Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What would a transitional fossil look like?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 271 of 403 (851039)
04-18-2019 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by ringo
04-18-2019 2:24 PM


Ringo writes:
Q: How do you eat an elephant?
A: One bite at a time.
How do you convince people that your a "high reasoner"? Try setting your sights a little lower. Convince us that you can reason at all before you try to "reason" away centuries of science.
Well I'll start by evaluation your comment then.
You say "convince us that you can reason at all" even though I can provide evidence I know a lot more about reason that you.
So then you are asking me to do something I have been doing for years. meaning the predicate, "convince me" is a false predicate because all of my correct reasonings at this forum, seemed to go in one ear and out the other.
I think to prove I can reason I have to show I can form syllogisms, describe fallacies, mistakes in reason, know when arguments are strong.
Your argument in this post is RHETORIC, because you take something out of context that was only a rhetorical question and PRETEND I am genuinely asking evolutionists what I must do to convince them I am reasonable. In other words you try and put SPIN on what I said, to make out I asked something stupid.
As for "reasoning away centuries of science" that's a false statement because I all of the actual science-facts many of which are contained WITHIN the theory of evolution. I accept genetic drift, speciation, allele frequencies. I in fact accept possibly about 85% of what mainstream science says.
So reason tells me you are a binary thinker that thinks in terms of "accept evolution you're reasonable, don't accept it you reject years of science".
That's a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that if I do not accept the final conclusions of the ToE that I reject the parts. That would be an implied compositional fallacy of, "if you reject the whole you must reject the parts". That would be like saying that if I rejected the notion that a functional plane is non-flying that I must also accept that the individual parts are also flying parts in and of themselves.
In fact even of the ToE I likely accept perhaps 75% of the "science".
So this shows that you are the poor reasoner, because you thought it followed that I "reason away" years of science.
What a silly error. Thanks for proving that you are the one guilty of the thing you accuse me of rather than I.
Sorry if you feel a bit silly now, but I think you sort of brought it on yourself.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by ringo, posted 04-18-2019 2:24 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by ringo, posted 04-20-2019 11:54 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 272 of 403 (851040)
04-18-2019 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 2:39 PM


because I am a creationist that has answers.
If you actually had answers that overturned a scientific theory you would be known world wide. Instead you are just a self important Christian proselytizer witharguments that are poorly thought out, argued or reasoned. Without a plethora of logical fallacies and just out right being wrong(nested hierarchy argument is the latest example) you would have nothing except your inability to conceive that one of your arguments could be incorrect.
Good day, Sir.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 2:39 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 3:01 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 273 of 403 (851041)
04-18-2019 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by Theodoric
04-18-2019 2:55 PM


Theodoric writes:
If you actually had answers that overturned a scientific theory you would be known world wide. Instead you are just a self important Christian proselytizer witharguments that are poorly thought out, argued or reasoned. Without a plethora of logical fallacies and just out right being wrong(nested hierarchy argument is the latest example) you would have nothing except your inability to conceive that one of your arguments could be incorrect.
Good day, Sir.
I don't think this follows as a conditional implication. "If" X then "P". That would presume that people had no biases, but the world has chosen to believe the philosophical assumption that all answers must be scientific. In fact they accepted evolution even when they only thought it happened by natural selection. Had they not discovered mutations they likely would still believe that which deductively proves that people will believe what they want to believe.
How in a world of science would I convince people the answer is not scientific if they are determined to believe the cause is scientific?
Instead you are just a self important Christian proselytizer witharguments that are poorly thought out, argued or reasoned.
This is a bare assertion fallacy. I asked you to prove the things you are saying to me, you are responding with insulting me, the very thing you accused me of.
Just stating I am self-important, and I poorly thought out, etc.....isn't going to change the nature of reality and means those things are true because you stated them.
I am not any of those things, but I understand that it makes you feel better by shouting them at me. I myself have no emotional need to insult you back so I will simply say, whatever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Theodoric, posted 04-18-2019 2:55 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 274 of 403 (851042)
04-18-2019 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Taq
04-18-2019 2:44 PM


