| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iain" |
| Date: |
28 May 2005 06:33:44 AM |
| Object: |
Transitional |
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
If there is a temporal chain of 100 generations(in reality I'd expect
hundreds of thousands of generations for most organisms).
- Generation 1 maybe cannot breed with generation 100 (forgetting the
fact that 1 is probably long dead)
- 49 can breed with 51
- 30 can breed with 35
- 51 cannot breed with 100
- Therefore, there is a breedability distance of 5 generations(of
course in reality it takes hundreds of thousands of generations).
To help me understand what they mean they should name a transitional
language that came between Middle English and Early Modern English.
There is a gradual transition "between" them as much as anywhere else
in the history of the language, except that the line was drawn by
linguists on a vague retrospective basis of human identifyability --
and there is no "space" between them.
On New Year's day, 1490, the language just became "Early Modern".
Nobody noticed.
~Iain
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 02:29:45 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional
fossils"? All fossils of parents are transitional because
offspring are not indenticle to their parents.
You get an A+ for preaching to the choir, but you flunk if you
thought you were so much as addressing the other side.
Of the theists that I've encountered, they all seem pretty
willing to accept "evolution" as far as micro-evolution
is concerned. Sure, we can selectively breed a bigger
ear of corn, or a new colored rose or even a new type
lion. But, in all cases it's still an ear of corn, a rose and a
lion. In no case does all this selective breeding -- this
"micro-evolution" -- result in a bird, or a fly or a sea
born mamimal.
To the fundy theist, this evolution -- this mislabeled
"micro-evolution" -- in every way/shape/form fails to
explain bio diversity for them. Because, no matter
how much we selectively breed a dog, even with all
the many thousands of years we've been doing so, the
result is always a dog and never a tree or a whale.
To make matters worse, their misconceptions are
quite often RE-ENFORCED by people like you,
people all too willing to place everything in terms of
time (usually, but not always expressed as "generations)
as you do here:
If there is a temporal chain of 100 generations(in reality I'd
expect hundreds of thousands of generations for most
organisms).
In reality though, time isn't that big of a factor. Nope. There
are other things, other factors which are far more significant.
One would be genetic diversity.
Capability.
Animals never created long-haired genes because an ice age
started and it made a lot of sense to do so. Some animal
populations had the genetic diversity necessary to adapt to
the changing climate, while others did not.
This is how evolution -- but not "creationism" aka "Intelligent
Design" -- can explain extinction.
Another significant factor would be isolation.
"Isolation," of course, is in terms of population.
As an example, imagine an animal that inhabits every region
of the United States. If there are no isolated populations, if
there is a "Constant" gene flow between them, there is little
or no evolutionary pressure on the animal. Or, more accurately,
there would be just as much pressure for the animal to "evolve"
in favor of the cold, wet north as the dry, hot desert of the
southwest.
However, isolate a population within the desert regions of
the United States and suddenly pressures are placed on
those traits favoring the local environment.
Interstingly, these facts also explain (to some extent) why
transitional fossils may be so rare. Nobody -- at least
nobody with a clue -- believes that dinosaurs evolved into
birds, or even that a certain type of dinosaurs evolved into
birds. What they believe is that a POPULATION of
dinosaurs evolved into birds.
So, finding a "transitional" fossil isn't a matter of finding
enough dinosaur fossils, or even finding enough fossils
of a particular type of dinosaur. "Transitional" fossils
would only exist within the specific population that gave
rise to birds.
Right there we just raised the bar. Then we take into
account the fact that fossils themselves are a rare item.
Yup. The odds of any one creature ever becoming
fossilized are usually given at one in a million! But,
depending on environment, the odds can be significantly
higher or lower. Sea born creatures, for example, have a
much better chance of becoming fossilized than most
land animals. Sedimentary rock comes from sediment,
and the oceans have a pencant for forming sedment.
There are environments which can pretty much wipe out
any chance of fossilization. An example here would be
areas with acidic soil. Bone, wood & even shells can't
survive for even thousands of years in areas within acidic
soil. They would be destroyed long before they had any
chance of becoming fossilized.
Then if we *Really* want to make your...errrr... "Their"
head explode, we can go back and introduce time.
Generally speaking, if there are evolutionary pressures
on a population then it is because of a change to their
environment, isolation or (more likely) both. Such
changes, events causing such changes can be, and
often are, quite sudden. This almost goes without saying
in geologic time.
