1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured The watchmaker

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Disciple of Jesus, Jul 9, 2018.

Tags:
  1. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    So you agree that a "transitional fossil" is a specimen that exhibits traits from different taxa?
     
  2. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    How is an ancestral group, and descendant group determined?

    Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. Most importantly, they do not necessarily accurately represent the evolutionary history of the included taxa. In fact, they are literally scientific hypotheses, subject to falsification by further study (e.g., gathering of additional data, analyzing the existing data with improved methods). The data on which they are based is noisy

    ...taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.

    This idea of transitional sounds foreign to the one Darwin had in mind.... or am I missing something?
    ... one form is ranked as a variety of another, not because the intermediate links have actually been found, but because analogy leads the observer to suppose either that they do now somewhere exist, or may formerly have existed; and here a wide door for the entry of doubt and conjecture is opened.

    Why should I accept it? Is it based on what is assumed or not?
     
  3. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    This is exactly what I mean. It appears now that you don't agree with the definition I gave. Given that you claimed that there are no "transitional fossils", that must mean you have an idea of what a "transitional fossil" is.

    So what is your definition of a "transitional fossil"?
     
  4. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I don't know what Darwin had in mind, but it seems different than how it is view today, and I highlighted why, so don't ask, otherwise I would assume you are suffering from "denial blindness".

    How do you see transitional fossils, according to Darwin?
     
  5. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    I've presented a pretty standard definition but you refused to agree to it while also refusing to provide an alternative. I'm not sure what else I can do at this point.

    So here's what we need to do if we're going to get anywhere......decide what a "transitional fossil" is. How do you propose we do that?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Well for one thing, I observe that you are the one demanding that your questions be answered, while refusing to answer mine. So I think if we are going to get anywhere, you could answer my last question.
     
  7. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    I did answer. I noted that my definition is the standard definition (a specimen that has a mixture of traits from different taxa). That's how I "see transitional fossils".

    So now what?
     
  8. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
  9. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    Ok, this has gone in way too many circles. It's very simple....you claimed that there are no "transitional fossils". In order to make that statement honestly, you must have an idea of what a "tranitional fossil" is. So in your next post, please say what a "transitional fossil" is to you.

    If you don't, then I can only conclude that you are just mindlessly repeating a talking point and have no idea what a "transitional fossil" is. Further, I must also conclude that the reason you refuse to agree to the standard definition I gave is because you know that as soon as you agree to it, I'll respond right back with an example that meets that definition, and that is an outcome you cannot handle.

    The ball is in your court.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, mathematician, geneticist, and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology, such as gel electrophoresis, to questions of genetic variation and evolution.


    Billions and Billions of Demons

    Richard C. Lewontin
    January 9, 1997 Issue

    Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

    Of course it is obvious that no evolution scientists have any bias, and no prior agenda, and they do not create evidence to support prior godless ideas.
    They are obviously saints.

    Why should I not accept their assumptions?
     
  11. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I think I now understand why you guys might have been so afraid to bring forward the evidence.
    I was a bit confused, but now I understand why you go about creating rules, as though you are guarding some sacred secret - although this is public knowledge.
    It got me thinking though - Could it be they don't believe this themselves, and were afraid of being laughed at?

    Why would I laugh at you?
    You won't be the first to believe in ridiculous stories. Don't you accuse us of that every day... well almost. ;)

    So, I found a page that I didn't have to search through an entire list of images that didn't even show the so-called transition.

    My my.

    What an interesting match.

    Even more interesting.

    My goodness.

    Ha Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

    Not laughing at you guys. Honestly. Just exercising my jaw muscles. :grinning:
    The artists must get paid a ton though.

    I was going to do an animation but just felt too lazy to do so...
    I could just see Coelacanth now, "Oh, I wonder if there is more than just this endless space of liquid. Let me
    just find out."

    Swim. Swim. Swim.
    After what seemed like eons, Coelacanth finds himself in shallow water with sand pressing beneath his stomach. "Ooh. Look. Wow, it's beautiful! If only I could..."
    So he presses his fin into the sand, and thrashes them in a desperate attempt to move forward... but to no avail.
    Day after day, Coelacanth returns to that spot, repeatedly trying to get his fins to support his body, that he might take those steps out of water.

    Time passes...
    16 years later.