Taq writes:
There are multiple violations of your proposed hierarchy. For example, there are models of light trucks and cars that share the same engine while two cars from the same model have different engines. Automobiles do not fit into a nested hierarchy.
This is a weak hand because the same thing occurs with evolution, it's called "homplasy".
(shakes his head and sighs smiley needed.)
Didn't you read about reversals and homoplasies? Of course there will be things that don't fit, that is because there was no actual evolution of vehicles.
The point isn't to make something perfect because there is no perfect hierarchy for evolution, it has to ignore homoplasies too, to "work". My point is you can create such a hierarchy, it isn't that there was an evolution of cars in reality.
LOL.
My original point is that we can PROVE there are similar features in vehicles, you can make many look like "transitions", which logically PROVES, that a transitional can exist with designed things. So you're trying to now make out that I have to score through goals that I don't have to score through.
My only point is you can expect transitionals ith designed things, therefore the conclusion "they can only mean evolution" is deductively a FALSE inference that doesn't follow.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Taq, posted 04-18-2019 2:44 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Taq, posted 04-18-2019 3:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 281 by JonF, posted 04-18-2019 3:30 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(1)
Message 275 of 403 (851043)
04-18-2019 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 2:12 PM


I don't see how, isn't it you saying I don't understand this and that? In EvC debates don't you think it's predictable for evolutionists to always fall back on the, "you just don't understand the science", type argument?
If you read carefully, I'm saying that if you refuse to provide some kind of information showing otherwise, I have to question if you understand the concept of a transitional fossil, all the while stating categorically that they do not exist.
It is clear from the scientifically accepted definitions that they do, indeed, exist.
From my perspective have you any idea how tedious that is for someone with a high IQ and more knowledge than most evolutionists likely have? (I can show you my test scores if you wish)
Very intelligent people often believe weird stuff. And I do not recommend presenting personal information here as some YEC will casually dismiss it.
No I think I have it right because that's just the way it is in life, sometimes there are types of evidence we expect that are consistent with many proposals. With the handful of "transitionals" they proclaim as proving evolution, the portion is simply tiny. Also you have to basically INVOKE as part of the argument, that all those millions of transitionals existed, yet we can explain the small amount of them without evolution rather easily.
Sorry but you disqualify yourself with the 'handful' business. IIRC, the actual number is in the hundreds.
And I would expect the proportions to be tiny. It's a geological fact.
In the meantime we have data. The idea is to explain it.
Yeah but you're wrong IMHO. It is slothful induction fallacy to pretend that a tiny percentage is proven "to the reasonable person". I am a reasonable person, I score 95% on university level logic tests, and close to 90% on all critical thinking evaluation tests.
As I have said before, this is science, not philosophy.
So my reason tells me you appeal to "reasonable" people so as to lump me into the "unreasonable" category, which is a false logical disjunction called a limited choice fallacy, where all the evolutionists get to be smart, informed, reasonable people and anyone who disagrees with you is not in that group.
Actually that's not quite right. There are plenty of intelligent and informed creationists. But as Twain(?) once said, 'we are all ignorant of something'. I would add that most of us are susceptible to rigid belief systems.
The truth of the matter is that the transitionals argument is the same as the "bad design" argument, it is slothful induction, because if we put all the transitionals of evolution in a museum, and then we created waxworks of all the missing ones, we would need perhaps five museums to be filled with waxworks but perhaps only one tenth of one museum's area for the transitionals.
I"m sorry that nature has not given you a perfect and complete record of life. However, we do have hard data that most of us would like to explain. I realize that most YECs do not care about explanations, but it is human curiosity to learn about these things.
My last estimate based on what an evolutionist argued was that about 250 thousand fossils have been found, of which about 0.8% they call "transitionals". Some if you look at the wiki-list, are appalling examples, they really don't even qualify as transitions, the closest thing to an Ichthyosaur was some sort of four legged lizard like thing, that basically you could tell they just picked to represent it. LOl.
It is nonetheless, a data point.
