition.
>>
>> But a transition of *what*? --- that is the question. There are many
>> kinds of processes that could be called "transitions". For instance,
>> the layers of sedimentary rock are a record of a "transition", but
>> that doesn't mean the each layer of rock "grew out of" the underlying
>> layer by a reproductive process.
>>
>> Similarly, the fossil record is a record of "transition", but not
>> necessarily of reproductive descent. After all, it is impossible to
>> tell whether or not a particular fossil is the reproductive ancestor
>> or descendent of another particular fossil.
>
> Are you in doubt whether current life on the planet is the result of a
> reproductive process?

*Many* reproductive processes. And there could be exceptions.

What I said was that a fossil species cannot be reproductively
associated with a different fossil species by any means other than
imagination. The fossils, which are pieces of stone, don't contain
genealogical records of their ancestry.

[UC]

By induction, my friend.

We know that snails have been around a long time, and there are deep
layers of sedimentary rock thousands of feet deep with fossils in
them.

Ever use chalk?

Ever hear of the white cliffs of Dover?

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

[Kalkidas]

Induction is a process that uses less-than-conclusive evidence as a
justification for imagining a state of affairs which cannot be directly
observed.

Imagination, like induction, is not necessarily false, it's just
less-than-conclusive.

[Ray Martinez]

On Jun 10, 4:39�pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 3:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> On Jun 10, 4:07 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
> >>>> On 12-06-09 8:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

> >>>>> On Jun 9, 12:44 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> >>>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Jun 8, 5:58 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Jun 8, 1:42 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 8, 8:55 am, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> �wrote:

I read your reply, almost nothing new, I am exasperated with the
degree non-sense.

> You don't consider a smooth stone evidence of god (well, a
> reasonable person doesn't) when there is a perfectly natural
> explanation: erosion by water. Intermediate species and the nested
> hierarchy they inhabit are easily explained by common descent. If god
> had wanted a signature he could have avoided producing all those
> intermediates.

Genesis says whatever God made was good. The implication and
expectation is that He made another similar good thing.

> He would have done something inexplicable.

Doesn't follow. One could then say the inexplicable corresponds to the
work of something unguided or unintelligent. But each good thing does
indeed contain an "out of place" element; like the so called
"backwards wiring" of the human retina.

> You can of
> course always fall back on "god works in mysterious ways and we just
> don't understand". But that explains everything and nothing.
>

These comments seem to contradict your previous requirement of
inexplicable. You can't have it both ways.

Take pistol shrimp for example. Their unique weapon, a high decibel
noise that stuns prey, is certainly an inexplicable modification. But
in view of creation it certainly fulfills your inexplicable
requirement.

Ray

[John Harshman]

Ray Martinez wrote:

> On Jun 10, 4:39 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 3:27 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 10, 4:07 am, Nashton <n...@na.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 12-06-09 8:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

>>>>>>> On Jun 9, 12:44 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Jun 8, 5:58 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 8, 1:42 pm, John Harshman<jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:

You ignored that question.

>>>> You proceeded to reject it
>>>> immediately thereafter.
>>> Not true.
>>>> I will admit you might be merely very, very
>>>> confused. But it seems more likely that you were just going limp for effect.
>>>> And of course I call you a weasel because you refuse to define
>>>> "transitional" for yourself.
>>> And I told you why. Since I accept your definition the issue is moot.
>>>>> He's upset because I reject
>>>>> his assumption that acceptance of a definition equates to existence of
>>>>> the concept in nature.
>>>> This is must more of your bizarre confusion of words, concepts, and
>>>> phenomena. I make no such assumption.
>>> Yes you do.
>>> We both know that you can apply your definition to reality/species/
>>> animals. You can produce "intermediates." In this precise context I
>>> then say said intermediates are not intermediates until and unless you
>>> can identify cause because God (our Cause) could have made similar
>>> species after similar species, which is exactly what the Bible
>>> implies.
>> That flies in the face of the simple, common-sense meaning of
>> "intermediate". It's possible to say that 3 is intermediate between 1
>> and 5 without presenting any theory of a mechanism or any claim that 1
>> turns into 3 which turns into 5.