When it comes to fossils, we are speaking of geologic
time. There's no way around it.
So, once a "transitional" form has been achieved, how
much time are you willing to grant it before it takes
on a more unique form?
10,000 years? A mere blink of an eye in geologic
time!
The Jurassic Period lasted more than 60,000,000 years.
Given even a (generous) 10,000 years for our transitional
fossil, it only existed for 1/6000th of the time.
So to find our "transitional" fossil we're not just
looking for dinosaur fossils. And we're not just
looking for dinosaur fossils from the Jurassic period.
And we're not just looking for dinosaur fossils from
the Jurassic period of a particular type of dinosaur.
And we're not just looking for a specific population
of a particular type of dinosaur that existed in the
Jurassic Period. And we're not just looking for a
specific population of a particular type of dinosaur
that lived in a specific point during the Jurassic
Period.
We're looking for a specific population of one
particular type of dinosaur that lived at a very
specific (and limited) point during the Jurassic
Period, and hoping that it's population was large
enough & it's environment forgiving enough to
be conducive to fossilization.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 11:24:09 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117280024.876266.283150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
What the creationists mean by "transitional fossil" is any fossil between
two existing fossils in an evolutionary chain. Then, when such a fossil is
discovered, they redefine it to mean a fossil that's between this newly
discovered fossil and either of the two previously mentioned fossil. And the
cycle continues.
Whenever a new transitional fossil is discovered, the creationists see two
gaps where previously there was one. Such is their intellectual dishonesty!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 07:10:55 AM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117280024.876266.283150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
They mean they want you to *shut up* and *stop talking about evolution*!
That's all!
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
Yup. Any individual creature is a single point in a *centrifugal* dispersal
from a progenitor creature...
To help me understand what they mean they should name a transitional
language that came between Middle English and Early Modern English.
There is a gradual transition "between" them as much as anywhere else
in the history of the language, except that the line was drawn by
linguists on a vague retrospective basis of human identifyability --
and there is no "space" between them.
Good example! Well done, mon brave!
Katt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 07:18:54 AM |
|
|
evolution has no answers to this simple question: why they started to
breed first place?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 08:11:41 AM |
|
|
wrote in alt.atheism
evolution has no answers to this simple question: why they started to
breed first place?
To facilitate survival, of course.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "floyd" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
29 May 2005 06:35:06 PM |
|
|
wrote:
evolution has no answers to this simple question: why they started to
breed first place?
Because they really loved each other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
29 May 2005 07:18:18 PM |
|
|
floyd wrote:
uhfx@yahoo.com wrote:
evolution has no answers to this simple question: why they started to
breed first place?
Because they really loved each other.
The daddy bee the mommy bird loved each other very very much, so they
called the stork and he brought a baby to the cabbage patch where it
grew and blossomed until it came time to harvest and that is where you
came from. You see?
And my theory must be taught in schools alongside of this so-called
"evolution!"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "none" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 06:02:31 PM |
|
|
wrote:
evolution has no answers to this simple question: why they started to
breed first place?
I must be misinterpreting that one-liner. Taken literally, it is so
glaringly simple and the answer is so obvious that no scholar would
submit it to this group. So there must be some deeper meaning and the
author must be wise beyond my ken. Maybe it depends on the meaning of
"they."
But I may as well make a fool of myself and answer it:
"They" who did not breed did not reproduce, there was no next
generation, and there are no more of them around, so there was no
evolution. "They" who did start to breed (and continued) did reproduce
and that is the first step toward evolution.
Doug Chandler
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 07:53:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
evolution has no answers to this simple question: why they started to
breed first place?
That is true. Neither Darwin nor any other evolutionary biologist
feigned an explanation of where or how life originated in the first
place. Abiogenisis is the "Big Bang" of biology, and we don't have it
(yet). Since the theory was never intended to explain how life arises
from non-life, the fact that it does not is hardly a just criticism.
It is like complaining that the theory of relativity does not tell me
how to pick a winning lotto number.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Clayton" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 11:12:58 AM |
|
|
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
uhfx@yahoo.com wrote:
evolution has no answers to this simple question: why they started to
breed first place?
That is true. Neither Darwin nor any other evolutionary biologist
feigned an explanation of where or how life originated in the first
place. Abiogenisis is the "Big Bang" of biology, and we don't have it
(yet). Since the theory was never intended to explain how life arises
from non-life, the fact that it does not is hardly a just criticism.