... it's the same with the bad design argument, for any feature the evolutionist picks, eyes, pharynx, whatever, just ask for their one complaing, just how many viable designs there are that do good jobs pertaining to that system. You will get something like 200 miraculously wonderful intelligent designs compared to perhaps one or two superficial evolution-arguments of "bad design" which most of the time aren't even bad design.
That would seem to be a judgement call. Which is my whole point. Of all those superficial design flaws, I can feel every one of them.
There he goes again with "a reasonable person". What goal must I score through to count as a "reasonable person".
It's not quantifiable. It has to do with an open mind and critical analysis skills.
I say that it's simply that my standard of reason is a higher standard of critical thinking. My test scores agree. Shouldn't a reasonable person accept what objective test scores say about my intellect?
But it's not 'critical thinking', it is simple criticism that you practice. All you do is criticize the theory of evolution. You don't really have an alternative that you support in this forum.
The difference is I know what I am talking about. When I say the transitionals are missing, the percentage is real, because it doesn't matter what type of organism you name, you highly likely won't have transitions for it. The cambrian phyla all came out of nowhere, it seems to me a "reasonable" person would just admit that there is practically nothing for the cambrian phyla. Or are you saying you have intermediates for trilobites, and one of the most sophisticated eyes ever created (in some) What about all the other strange forms? It's okay to be honest and admit they are not there because they simply aren't friend. I am not lying, this is common knowledge.
We have precursors (which you still refuse to acknowledge) for the Cambrian fauna. And I have not disagreed that the record is sparse. In fact, I expect it. That you reject this geological reasoning out of hand suggests that you are not even interested in the evidence or the explanation.
So do I qualify as "reasonable".
Perhaps on some other subjects.
Let's be honest again - you would only qualify a "reasonable" person as someone that accepts evolution.
Not at all. I have actually conversed with reasonable YECs. They respect my opinions and don't make unreasonable statements such as "TRASITIONAL FOSSILS DO NOT EXIST, period, end of story!" The just agree to disagree based on their religious preference.
But you're wrong on that too, as a claim the theory of evolution is a FANTASTIC claim, and as such a fantastic claim according to a correct logical axiom, "must also have fantastic evidence". but the evidence for evolution is inflated. You guys use a rhetorical device called, "playing it up."
It is only your opinion that they are 'fantastic'. I would think that a person as logical as you would understand that you only express your viewpoints.
You PLAY UP circumstantial evidence but a claim that miraculous life created itself, and beas, cheese, fleas, trees and the chinese then ensued, is basically a miracle without a miracle worker.
I see no reason for miracles or supernatural intervention.
So you are in fact highly unreasonable to expect me to think evolution is a better explanation given the very obvious signs of a much, much greater intelligent designer in life, than anything we could create;
https://creation.com/...-creator-creation-magazine-live-4-01
So, since humans design stuff, the nature is designed? Isn't there a logical fallacy in there someplace?
Question: how reasonable must I be? It seems to me you qualify a "reasonable" person as those that agree with your worldview, BUT ACTUAL REASON, shows that worldview is shot full of holes.
Well, for one, you seem to be pretty stubborn and dismissive. A combination of traits that I do not see as virtues.
These fallacies I mention, I do not invent them. These mistakes I argue, they are real mistakes that REASON has informed me of, as I figured it out myself. Here is my blog about slothful induction, you should read how reasonable it is;
Creation and evolution views
I will check it out. However, I reiterate that you confuse philosophy with science.
If you still think "mike, you're not reasonable you don't have any logic." Okay, here's a logic game, as you can see I am in 1st place "mike the wiz", and it's been played pretty much 50 thousand times. If I couldn't use logic and reason would I be in first place? (that's an example of reductio ad absurdum).
I'm sure you are logical about some things.
I don't know what else I can do to convince you that this creationist is indeed a high reasoner. Want my test scores for university level critical thinking and my scores for population genetics?
I mean what do I have to do to convince an evolutionist I am a reasonable person? We all know the question is rhetorical because we all know the answer; become an evolutionist.
Well, you could have an open-minded conversation here. That would be an excellent start. Simple, adamant complaining about evolution isn't working for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 2:12 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 3:16 PM edge has not replied
 Message 292 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-19-2019 10:07 PM edge has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 276 of 403 (851044)
04-18-2019 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by edge
04-18-2019 3:07 PM