    "Hey Trout. Have you seen Coelacanth?"
    "Not for a week now. Maybe he found a new home. He seemed excited about his trips to God knows where."

    Two miles away...
    Coelacanth carcass lay dead on the land he so desperately tried to get on. Dead from old age.
    Image: Tim Newcombe

    This is probably the reason they didn't go extinct. :grin:
    Fish’s DNA May Explain How Fins Turned to Feet

    @Jose Fly
    I asked the question a few time - didn't get an answer, but I believe you simply refused to answer, because to do so honestly, you would have to admit that they could only link these fossils by inference, and presume the predecessor and the descendant.

    Evolution of Tetrapod Vertebrates inferred from fossil record

    Ancient Tracks Question Ideas About Tetrapod Origins
    Indeed, since the 1980’s scientific investigations into the origin of tetrapods has exploded, and new discoveries are being made all the time. One new finding, just published in Nature, may even cause us to revise what we thought we knew about the tempo and mode of tetrapod evolution. It is a collection of approximately 395 million year old tracks from Poland, tracks that predate Tiktaalik and its kind by several million years.


    I believe it's only a matter of time.
     
  12. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    It's quite simple. You claimed there are no "transitional fossils", yet you refuse to say what a "transitional fossil" is or even agree to the standard definition that I provided.

    That begs an obvious question....how can you say there are no transitional fossils if you don't know what a transitional fossil is?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,200
    Ratings:
    +3,809
    What are you talking about? What about what I said gives you the impression I never saw a painting, and what about what I said contradicts the definition of design? It literally says the same thing I did - that design is about intent being behind the object, it is not an inherent facet of the object itself.

    Once again, you only know a painting is designed because you have seen paintings being made and know of no natural process that produces them. Comparing nature to man-made objects is asinine.

    Thousands of transitional fossils, a nested hierarchy of forms, genetics, geology and archaeology.

    Why are you ignoring everything I've written and constructing strawmen?

    It "proves" nothing because, a I have already explained, science deals with "evidence" - not "proof".

    However, what it DOES prove is that your assertion - that there are no transitional fossils - is wrong. We have thousands of them.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Thousands of assumptions apparently led to thousands of transitional. I already get that. What evidence is there - I'm not asking you, I'm saying - There is None.
    Peace.
     
  15. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,796
    Ratings:
    +13,120
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No, a claim of "thousands of assumptions" is bearing false witness. Unjustified assumptions are not allowed in the sciences. I know that is the stock and trade of literalist Christians so I can see how you might be confused. You appear to be assuming that scientists are guilty of the same sins that science deniers are well known for making.
     
  16. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    4,538
    Ratings:
    +2,898
    Again, how can you say anything about transitional fossils when you don't even know what a "transitional fossil" is?

    Also, where exactly have you looked for such specimens? Be specific.
     
  17. ImmortalFlame

    ImmortalFlame Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    8,200
    Ratings:
    +3,809
    Then you are simply wrong. You've already denied that there are transitional fossils and been shown a list of thousands of them. Now you're just sticking your head in the ground.

    If you are unwilling to debate honestly and admit mistakes or ignorance, why are you on a debate forum?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    It's a good thing I have patience.
    You say I am wrong, but have not been able to prove me wrong, but I must say I am dishonest and wrong. I'm not the one who can't debate.
    You guys are lacking seriously in ability to show that someone is wrong.
    I'm not the one burying my head in the sand.
    Should I throw the same thing over and over again, and you just close your eyes and duck, and pretend you saw nothing, and then keep parroting your previous statements.

    I already told you, I don't like Merry-Go-Rounds.
    Why don't you show me that I am wrong, instead of screaming for me to take your view.

    I said what I said, and I showed why.
    I'd appreciated if you did the same. Thanks.

    How can someone even judge another of dishonesty. I mean, are there gods on these forums? :shrug:
     
  19. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    23,796
    Ratings:
    +13,120
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You are at best fooling yourself here. You refuse to even to try to learn. That alone is dishonest.

    But I am endlessly patient. Since you do not understand what evidence is, a very simple idea, then lets cover that first.

    Scientific evidence is simply evidence that supports or opposes a scientific hypothesis or theory. Does that sound reasonable to you?
     
  20. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    3,807
    Ratings:
    +1,039
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Is there a difference between Scientific evidence and evidence?
     
Loading...