The article clearly refers to the concept that creationists base their claims of "no transitionals" on a definition of transitional that differs from the parameters used by paleontologists.
Let me ask you a question.
Why is a fossil called "transitional" if it provides no evidence of being transitional?You know, most mainstream dentists have an adjective they use for describing toxic amalgam (mercury-based) dental fillings:
"safe"
Do you believe this title this make them truly safe?
Likewise, a fossil that is entitled "transitional" by a certain group of people does not mean it provides evidence for transitional forms.
Look, it's just astounding that you would argue this point.
This mis-titling of both fossils and amalgam fillings is blatantly deceptive.
Ok Then what would the characteristics of an acceptable transitional be?
A fossil that provides clear evidence of transitional forms.
The talk origins website redefines the term "transitional" and then claims that evidence for transitional forms requires nothing more than a mosaic of features in common from different times.
Do you really accept this dogma?
Do you truly fail to see the blatant spin going on here?
Every paleontologist is trying to misinform the public.
Now, you are playing the same game talk origins does. You're redefining terms.
Let me ask you this question:
Is every dentist trying to misinformation the public about highly-toxic amalgam fillings?No. They are simply exposing themselves to one side of the argument, the one they want to believe (the corrupt ADA). They don't bother to read the opposing evidence because it would be emotionally crushing and legally frightening to think that they have injured so many innocent people.
This is simple human denial.
It's time we got rid of it and started being honest with each other,
and ourselves.
The morphology is between two forms and the time location is between two forms. That is evidence of being a transitional. You may not think it is strong evidence, but it is evidence none-the-less.
No. It's not evidence.
And again, I can't believe I'm having this debate.
So, you actually believe that fossils that exhibit a "mosaic of features" (talk origins own phrase) in different layers is evidence of transitional forms?
Dog gone lying paleontologists!!!
This is a shallow attempt to ridicule the concept of an entire field accepting an idea without thoroughly evaluating it.
A little history is in order here:
The Tomato Effect
Amalgam dental fillings
Mercury treatment for Syphilis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SyphilisMercury in vaccines
X-rays to judge shoe sizes
Yes, these are all examples of an entire fields of study that believed
and practiced things that were later discovered not to be true.
Your symmetry is impossible claim is pretty hollow without support. Perhaps you could support it better in the thread where you started it. However, I do have a question: How many genes need to change to alter the length of both your legs?
Your question has a fatal flaw.
Your legs are not copies. They are mirror images.
Big, big difference, and hox clearly does not explain symmetry.
In fact, symmetry is a blatant, fundamental flaw in the evolution faith.
You believe in it. Please explain how symmetry occurred through natural "evolutionary" processes.
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0024I feel that I am being intellectually honest because I actually read both sides of the issue. Do you?
Absolutely!
And I have demonstrated this by posting my rebuttal of some talk origins dogma:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M002AShow me one location in the geologic column where no upheavals have occurred (folding/inverting/subduction) where the lower layers are younger than the higher ones.
There are many examples of trees protruding through many layers of sediment. Professionals in the field still date these layers as being thousands of years apart.
Need I say more.
You can learn about these and other flaws in current evolution-faith reasoning in this excellent video:
http://urlbam.com/ha/KThey said that you cannot prove that a particular fossil is the direct ancestor of another particular fossil. That's not the same thing as showing that a fossil shows transitional characteristics between two other fossils.
So again, do you actually believe that finding a fossil that contains a "mosaic" of similar features in different layers is evidence of a transitional form?
Good. So what is necessary to provide strong evidence for the existence of transitional forms? What should a transitional look like?
As I said previously...
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.
You keep saying this. Perhaps someday you will show evidence of social control happening because of evolution. Well, I am an optimist!
Again, I already have:
http://urlbam.com/ha/M0026"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research—paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology—has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."—Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.
