Originally Posted by RAZD
Evolution does not predict that we will find fossils, just that when new fossils are found that they will show evolutionary development, that they will be intermediate in form between ancestors and descendants.
LOL! You can't even get your dodge right.

RAZD is arguing that there's no potential for falsification when the prediction fails; "transitionals" are a one-way street which can only help evolutionism.

Other evolutionists disagree, with good reason. The fossil record is far more complete than it was in Darwin's day, and it's been studied more closely by many more individuals working with much better equipment.

Even if one accepts his reasoning, doing so disqualifies evolutionism as falsifiable science.

But what's tickling me is his failure to express what he actually means. If you look closely, by the standard he accidentally sets, evolutionism has clearly failed. Fossils have been found - last estimate I saw was 10 million - and they don't conform to the pattern Darwin (or any other evolutionist) predicted.

Quote
How big the "gap" is for bats is not known, seeing as we don't know who precisely was the most likely ancestor other than (a) it was a mammal and (b) it is most likely a shrew/mole ancestor that perhaps lived in trees and ate insects.
Watch how this attempt plays out, folks. Hope you spotted it the first time through.

Quote
The oldest known bat is the new 54 million year old fossil.

Working from the other end, the oldest known placental mammal (ie after the therapsids) is a small shrew like animal. From Oldest mammal is found, Origin of mammals is pushed back to 195 million years[/i]

{some evohype omitted to save time and space}

Certainly we can expect (based on existing fossil evidence) that before there were bats that there were organisms similar to the modern tree shrew.

[Linked Image]


This modern tree shrew was observed catching an insect and holding it with its paws while eating it, all while sitting on its hind legs. So the most likely ancestor to bats is a similar organism that lived 65 million years ago.

While it might be fun to speculate on how a bat ancestor might develop from such an organism, this would just be imagination until more fossils are found. I am content to wait for those fossils, and in the interim to say "we don't know" - we don't know where, and we don't know when, all we have is a general idea at this time. For the record, I don't believe that bats evolved from gliding animals similar to flying squirrels, because that does not get you flapping behavior nor webbed fingers.

{more snippage}

We do not predict that you will find evidence of the "- ([i]evolutionary path) - " ...
Just have to interrupt and point this out. It's yet another attempt to dodge scientific falsifiability. You can rest assured, if there were any evidence of an "evolutionary path", RAZD would be dance boogie crazymarch owned yipee
Quote
...nor does evolution predict that all {B} will be found, all that is predicted is that IF a fossil is found that it will show transitional characteristics, traits between ancestors and descendants as well as shared traits with ancestors, shared traits with descendants and shared traits with ancestors and descendants and many shared traits with both.

Thus from some ancestral shrew-like animal 65 million years ago, similar to this {A}:

[Linked Image]


... to the 54 million year old "new" bat fossil {B}:

[Linked Image]


... to this modern bat skeleton {C}

[Linked Image]


We can see that {B} is indeed intermediate between {A} and {C} but that more characteristics are shared by all three than are different between {A} and {C} AND that {B} shares some traits with {A} that it does NOT share with {C} (four claws on front arms, long tail, no echolocation) and it shares some traits with {C} that it does NOT share with {A} (long fingers being the most evident}.

Thus {B} is an intermediate fossil along the transition from non-bat to bat.
Catch that? I know it's a lot of reading. You have my sympathy. I endured it myself.

RAZD is claiming the fossil bat is a transitional between today's bats and an IMAGINARY CRITTER.

Now I hope nobody was fooled by that.

Quote
When you ask for a transitional bat fossil, this IS one. When you ask for another then you are just playing the god-of-the-gaps game like a two-year old asking "why" endlessly.
Uh-huh... tongueout

Quote
If you really want to see the next transitional fossil, you will have to wait for it to be found, because I can't "invent" it for you.
Why not? You just got done imagining up an ancestor!

Quote
Gaps in the fossil record do not falsify evolution, because the linking evidence, like the coelacanths, can just be missing.
Because evolutionism isn't science. Nobody has demanded that the fossil record produce 100% complete ancestry for 100% of all lifeforms.

Go ahead pick a low, low figure. 10%? 5%? 2%? Guess what? They ain't even got close to 1% covered. After all this time! They have not even one clear, verified, undisputed series - I'm talking undisputed among evolutionists.

RAZD has made a strategic blunder by starting this thread. Tactically, he's done a good job covering the bases. He's misdefined terms, blown up a few hundred into "millions", wasted people's time with a ton of empty words, and generally obfuscated all over the place. But "transitionals" are as big a loser topic for evolutionists as ever.

Actually they get bigger and bigger as time passes and they refuse to materialize. More & more lifeforms are found, "suddenly appearing and disappearing" in the evotime interpretation of the fossil record; it's just that much more they should be able to present evidence for and cannot. It's amazing how frequently these days evolutionists are reduced to claiming "all lifeforms are transitional, so we've found plenty". Darwin himself published this "definition"; they have to quote him deceptively; for he confessed when he offered this that it wouldn't suffice to produce evidence for anyone critical of his proposal. Then again, they don't usually bother to cite him as the source.

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

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

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

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