And that point.

>>>>> In response I told him that the definition
>>>>> corresponds to a claim/effect and said effect/claim is not true until
>>>>> and unless an agent of causation is identified and explained.
>>>> And that's a confusion of cause with phenomenon.
>>> Your "intermediate phenomenon" remains an unsupported assumption or
>>> claim until cause is established. The phenomenon corresponds to a
>>> claim of effect. Now show cause or the claim remains an assumption or
>>> unsupported claim.
>> You have merely shifted your rejection of words and definitions from
>> "transitional" to "intermediate". This is not progress.

And that one.

>>> You want mere establishment of the facts of the definition to mean
>>> transitional evolution has occurred. I am simply reminding you that
>>> the same is an effect or claim that is dependent upon cause or the
>>> effect/claim is false.
>> I want nothing of the sort. And "facts of the definition" is word salad.
>>
>>>>> In short JH wants the facts of the definition to stand on their own.
>>>> Definitions don't have facts. More confusion.
>>> Rubbish.
>>> The ToE says X is true by definition.
>> What is X, and where does this happen?

And that question too.

>>> If allele change occurs =
>>> evolution has occurred. Evolution is defined as allele change
>>> therefore when said changes occur evolution has occurred.
>> That is what definitions do. All this is saying is that we define
>> evolution to be a change in allele frequency. So naturally, a change in
>> allele frequency is evolution. Without definitions, communication would
>> be impossible.
>>
>>> Your definition of transitional is comprised of claims of facts. You
>>> can easily show species that exhibit the claims of facts
>>> (intermediates) therefore the claim is factual.
>> No, my definition of transitional is no claim of fact at all. It's a
>> definition. I can then find fossils that fit the definition, and if I do
>> they are by definition transitional fossils. But the definition itself
>> makes no claim about facts.

And that.

>>>>> In other words where ever a mixture of traits is found the same means
>>>>> transition has occurred.
>>>> I never said anything about that.
>>> Sort of.
>> Not even "sort of".
>>
>>>>> I counter by saying, "not until causation is
>>>>> established."
>>>> And that's just absurd. We can recognize the reality of many phenomena
>>>> without knowing their causes.
>>> See, you are attempting to say existence of the facts contained in
>>> your definition means evolution has occurred. Again, I respond by not
>>> contesting the existence of your facts, but ask to see a cause or you
>>> don't, in fact, know transitional evolution has occurred.
>> Again, no facts are contained in any definition. You have a wealth of
>> basic epistemological confusions that make communication with you range
>> from difficult to impossible. And I repeat that we can identify many
>> phenomena without knowing their causes.

And that.

>>>>> JH then throws a tantrum. We have a better explanation
>>>>> of said facts: the work of one Divine Mastermind. Why wouldn't God
>>>>> make a similar species? It becomes a signature, evidence of one Divine
>>>>> Mastermind.
>>>> It isn't a signature unless (at the least) there's no other reasonable
>>>> explanation.
>>> It's our explanation, which is offered as a better explanation than
>>> your explanation.
>> It isn't an explanation, and you need to leave your tapeworm out of this.
>
> I read your reply, almost nothing new, I am exasperated with the
> degree non-sense.

One does tend to run in circles with you. Can't be helped, since you run
in circles trying to evade any real discussion. I have to follow.

>> You don't consider a smooth stone evidence of god (well, a
>> reasonable person doesn't) when there is a perfectly natural
>> explanation: erosion by water. Intermediate species and the nested
>> hierarchy they inhabit are easily explained by common descent. If god
>> had wanted a signature he could have avoided producing all those
>> intermediates.
>
> Genesis says whatever God made was good. The implication and
> expectation is that He made another similar good thing.

There is no such implication, and you expectation is useless since you
merely expect, after the fact, whatever we happen to see. You hypothesis
has no predictive value whatsoever.

>> He would have done something inexplicable.
>
> Doesn't follow. One could then say the inexplicable corresponds to the
> work of something unguided or unintelligent. But each good thing does
> indeed contain an "out of place" element; like the so called
> "backwards wiring" of the human retina.