It is like complaining that the theory of relativity does not tell me
how to pick a winning lotto number.
My favorite analogy is to say it's like complaining that chemistry is
false, since it doesn't show how all these chemicals came to exist in
the first place.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 08:14:05 AM |
|
|
On 28 May 2005 05:18:54 -0700, wrote:
evolution has no answers to this simple question: why they started to
breed first place?
Why does it need a metaphysical "why", and what do you mean by that
"why"?
Evolution describes what happens/happened. It happened. Live with it.
And it's nothing to do with atheism either. Live with that, too.
There are FAQs on _how_ it happened at www.talkorigins.org - why don't
you go there, where Christians and others will explain it to you.
Or do you imagine that your stupid questions which are nothing to do
with atheism are some kind of silver bullets?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matthew Isleb" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 01:55:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 05:18:54 -0700, uhfx wrote:
evolution has no answers to this simple question: why they started to
breed first place?
Because breeding is fun!
-matthew
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Stanley Friesen" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 08:55:32 AM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
Roughly - a strange chimera combining various mismatched fully developed
features from two different critters.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron O" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 10:00:37 AM |
|
|
Stanley Friesen wrote:
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
Roughly - a strange chimera combining various mismatched fully developed
features from two different critters.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Gish used to show a slide of a cow with a whale tail attached when he
was making fun of the guy that claimed that cows and other hooved
animals were more closely related to whales than other mammals like
humans, in some 1960's paper. The reality was that over 20 years later
in the 1990's we found fossils of seal like aquatic mammals with hooves
on their flippers instead of claws. It seems that there are
intermediates between artiodactyls and whales, they just aren't what
the creationists want to see. Ignorance is their greatest defense
against reality.
Ron Okimoto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 05:39:14 PM |
|
|
"Ron O" <pokemoto@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117292437.304868.299220@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.>
Gish used to show a slide of a cow with a whale tail attached when he
was making fun of the guy that claimed that cows and other hooved
animals were more closely related to whales than other mammals like
humans, in some 1960's paper. The reality was that over 20 years later
in the 1990's we found fossils of seal like aquatic mammals with hooves
on their flippers instead of claws. It seems that there are
intermediates between artiodactyls and whales, they just aren't what
the creationists want to see. Ignorance is their greatest defense
against reality.
Near where I live is a display with several large whale skeletons in it.
Even though I grew to understand and admire Darwinism decades ago, I was
still *astonished* when I first went to see them: it was an amazing
experience to see that 'prototypical' mammal shape stretched out, rounded
out, smoothed out into the means of making a whale! And down in the middle
of its rear half were the two most fascinating bones of all: the two tiny,
vestigial remanants of the two halves of a mammalian pelvis!! No legs at
all - but the pelvis still hadn't quite disappeared...! *Wonderful
experience* - one had the dizzying feeling that one could almost see how the
whole of nature 'fitted together'...!!
You know, there is a sense in which Darwinism is quite possibly *the
greatest idea ever had by anybody*...! (And I say this as someone who knows
*Beethoven's Op.130*...!)
Wanna see some whale bones...? Some good stuff here:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html
Katt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TomS" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 10:01:33 AM |
|
|
"On 28 May 2005 04:33:44 -0700, in article
<1117280024.876266.283150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Iain stated..."
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
If there is a temporal chain of 100 generations(in reality I'd expect
hundreds of thousands of generations for most organisms).
- Generation 1 maybe cannot breed with generation 100 (forgetting the
fact that 1 is probably long dead)
- 49 can breed with 51
- 30 can breed with 35
- 51 cannot breed with 100
- Therefore, there is a breedability distance of 5 generations(of
course in reality it takes hundreds of thousands of generations).
To help me understand what they mean they should name a transitional
language that came between Middle English and Early Modern English.
There is a gradual transition "between" them as much as anywhere else
in the history of the language, except that the line was drawn by
linguists on a vague retrospective basis of human identifyability --
and there is no "space" between them.
On New Year's day, 1490, the language just became "Early Modern".
Nobody noticed.
From what I've seen of the complaints from creationists, they
seem to think that if something is capable of living on its own
terms, then it is not transitional. I've seen a number of times,
when someone points out something-or-other as being transitional,
the objection that it's a perfectly well-formed something-or-other.
