What Was The Question Again?

"There are no transitional fossils", I observe. You, LinearAQ say, "yes there are", and here is the link you provide as evidence:

Response to the "no transitional fossils" claim

LinearAQ, the unfortunate truth is that the link you provided is nothing more than assumptive propaganda. In fact, I spent enough time on the talk origins website over the past couple years to see that it is saturated with broad, assumptive, and outright deceitful claims that use every trick in the book to seduce assumptive, wishful minds.

Let me use the link you provided as an example.

Now, this page of the talk origins website is supposed to provide an argument against the creationist's observation that there are no transitional forms. Here is the stated purpose of this page directly from the talk origins website itself:



Now, let me analyze the first tactic they used to set the premise for their response. Here is the first of the two points of their response:



( http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html , emphasis mine)

The astounding feature of this clever piece is that it attempts to redefine the word "transitional" to a much more broad definition that is actually possible to satisfy. You see, now that they don't need to actually find anything clearly transitional (because it only needs to exhibit a "mosaic of features" from older and more recent organisms), all they really need to do now is to look for is similarities in fossils. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of the remainder of the page is a list of fossils that meet this broad re-definition of the word transitional.

So, in truth, we're no longer looking for transitional fossils. We're simply looking for fossils with similar features.

In short, they've redefined the question.

This is not intelligent nor is it scientific. It's not even honest.

Astoundingly, contained within the previous quote is this statement about direct lineage fossils:



Within their own opening statement is an admission that, if transitionals (which they've deceptively redefined as "direct lineage transitionals") were found, they could not be verified. Of course, this is a concession they have to make to maintain the appearance of integrity because this fact is well known.

Most interesting is the phrase, "even if found". Reader, are you hearing this?

The talk origins intellectual dishonesty does not stop there. It continues:



(emphasis mine)

This piece claims that we do not expect to find finely detailed sequences.

The logical response to this vast assumption is, "Why not?"

The evolution story claims that mutations caused very small changes that lasted thousands to millions of years. So, considering the average lifespan of an organism, and thus considering the vast number of organisms that would have existed during this time exhibiting this very small change, then why on Earth would we "not expect to find" them?

Of course, the actual purpose for claiming that we do "not expect to find" them is because they don't exist; Because the talk origins website does not want the burden of admitting we haven't found any.

LinearAQ, this is nothing more than soviet style disinformation. It is there to appeal to your emotional desire for evolution to be true without demanding of itself the reasonable requirement of evidence.

The talk origins website is saturated with this deceptive, double-talking, redefining spin which would qualify as effective emotionally-appealing opinions, but it is not scientific and it does not provide evidence. It is a sad excuse for the kind of truth that science is supposed to represent and is an affront to anyone who values intellectual integrity.

The story of the emperor's new clothes was created, not to be a fun fairy tale for people to enjoy. It was created to demonstrate the true nature of humans. When you become familiar with the true principle behind this story, you will see yourself in it. The question is, what character are you playing?