That's not what I meant by "inexplicable". I mean something we would not
have expected from anything other than god's handiwork. We expect
oddities from evolution, since the inability of natural selection to see
future needs would lead to a roundabout path.

No, for a signal of divine work, you need something that has no other
possible explanation. For example, one might suppose a label, in
English, on the left hind leg of every animal saying "God made this".
That would be hard to mistake. Of course we see nothing in that
category. Either god didn't make the world, or he wasn't interested in
providing a signature.

>> You can of
>> course always fall back on "god works in mysterious ways and we just
>> don't understand". But that explains everything and nothing.
>
> These comments seem to contradict your previous requirement of
> inexplicable. You can't have it both ways.

Only if you concentrate only on one word and ignore my entire argument.

> Take pistol shrimp for example. Their unique weapon, a high decibel
> noise that stuns prey, is certainly an inexplicable modification. But
> in view of creation it certainly fulfills your inexplicable
> requirement.

It's hardly inexplicable from the standpoint of evolution. And as we can
both agree, nothing is inexplicable from the standpoint of divine
creation, since the creator can do anything.

Is your tapeworm good, by the way? Is malaria good? Ebola virus?

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/9/12 5:27 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>> John: I have said I will accept your definition of "transitional."
>>
>> Yes, but you're lying. You have already agreed that no transitional
>> forms exist. If you accepted my definition, you wouldn't have said that.
>>
>
> I am not the least bit offended at being called a liar by a person who
> misrepresents what I said and denies publically nature is the product
> of chance.

It doesn't matter if you are "offended" or not, the point remains that
you are a liar. John has not misrepresented what you've said, and
nearly anyone denies that nature is the product of chance alone.

>
> General Audience: Atheists/Evolutionists most certainly believe the
> wonders and complexity seen in nature were produced by chance or
> accidental mutations.

However chance mutations are not the only factor at work. Selection is
non random, and evolutionary process is a combination of both chance,
and non chance processes.

> They deny (lie) publically because they want to
> trick you into accepting evolution. Once you accept the lie, evolution
> continues to claim that nature was produced by chance.

Here Ray lies while accusing others of lying. Nature was not product
of chance alone.

>
> The choice is God/design or Chance.

Ray now lies by stating a false dichotomy.

>
> Atheists have no choice, they believe chance produced everything.

Whatever choice atheists have, is irrelevant, as science isn't atheism.
Evolution has an element of chance, but it is not chance itself.


snipping more points Ray is afraid to address.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

>>>> John: I have said I will accept your definition of "transitional."
>>>
>>> Yes, but you're lying. You have already agreed that no transitional
>>> forms exist. If you accepted my definition, you wouldn't have said that.
>>>
>>
>> I am not the least bit offended at being called a liar by a person who
>> misrepresents what I said and denies publically nature is the product
>> of chance.
>>

>> General Audience: Atheists/Evolutionists most certainly believe the
>> wonders and complexity seen in nature were produced by chance or

>> accidental mutations. They deny (lie) publically because they want to

>> trick you into accepting evolution. Once you accept the lie, evolution
>> continues to claim that nature was produced by chance.
>>

>> The choice is God/design or Chance.
>>

>> Atheists have no choice, they believe chance produced everything.
>>

>> Ray (anti-evolutionist)
>>
>
> Again, Ray hits the nail on the head.

Perhaps you mean "Ray hit's the nail with his head", as hammering nails
seems to be the only use Ray has for his head.

> And all this without the foul
> language, ad homs and personal attacks of the Harshmans in this ng.

Have you ever read of of Ray's posts?

> All they can do, Ray, is twist around what you say and attack you
> personally.

There's no need to attack Ray personally, he is self refuting.

>
> Nobody is interested in discussion anything of substance (I wonder how
> many actually have this capacity) in here.

I've found that whenever anyone offers anything of substance to Ray, he
runs away, spewing insults, profanity, and personal attacks.
Obviously, you have not been paying attention to Ray's posts.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Where was there any truth there at all?