Of course, evolutionary biology denies the existence of any
life form that doesn't live on its own terms.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"Can you even assert this, Lucullus, that there is some force, united I supposed
with providence and design, that has moulded or, to use your word, fabricated a
human being? What sort of workmanship is that? where was it applied? when? why?
how?" Cicero, Academica Priora II (Lucullus) xxvii.87
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert J. Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 07:09:58 AM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
On New Year's day, 1490, the language just became "Early Modern".
Nobody noticed.
Heh, heh. Not bad.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 07:03:34 AM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
IIRC - and, no doubt, the good folks in t.o. will jump on me until I'm soft
and squishy if I'm wrong - there is actually a technical definition of a
"transitional fossil", it being a fossil that has some characteristics in
common with fossil A, some with fossil B, and a lot in common with both A
and B.
Of course, what creationists mean by the term is anyone's guess, since they
do have a habit of redefining terms to mean something else entirely - the
"second law of thermodynamics" for one; "science" for another.
If there is a temporal chain of 100 generations(in reality I'd expect
hundreds of thousands of generations for most organisms).
- Generation 1 maybe cannot breed with generation 100 (forgetting the
fact that 1 is probably long dead)
- 49 can breed with 51
- 30 can breed with 35
- 51 cannot breed with 100
- Therefore, there is a breedability distance of 5 generations(of
course in reality it takes hundreds of thousands of generations).
To help me understand what they mean they should name a transitional
language that came between Middle English and Early Modern English.
There is a gradual transition "between" them as much as anywhere else
in the history of the language, except that the line was drawn by
linguists on a vague retrospective basis of human identifyability --
and there is no "space" between them.
On New Year's day, 1490, the language just became "Early Modern".
Nobody noticed.
~Iain
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 08:09:20 AM |
|
|
Kevin Anthoney <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Iain wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
IIRC - and, no doubt, the good folks in t.o. will jump on me until I'm soft
and squishy if I'm wrong - there is actually a technical definition of a
"transitional fossil", it being a fossil that has some characteristics in
common with fossil A, some with fossil B, and a lot in common with both A
and B.
I've found that using actual living animals as examples of
transitional evolution works better than trying to use the
fossil record.
The fossil record has some good examples, but nothing can beat
real living examples, such as the seal and penguin and polar bear
and sea turtle and a bunch of others that display evolution in action.
All of them show a transition from/to water/land based animals, and
their characteristics can easily be shown, here and now, without
having to refer to ancient bones or fossils.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 08:09:45 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:03:34 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iain wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
IIRC - and, no doubt, the good folks in t.o. will jump on me until I'm soft
and squishy if I'm wrong - there is actually a technical definition of a
"transitional fossil", it being a fossil that has some characteristics in
common with fossil A, some with fossil B, and a lot in common with both A
and B.
Of course, what creationists mean by the term is anyone's guess, since they
do have a habit of redefining terms to mean something else entirely - the
"second law of thermodynamics" for one; "science" for another.
They think it means an ancestral transition. Eg they deny that
Ambulocetus is a transitional fossil because it can't be shown to be
the direct ancestor of a modern whale, even though it is obviously a
member of the whale family but with limbs and a few other
characteristics of land mammals.
It could be a direct ancestor, or it could simply share a common
ancestor. It doesn't actually matter. It is a transition between land
mammals and whales.
They've redefined the term in order to say they don't exist, and use
oout-of-context cites from palaeontologists who say there is no way to
show direct ancestry as "proof by authority" without knowing what they
are talking about.
If there is a temporal chain of 100 generations(in reality I'd expect
hundreds of thousands of generations for most organisms).
- Generation 1 maybe cannot breed with generation 100 (forgetting the
fact that 1 is probably long dead)
- 49 can breed with 51
- 30 can breed with 35
- 51 cannot breed with 100
- Therefore, there is a breedability distance of 5 generations(of
course in reality it takes hundreds of thousands of generations).
To help me understand what they mean they should name a transitional
language that came between Middle English and Early Modern English.
There is a gradual transition "between" them as much as anywhere else
in the history of the language, except that the line was drawn by
linguists on a vague retrospective basis of human identifyability --
and there is no "space" between them.
On New Year's day, 1490, the language just became "Early Modern".
Nobody noticed.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Pagano" |
|
| Title: Re: The linguistic, formal and material fallacies associated with the serious "transitional" fossil problem |
01 Jun 2005 03:08:54 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:03:34 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iain wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
IIRC - and, no doubt, the good folks in t.o. will jump on me until I'm soft
and squishy if I'm wrong - there is actually a technical definition of a
"transitional fossil", it being a fossil that has some characteristics in
common with fossil A, some with fossil B, and a lot in common with both A
and B.
