You obviously disagree with this definition. So, maybe you will answer my question: What is the original (correct) definition of "transitional"? You know...the one that Talk Origins redefined.
I already told you.
A fossil should only be called "transitional" if it is from a transitional form.
I asked what the original definition was, not your opinion about what it should be. You said the definition was changed by Talk Origins. What was the original definition?
Well, since no transitional forms exist, and since transitional forms are required to maintain faith in the religion of evolution, talk origins -- and other evolution believers -- redefines the very concept of "transitional" to a wide-open definition so as to be blatantly deception.
No it's not. Until you provide documentation of the "original" definition of a transitional fossil, your opinion on this matter carries no weight.
This is plain dishonesty. It certainly should not be considered within the realm of science.
It is plain dishonesty to claim that you have evidence of the alteration of a definition then refuse to produce that evidence.
And those "clear signs" would be what exactly? For example, if a transitional existed between reptiles and mammals, what "clear signs" should we see to identify it as a transitional form?
First of all, because their are -- supposedly -- a very high ratio of harmful mutations to beneficial ones, we should find an enormous number of fossils that contain harmful mutations.
This is not answering my question. However, it does bring up a question or two. How would the fossil of a baby dinosaur that died from diabetes differ from one that died from drowning, or heart disease? What changes in morphology are you expecting in the harmful mutations? Out of all the animals that have lived on this Earth, what percentage do you suppose have been fossilized?
We should also consider whether or not there really is such a concept as a beneficial mutation.
When you actually try to name one, you have to develop supporting subsystems with internal feedback mechanisms with supporting structures on multiple levels.
We all know that complex subsystems don't just form from a single mutation. So then you have to claim that each individual mutation forms a "part" that will later become part of a bigger, more complex system, and in order for this new "part" to prevent getting "selected out" by "natural selection", it must serve some beneficial function.
From:
This site Mutations that alter the ebgA gene so that the evolved beta-galactosidase (ebg) enzyme of Escherichia coli can hydrolyze lactose fall into two classes: class I mutants use only lactose, whereas class II mutants use lactulose as well as lactose. Neither class uses galactosylarabinose effectively. In this paper we show that when both a class I and a class II mutation are present in the same ebgA gene, ebg enzyme acquires a specificity for galactosylarabinose. Although galactosylarbinose utilization can evolve as the consequence of sequential spontaneous mutations, it can also evolve via intragenic recombination in crosses between class I and class II ebgA+ mutant strains. We show that the sites for class I and class II mutations lie about 1 kilobase, or about a third of the gene, apart in ebgA.
So you then paint yourself into a corner -- as do all religious cult beliefs -- that each and every part of every system and every subsystem and every feedback machanism upon every structure served a "beneficial" function at one time all by itself.
You have not shown that entire systems have to be built by one mutation and the example I provided did not require that either. Your requirement of the need to build whole subsystems in one shot is refuted by real evidence.
This problem becomes so absurd, that once a person is exposed to it, if they cannot see the absurdity of evolution, they can only be categorized as one of the following:
(1) Blinded (unable to think rationally) by their own overwhelming desires for evolution to be true,
(2) Blinded (unable to think rationally) by their fear of what others would think if they departed from a mainstream belief system, or
(3) Blinded (unable to think rationally) by their fear that such a large hoax could be perpetrated upon the world.
In any case, the evolution "believer" is unable to think rationally.
This is not an insult. I do not intend to insult people.
Yes you do. That entire tirade prior to your claim that it is not an insult was one big emotional appeal. You use it to categorize evolutionists as lesser beings. Of course no one wants to be a lesser being so they must believe as you do to avoid that.
In short, your question cannot be answered in its current form because there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation.
You say this despite evidence to the contrary.
Because complex systems, subsystems, and feedback mechanisms were designed to work together. If you change (mutate) any part of a system, it operates less efficiently or breaks down completely.
Which is why dwarfism in canines resulted in the less efficient terrier breed. It's a good thing we humans found a use for them that overcame their inefficiencies.
And those "clear signs" would be what exactly? For example, if a transitional existed between reptiles and mammals, what "clear signs" should we see to identify it as a transitional form?
There are none. The question is nonsensical and rhetorical -- which was my original point.
Baloney! How can you claim that a fossil is not a transitional unless you have some idea what "clear signs" a transitional should have? That's like saying a particular machine is not an automobile but you cannot say what the characteristics of an automobile are. How would you know?
Systems are many parts working together.
Unless you believe that complex, interrelated systems form in a single mutation, you cannot rationally believe in evolution.
You have not shown that this is necessary for evolution or beneficial mutation and I have shown at least one example where it is not necessary. Repeating your statements over and over does not make them less inaccurate.
Do you believe that "mosaic of features" is the only criteria that paleontologists use to classify a fossil as a transitional?
Yes, and according to the talk origins website, that is exactly the definition they use.
To you believe the talk origins website to be incorrect?
No, but it is incomplete. The transitional fossil must be a fossil from a sediment between the organisms for which it is suggested to be a transitional. Their are likely to be other criteria but I am not completely familiar with them.