>
> All the evos do is misrepresent the lunatic claims of their theory for
> the sake of stupid Christians who are dumb enough to think these
> misrepresentations are true. We can never get past this line of
> defense. When attempted JH and his gang feign honesty, then proceed to
> slander all anti-evolutionists as liars.

Again, Ray claims others are lying, while lying himself. How meta.
Where has anyone misrepresented you, Ray? Please give a solid example
to support your cliam?

>
> I **did tell** JH that I have no problem accepting his definition of
> "transitional." He then called me a liar.

that's because you were lying. See how that works? When you lie,
people call you a liar.

> He's upset because I reject
> his assumption that acceptance of a definition equates to existence of
> the concept in nature.

John didn't make any such assumption. In fact, he pointed out that
definition does not require one to accept the "concept" exists. You've
been given many examples of mythical things that are defined, yet don't
actually exist. Even if you don't think that transitional forms exist,
you should have some idea of what they might look like.

> In response I told him that the definition
> corresponds to a claim/effect and said effect/claim is not true until
> and unless an agent of causation is identified and explained.

And, of course, the "agent of causation" of evolution is well known.
You keep refusing to acknowledge that the process of evolution that
causes genetic change in populations over time is well established, and
can be observed in action.

>
> In short JH wants the facts of the definition to stand on their own.

Any definition stands on it's own, without regard to whether or not the
thing being defined exists in nature.

> In other words where ever a mixture of traits is found the same means
> transition has occurred.

Actually, where a mixture of traits is found, it's good evidence that a
transition is occurring, or has occurred. Since it's known how that
transition happened, and the process of evolution predicts such
transitional forms should exist, it's good evidence that the process of
evolution has happened, and is still happening.

> I counter by saying, "not until causation is
> established."

Ray, "causation" is established. The cause of such transitions is
genetic changes in populations, combined with selection over many
generations. This point is what you continue to ignore.

> JH then throws a tantrum.

When did John throw a tantrum?

> We have a better explanation
> of said facts:

Who is this "we"? More importantly, why is your explanation "better"?
Is it simpler? Is is more consistent with the evidence? The facts
are it's neither.

> the work of one Divine Mastermind.

A "divine mastermind" isn't an explanation. It's just your own
assumption.

> Why wouldn't God
> make a similar species?

Why would God make similar species? If one is trying to show
diversity, and unique though, merely making copies of copies isn't the
way. Why would someone make a sea going creature with the same body
plan as a land animal? Why make a whale breathe air, instead of giving
it gills? Why make wings out of at least three different arrangements
of forearms in vertebrates, but make them entirely different in
invertebrates? Why two separate types of camera eyes in vertebrates,
and invertebrates?

What indicates common descent is not so much just similarity, but the
patterns of similarity seen. The make no sense as a "mastermind", but
makes great sense as common descent.

> It becomes a signature, evidence of one Divine
> Mastermind.

and that is why creationism is intellectually bankrupt. Anything, from
similarity, or dissimilarity can be accounted for by invoking a
"mastermind".


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/10/12 5:14 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>> All the evos do is misrepresent the lunatic claims of their theory for
>>> the sake of stupid Christians who are dumb enough to think these
>>> misrepresentations are true. We can never get past this line of
>>> defense. When attempted JH and his gang feign honesty, then proceed to
>>> slander all anti-evolutionists as liars.
>>
>> Nothing so general. I merely said that you had lied about one particular
>> thing.
>>
>>> I **did tell** JH that I have no problem accepting his definition of
>>> "transitional." He then called me a liar.
>>
>> Yes. Because you don't really accept it.
>
> I do accept your definition: it makes perfect sense.

then why do you reject it when given examples of such?

>
>> You proceeded to reject it
>> immediately thereafter.
>
> Not true.

That's a particularly clumsy lie, Ray.

>
>> I will admit you might be merely very, very
>> confused. But it seems more likely that you were just going limp for effect.
>>
>> And of course I call you a weasel because you refuse to define
>> "transitional" for yourself.
>>
>
> And I told you why. Since I accept your definition the issue is moot.

Yet you don't accept that definition, as you reject any application of
it. Archeopteryx is a very good example of a transitional form.