It is interesting to note that one would have some difficulty finding
a secular work concerning evolutionism which actually uses the label
"transitional" let alone explicitly defining it. Nonetheless if an
evolutionist is pressed to use this label they would define it more
less as Anthoney has. The usage has serious logical flaws.
The first problem is the "linguistic" fallacy of equivocation; that
is, the deliberate use of a word in more than one sense in the same
argument. The adjective "transitional" when modifying a particular
fossil is a conclusion about the lineal connection between a series of
fossils. But Anthoney avers that "transitional" is a short hand label
for "shares common phylogenic characteristics." They are not
equivalent meanings.
The second "formal" fallacy is the "non sequitur" introduced to shore
up the above linguistic fallacy. Evolutionists in general and Anthoney
in particular argue (implicitly if not explicitly) that "shared
phylogenic characteristics" is a sufficient premise, in and of itself,
to conclude a lineal relationship between a series of fossils. It is
instead a fallacious argumentative leap.
The third "material" fallacy in the usage of
"transitional"-----begging the question or circular reasoning-----is
an attempt to prop up the formal fallacy. Concluding that a fossil is
"transitional" should be the result of a scientific test. The
observation that a series of fossils share common phylogenic
characteristics is insufficient to lead to such a conclusion.
Evolutionists solve this problem by (implicitly if not explicitly)
introducing the "a priori" premise that transformational naturalistic
evolutionism is true---they say it just "must" be true. Unfortunately
this isn't a truth at all but a theory. In other words the
"transitional" argument presumes as true exactly what it sets out to
prove; that is, that transformational evolution occurred.
Of course, what creationists mean by the term is anyone's guess, since they
do have a habit of redefining terms to mean something else entirely - the
"second law of thermodynamics" for one; "science" for another.
I suggest that Anthoney and his merry band solve the linguistic,
formal and material fallacies associated with the very serious
"transitional" problem before they tread elsewhere.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Pagano" |
|
| Title: Re: The linguistic, formal and material fallacies associated with serious "transitional" fossil problem |
01 Jun 2005 06:10:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:03:34 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iain wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
IIRC - and, no doubt, the good folks in t.o. will jump on me until I'm soft
and squishy if I'm wrong - there is actually a technical definition of a
"transitional fossil", it being a fossil that has some characteristics in
common with fossil A, some with fossil B, and a lot in common with both A
and B.
It is interesting to note that one would have some difficulty finding
a secular work concerning evolutionism which actually uses the label
"transitional" let alone explicitly defining it. Nonetheless if an
evolutionist is pressed to use this label they would define it more
less as Anthoney has. The usage has serious logical flaws.
The first problem is the "linguistic" fallacy of equivocation; that
is, the deliberate use of a word in more than one sense in the same
argument. The adjective "transitional" when modifying a particular
fossil is a conclusion about the lineal connection between a series of
fossils. But Anthoney avers that "transitional" is a short hand label
for "shares common phylogenic characteristics." They are not
equivalent meanings.
The second "formal" fallacy is the "non sequitur" introduced to shore
up the above linguistic fallacy. Evolutionists in general and Anthoney
in particular argue (implicitly if not explicitly) that "shared
phylogenic characteristics" is a sufficient premise, in and of itself,
to conclude a lineal relationship between a series of fossils. It is
instead a fallacious argumentative leap.
The third "material" fallacy in the usage of
"transitional"-----begging the question or circular reasoning-----is
an attempt to prop up the formal fallacy. Concluding that a fossil is
"transitional" should be the result of a scientific test. The
observation that a series of fossils share common phylogenic
characteristics is insufficient to lead to such a conclusion.
Evolutionists solve this problem by (implicitly if not explicitly)
introducing the "a priori" premise that transformational naturalistic
evolutionism is true---they say it just "must" be true. Unfortunately
this isn't a truth at all but a theory. In other words the
"transitional" argument presumes as true exactly what it sets out to
prove; that is, that transformational evolution occurred.
Of course, what creationists mean by the term is anyone's guess, since they
do have a habit of redefining terms to mean something else entirely - the
"second law of thermodynamics" for one; "science" for another.
I suggest that Anthoney and his merry band solve the linguistic,
formal and material fallacies associated with the very serious
"transitional" problem before they tread elsewhere.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Pagano" |
|
| Title: Re: The linguistic, formal and material fallacies associated with evolutionist use of "transitional fossil" |
02 Jun 2005 06:55:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:03:34 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iain wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
IIRC - and, no doubt, the good folks in t.o. will jump on me until I'm soft
and squishy if I'm wrong - there is actually a technical definition of a
"transitional fossil", it being a fossil that has some characteristics in
common with fossil A, some with fossil B, and a lot in common with both A
and B.
It is interesting to note that one would have some difficulty finding
a secular work concerning evolutionism which actually uses the label
"transitional" let alone explicitly defining it. Nonetheless if an
evolutionist is pressed to use this label they would define it more
less as Anthoney has. The usage has serious logical flaws.
The first problem is the "linguistic" fallacy of equivocation; that
is, the deliberate use of a word in more than one sense in the same
argument. The adjective "transitional" when modifying a particular
fossil is a conclusion about the lineal connection between a series of
fossils. But Anthoney avers that "transitional" is a short hand label
for "shares common phylogenic characteristics." They are not
equivalent meanings.
The second "formal" fallacy is the "non sequitur" introduced to shore
up the above linguistic fallacy. Evolutionists in general and Anthoney
in particular argue (implicitly if not explicitly) that "shared
phylogenic characteristics" is a sufficient premise, in and of itself,
to conclude a lineal relationship between a series of fossils. It is
instead a fallacious argumentative leap.
The third "material" fallacy in the usage of
"transitional"-----begging the question or circular reasoning-----is
an attempt to prop up the formal fallacy. Concluding that a fossil is
"transitional" should be the result of a scientific test. The
observation that a series of fossils share common phylogenic
characteristics is insufficient to lead to such a conclusion.
Evolutionists solve this problem by (implicitly if not explicitly)
introducing the "a priori" premise that transformational naturalistic
evolutionism is true---they say it just "must" be true. Unfortunately
this isn't a truth at all but a theory. In other words the
"transitional" argument presumes as true exactly what it sets out to
prove; that is, that transformational evolution occurred.
Of course, what creationists mean by the term is anyone's guess, since they
do have a habit of redefining terms to mean something else entirely - the
"second law of thermodynamics" for one; "science" for another.
I suggest that Anthoney and his merry band solve the linguistic,
formal and material fallacies associated with the very serious
"transitional" problem before they tread elsewhere.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The linguistic, formal and material fallacies associated with evolutionist use of "transitional fossil" |
02 Jun 2005 07:12:05 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 23:55:01 GMT, T Pagano <not.valid@address.net>
wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:03:34 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iain wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
IIRC - and, no doubt, the good folks in t.o. will jump on me until I'm soft
and squishy if I'm wrong - there is actually a technical definition of a
"transitional fossil", it being a fossil that has some characteristics in
common with fossil A, some with fossil B, and a lot in common with both A
and B.
It is interesting to note that one would have some difficulty finding
a secular work concerning evolutionism which actually uses the label
"transitional" let alone explicitly defining it. Nonetheless if an
evolutionist is pressed to use this label they would define it more
less as Anthoney has. The usage has serious logical flaws.
There's no such thing as "evolutionism" outside the dishonesty of
creationists.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: The linguistic, formal and material fallacies associated withevolutionist use of "transitional fossil" |
02 Jun 2005 07:01:20 PM |
|
|
T Pagano wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:03:34 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iain wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
IIRC - and, no doubt, the good folks in t.o. will jump on me until I'm soft
and squishy if I'm wrong - there is actually a technical definition of a
"transitional fossil", it being a fossil that has some characteristics in
common with fossil A, some with fossil B, and a lot in common with both A
and B.
It is interesting to note that one would have some difficulty finding
a secular work concerning evolutionism which actually uses the label
"transitional" let alone explicitly defining it. Nonetheless if an
evolutionist is pressed to use this label they would define it more
less as Anthoney has. The usage has serious logical flaws.
<snip for brevity>
I think the best answer you can give to these folks who ask where the
"transitional fossils" are is to ask them to look at a rainbow and ask
them where "yellow" becomes "green".
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Pagano" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
04 Jun 2005 12:08:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:03:34 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iain wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
IIRC - and, no doubt, the good folks in t.o. will jump on me until I'm soft
and squishy if I'm wrong - there is actually a technical definition of a
"transitional fossil", it being a fossil that has some characteristics in
common with fossil A, some with fossil B, and a lot in common with both A
and B.