>
>>> He's upset because I reject
>>> his assumption that acceptance of a definition equates to existence of
>>> the concept in nature.
>>
>> This is must more of your bizarre confusion of words, concepts, and
>> phenomena. I make no such assumption.
>>
>
> Yes you do.

Where has John ever made such an assumption? Another clumsy lie on
your part.

>
> We both know that you can apply your definition to reality/species/
> animals.

Because such animals actually exist.


> You can produce "intermediates."

Which one could not do, if they did not exist.

> In this precise context I
> then say said intermediates are not intermediates until and unless you
> can identify cause because God (our Cause) could have made similar
> species after similar species, which is exactly what the Bible
> implies.

Of course, God could have made these similar species by the process of
evolution. You have no evidence that God made species by any other
process at all. The evidence that exists shows that species only are
produced by splitting off from other already existing species. No one
has ever observed a species simply appearing out of thin air, or being
animated from clay figures.

There is plenty of evidence showing that species change over time by
evolutionary processes. The "cause" has been identified. Your own
"cause" has never been seen.

>
>
>>> In response I told him that the definition
>>> corresponds to a claim/effect and said effect/claim is not true until
>>> and unless an agent of causation is identified and explained.
>>
>> And that's a confusion of cause with phenomenon.
>>
>
> Your "intermediate phenomenon" remains an unsupported assumption or
> claim until cause is established.

The cause is established. It's evolutionary processes.

> The phenomenon corresponds to a
> claim of effect. Now show cause or the claim remains an assumption or
> unsupported claim.

The cause has been shown consistently. It's you who has utterly failed
to produce any credible cause of your own claim that life was produced
by a supernatural being.

>
> You want mere establishment of the facts of the definition to mean
> transitional evolution has occurred.

No, that's your own assumption. The fact that transitional forms exist
is evidence of transitions happening. What evidence do you have that
species are produced de novo, without any predecessors?

> I am simply reminding you that
> the same is an effect or claim that is dependent upon cause or the
> effect/claim is false.

And that assertion is absurd, as has been pointed out many times
already. One can see an effect without knowing the cause, but in the
case of evolution, both cause and effect are known.

>
>
>>> In short JH wants the facts of the definition to stand on their own.
>>
>> Definitions don't have facts. More confusion.
>>
>
> Rubbish.

How so?

>
> The ToE says X is true by definition.

No, the theory does not make any such statement. Theories don't state
that anything is true by definition.

> If allele change occurs =
> evolution has occurred.

That's how evolution itself is defined. Allele frequency change in
population over generations is the accepted definition of evolution
among biologists. This doesn't mean that alleles change by definition.
Allele frequencies have been observed to change in populations. Since
allele frequency change has been observed, evolution has occurred.

> Evolution is defined as allele change
> therefore when said changes occur evolution has occurred.

Yes, because allele changes happen. if one could observe that allele
frequencies never change, one could falsify evolution. It's not true
that allele frequency change is true by definition.

>
> Your definition of transitional is comprised of claims of facts.

The definition is a description of what the process consists of. These
are not "claims of fact" but actual observed facts.

> You
> can easily show species that exhibit the claims of facts
> (intermediates) therefore the claim is factual.

Again, this is what the process of evolution produces, so finding these
species is evidence that the process is actually happening.

Your complaint seems to be that evolution is based on facts, which you
seem to find unfair.

>
>>> In other words where ever a mixture of traits is found the same means
>>> transition has occurred.
>>
>> I never said anything about that.
>>
>
> Sort of.

So, where did he say anything about that? You have misrepresented what
John has said, now you are saying "sort of".


The presence of the product of evolution is evidence that evolution
has happened. Transitional forms are evidence of evolution. You've
claimed before that there is no evidence of evolution. Are you now
admitting you were wrong?

>
>>> I counter by saying, "not until causation is
>>> established."
>>
>> And that's just absurd. We can recognize the reality of many phenomena
>> without knowing their causes.
>>
>
> See, you are attempting to say existence of the facts contained in
> your definition means evolution has occurred.

No, he's not. You are just confused again. The existence of facts
which support a theory are evidence that the theory is correct. It's
not saying it's true by definition.

> Again, I respond by not
> contesting the existence of your facts, but ask to see a cause or you
> don't, in fact, know transitional evolution has occurred.

The cause is already well known. Variations in a population are passed
on to the next generation, filtered by natural selection. What do you
not understand about that cause?

>
>
>>> JH then throws a tantrum. We have a better explanation
>>> of said facts: the work of one Divine Mastermind. Why wouldn't God
>>> make a similar species? It becomes a signature, evidence of one Divine
>>> Mastermind.
>>
>> It isn't a signature unless (at the least) there's no other reasonable
>> explanation.
>
> It's our explanation, which is offered as a better explanation than
> your explanation.

How is your "explanation" better? It doesn't fit the evidence, and
it's not simpler, as it invokes the presence of a supernatural being not
in evidence.

>
>> You don't consider a smooth stone evidence of god (well, a
>> reasonable person doesn't) when there is a perfectly natural
>> explanation: erosion by water. Intermediate species and the nested
>> hierarchy they inhabit are easily explained by common descent. If god
>> had wanted a signature he could have avoided producing all those
>> intermediates. He would have done something inexplicable. You can of
>> course always fall back on "god works in mysterious ways and we just
>> don't understand". But that explains everything and nothing.
>
> Perhaps I will address these points in the near future.

More likely, you will just run away.


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 6/11/12 1:37 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip a lot of stuff Ray ignores. Why?

>>> It's our explanation, which is offered as a better explanation than
>>> your explanation.
>>
>> It isn't an explanation, and you need to leave your tapeworm out of this.
>>
>
> I read your reply, almost nothing new, I am exasperated with the
> degree non-sense.

You should realize that the one supplying the nonsense here is you.
Saying "goddidit" without any mechanism, and no observations of God
doing anything is not an explanation.

>
>> You don't consider a smooth stone evidence of god (well, a
>> reasonable person doesn't) when there is a perfectly natural
>> explanation: erosion by water. Intermediate species and the nested
>> hierarchy they inhabit are easily explained by common descent. If god
>> had wanted a signature he could have avoided producing all those
>> intermediates.
>
> Genesis says whatever God made was good.

Which is irrelevant to the point John was making. Intermediate species
are neither "good" or "bad". They are intermediate.

> The implication and
> expectation is that He made another similar good thing.

That's neither an "implication" or an "expectation". It's an evasion.
Why make a series of intermediates, instead of simply making the
modern form? Why make all those intermediate steps go extinct?

>
>> He would have done something inexplicable.
>
> Doesn't follow. One could then say the inexplicable corresponds to the
> work of something unguided or unintelligent.

One "could" say that, but why would you? Something made by an
unguided, or unintelligent process still has to survive in the real
world. God could, as a whim, make a creature that wouldn't survive in
nature, and by his will make that creature live. Unguided processes
don't have that luxury. Any creature produced by evolution has to
either survive, or die. Most species that have ever lived are now
extinct.

> But each good thing does
> indeed contain an "out of place" element; like the so called
> "backwards wiring" of the human retina.

That too makes no sense in the context of a supernatural creation, but
does make sense in the light of evolution.

>
>> You can of
>> course always fall back on "god works in mysterious ways and we just
>> don't understand". But that explains everything and nothing.
>>
>
> These comments seem to contradict your previous requirement of
> inexplicable. You can't have it both ways.

How does this contradict John's statement? The point he's making is
that "Goddidit" could explain anything, so that it explains nothing.

>
> Take pistol shrimp for example. Their unique weapon, a high decibel
> noise that stuns prey, is certainly an inexplicable modification.

How is it "inexplicable"? It's certainly possible to have been
produced by evolutionary processes. The "high decibel noise" is just
produced by clicking it's claws. There are over 600 species of shrimp
who can "snap" their claws in this way, while a few of those species
have specialized to become louder, and more effective at hunting.
That's exactly what evolution predicts. One doesn't find one isolated
example of a shrimp species with that feature.

> But
> in view of creation it certainly fulfills your inexplicable
> requirement.

Because God could explain any finding, or none at all. That's why it's
useless as a scientific explanation.


DJT