It is interesting to note that one would have some difficulty finding
a secular work concerning evolutionism which actually uses the label
"transitional" let alone explicitly defining it. Nonetheless if an
evolutionist is pressed to use this label they would define it more
less as Anthoney has. The usage has serious logical flaws.
The first problem is the "linguistic" fallacy of equivocation; that
is, the deliberate use of a word in more than one sense in the same
argument. The adjective "transitional" when modifying a particular
fossil is a conclusion about the lineal connection between a series of
fossils. But Anthoney avers that "transitional" is a short hand label
for "shares common phylogenic characteristics." They are not
equivalent meanings.
The second "formal" fallacy is the "non sequitur" introduced to shore
up the above linguistic fallacy. Evolutionists in general and Anthoney
in particular argue (implicitly if not explicitly) that "shared
phylogenic characteristics" is a sufficient premise, in and of itself,
to conclude a lineal relationship between a series of fossils. It is
instead a fallacious argumentative leap.
The third "material" fallacy in the usage of
"transitional"-----begging the question or circular reasoning-----is
an attempt to prop up the formal fallacy. Concluding that a fossil is
"transitional" should be the result of a scientific test. The
observation that a series of fossils share common phylogenic
characteristics is insufficient to lead to such a conclusion.
Evolutionists solve this problem by (implicitly if not explicitly)
introducing the "a priori" premise that transformational naturalistic
evolutionism is true---they say it just "must" be true. Unfortunately
this isn't a truth at all but a theory. In other words the
"transitional" argument presumes as true exactly what it sets out to
prove; that is, that transformational evolution occurred.
Of course, what creationists mean by the term is anyone's guess, since they
do have a habit of redefining terms to mean something else entirely - the
"second law of thermodynamics" for one; "science" for another.
I suggest that Anthoney and his merry band solve the linguistic,
formal and material fallacies associated with the very serious
"transitional" problem before they tread elsewhere.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
04 Jun 2005 12:47:21 PM |
|
|
T Pagano wrote:
On Sat, 28 May 2005 13:03:34 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
Iain wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
IIRC - and, no doubt, the good folks in t.o. will jump on me until I'm soft
and squishy if I'm wrong - there is actually a technical definition of a
"transitional fossil", it being a fossil that has some characteristics in
common with fossil A, some with fossil B, and a lot in common with both A
and B.
It is interesting to note that one would have some difficulty finding
a secular work concerning evolutionism which actually uses the label
"transitional" let alone explicitly defining it. Nonetheless if an
evolutionist is pressed to use this label they would define it more
less as Anthoney has. The usage has serious logical flaws.
The first problem is the "linguistic" fallacy of equivocation; that
is, the deliberate use of a word in more than one sense in the same
argument. The adjective "transitional" when modifying a particular
fossil is a conclusion about the lineal connection between a series of
fossils. But Anthoney avers that "transitional" is a short hand label
for "shares common phylogenic characteristics." They are not
equivalent meanings.
you are just plain lying. anthoney's definition is correct in all
instances.
The second "formal" fallacy is the "non sequitur" introduced to shore
up the above linguistic fallacy. Evolutionists in general and Anthoney
in particular argue (implicitly if not explicitly) that "shared
phylogenic characteristics" is a sufficient premise, in and of itself,
to conclude a lineal relationship between a series of fossils. It is
instead a fallacious argumentative leap.
this fallacy is how *all* of science works, which is why the
conclusions of scientific endeavors are always tentative. nobody claims
that these fossils deductively prove evolution, the claim is that these
fossils should exist if the proposition of evolution is true. when
multiple lines of these fallacies all converge onto the same
proposition, that proposition becomes more likely to be true. no
creationist has ever offered an alternate proposition that can handle
all of the evidence evolution does.
The third "material" fallacy in the usage of
"transitional"-----begging the question or circular reasoning-----is
an attempt to prop up the formal fallacy. Concluding that a fossil is
"transitional" should be the result of a scientific test. The
observation that a series of fossils share common phylogenic
characteristics is insufficient to lead to such a conclusion.
Evolutionists solve this problem by (implicitly if not explicitly)
introducing the "a priori" premise that transformational naturalistic
evolutionism is true---they say it just "must" be true. Unfortunately
this isn't a truth at all but a theory. In other words the
"transitional" argument presumes as true exactly what it sets out to
prove; that is, that transformational evolution occurred.
more lies already explained above.
Of course, what creationists mean by the term is anyone's guess, since they
do have a habit of redefining terms to mean something else entirely - the
"second law of thermodynamics" for one; "science" for another.
I suggest that Anthoney and his merry band solve the linguistic,
formal and material fallacies associated with the very serious
"transitional" problem before they tread elsewhere.
i suggest that you stop lying and propose an alternate method of
gathering information about the world that does not suffer from
inductive reasoning.
snip
Regards,
T Pagano
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LisaKay" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
28 May 2005 02:49:35 PM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
If there is a temporal chain of 100 generations(in reality I'd expect
hundreds of thousands of generations for most organisms).
- Generation 1 maybe cannot breed with generation 100 (forgetting the
fact that 1 is probably long dead)
- 49 can breed with 51
- 30 can breed with 35
- 51 cannot breed with 100
- Therefore, there is a breedability distance of 5 generations(of
course in reality it takes hundreds of thousands of generations).
To help me understand what they mean they should name a transitional
language that came between Middle English and Early Modern English.
There is a gradual transition "between" them as much as anywhere else
in the history of the language, except that the line was drawn by
linguists on a vague retrospective basis of human identifyability --
and there is no "space" between them.
On New Year's day, 1490, the language just became "Early Modern".
Nobody noticed.
~Iain
Your language analogy reminds me of one that Richard Dawkins makes use
of in _Ancestor's Tale_. You might want to read it. It's really long,
but very good. I had a decent understanding of evo to begin with, but
this book has filled my mind with examples that support every quirk
about evolution.
Like other people said, I don't think Creationists care what the phrase
means. I think they use it because it's the only argument they can
think of.
-LisaKay
aa #2054
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
29 May 2005 01:36:24 AM |
|
|
In article <1117280024.876266.283150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
If there is a temporal chain of 100 generations(in reality I'd expect
hundreds of thousands of generations for most organisms).
- Generation 1 maybe cannot breed with generation 100 (forgetting the
fact that 1 is probably long dead)
- 49 can breed with 51
- 30 can breed with 35
- 51 cannot breed with 100
- Therefore, there is a breedability distance of 5 generations(of
course in reality it takes hundreds of thousands of generations).
To help me understand what they mean they should name a transitional
language that came between Middle English and Early Modern English.
There is a gradual transition "between" them as much as anywhere else
in the history of the language, except that the line was drawn by
linguists on a vague retrospective basis of human identifyability --
and there is no "space" between them.
On New Year's day, 1490, the language just became "Early Modern".
Nobody noticed.
This is exactly what the creationists don't get. Evolution is an ongoing
and continuous process. All species, living or extinct should be
considered 'transitional'.
~Iain
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Transitional |
29 May 2005 08:56:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 28 May 2005 23:36:24 -0700, johac <jhachm@ixpres.com> wrote:
In article <1117280024.876266.283150@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote:
What do creationists even mean when they say "transitional fossils"?
All fossils of parents are transitional because offspring are not
indenticle to their parents.
If there is a temporal chain of 100 generations(in reality I'd expect
hundreds of thousands of generations for most organisms).
- Generation 1 maybe cannot breed with generation 100 (forgetting the
fact that 1 is probably long dead)
- 49 can breed with 51
- 30 can breed with 35
- 51 cannot breed with 100
- Therefore, there is a breedability distance of 5 generations(of
course in reality it takes hundreds of thousands of generations).
To help me understand what they mean they should name a transitional
language that came between Middle English and Early Modern English.
There is a gradual transition "between" them as much as anywhere else
in the history of the language, except that the line was drawn by
linguists on a vague retrospective basis of human identifyability --
and there is no "space" between them.
On New Year's day, 1490, the language just became "Early Modern".
Nobody noticed.
This is exactly what the creationists don't get. Evolution is an ongoing
and continuous process. All species, living or extinct should be
considered 'transitional'.
It's not just creationists. A lot of people have difficulty about
things that are on a spectrum where there are labels for certain
points.
I use the example of where green becomes blue in the rainbow, but I
like your Middle/Early-Modern English example - if you don't mind,
I'll steal it!
Richard Dawkins describes this, and many people's inability to grasp
this in an essay "Gaps in the Mind". Not just creationists.
http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/dawkins01.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