edge writes:
So, since humans design stuff, the nature is designed? Isn't there a logical fallacy in there someplace?
I have to be fed and watered this has to end somewhere.
I wouldn't put this argument forward, no, Lol. My syllogism for design is based on the law of identity, and isn't just a statement. It makes use of deductive reason to infer that design follows where we find the features of design if they are defining characters of design.
In terms of a comparison it would obey the modus ponen rule thus;
If you have all the defining parts that make you human, you are reasonably human.
Edge has all these parts.
Ergo Edge is human.
I also express the potential errors in my own code to simplify;
These are the things which DO NOT follow from my I.D syllogism;
^x~p,
some x~p (equivocation of antecedent premise)
^similar x~p (equivocation of antecedent premise.)
^x~p, p ~ x. (affirmation of consequent)
That's just the formal stuff, the explanation of the formal stuff is tediously long to get into.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by edge, posted 04-18-2019 3:07 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Taq, posted 04-18-2019 3:20 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 277 of 403 (851045)
04-18-2019 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 3:06 PM


mike the wiz writes:
This is a weak hand because the same thing occurs with evolution, it's called "homplasy".
Homoplasies are extremely rare in evolutionary trees, but they are rampant in any attempt at putting vehicles in a nested hierarchy. Vehicles don't fall into a nested hierarchy. Complex eukaryotes do. That's the difference.
My original point is that we can PROVE there are similar features in vehicles, you can make many look like "transitions", which logically PROVES, that a transitional can exist with designed things.
Your point is worthless since it is the nested hierarchy that evidences evolution, and your examples don't fall into a nested hierarchy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 3:06 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 278 of 403 (851046)
04-18-2019 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 2:27 PM


It's amusing when people say, "you don't understand this" then state some simple things I do understand
Can you show where these homoplasies would fit?
Thanks for confirming my claim. They don't fit in Denton's hierarchy, that's the point. Just as his hierarchy isn't nested because the subset "diesel" is not completely contained within one parent set. I've seen dozens of creationists try to shuffle and rename items to find any more than a trivial nested hierarchy of vehicles. And I briefly explained why they can't do it. Thus I predict the next one will also fail

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 2:27 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 279 of 403 (851047)
04-18-2019 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 3:16 PM


mike the wiz writes:
It makes use of deductive reason to infer that design follows where we find the features of design if they are defining characters of design.
That's such a tightly woven circular argument that it may collapse into a singularity. You have to assume from the start that life is designed in order to claim that they are designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 3:16 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 280 of 403 (851049)
04-18-2019 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 2:27 PM


Duplicate .
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 2:27 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 281 of 403 (851051)
04-18-2019 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 3:06 PM


My original point is that we can PROVE there are similar features in vehicles, you can make many look like "transitions", which logically PROVES, that a transitional can exist with designed things.
Demonstrate many looking like transitions in a non-trivial nested hierarchy for which it's trivial to name items that cannot fit the scheme. Absent that your "proof" fails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 3:06 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 282 of 403 (851055)
04-18-2019 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 1:49 PM


Re: Transitionals are intermediate in form/features/time/location from before and after
No offence meant to you Sir, as I wouldn't mean this in a negative way RAZD but this does seem to be a little bit ignorant of creation geology explanations. There really is in modern times a growing list of evidence which is better explained as coming from a mage catastrophe.
In fact the record itself is expected from a flood, especially with 100 million years worth of flat gaps in place in many locations, where there is no erosion at the contact points. In other words there are many areas where there is no Cambrian, or no pre-cambrian. With a flood if the rock was laid down by depositions, a series of them, we would expect this because the rock would not be an "era" but a deposit.
I don't want to get into this too much but there is the B.E.D.S model which a flood explains better, as well as paraconformities. Also recent experiments on bloat-and-float fossils indicate that local floods wouldn't be sufficient to counter the buoyancy from depositional gases in large critters.
It would seem absurd to say that such a huge hydraulic force would not leave giant sediment hauls. It also explains many strange geomorphological features such as water-gaps and planation. Erosional remnants are also well explained given a famous one we know happened because of an ice-age flood. (steamboat inselberg)
Huge remnants such as devil's tower tend to change in their explanations and timing.
We also have the rates of erosion which just don't match millions of years.
I am not intending to elephant-hurl this all at you, I just think that if you are going to give a fairly quick argument/summary, for "not a flood" it's also fair for me to summarise.
The problems with the creationist "explanation" for a world wide mountain topping flood are many fold, not least is the problem of timing -- there is no evidence of a single one time flood everywhere around the world and pole to pole. It's the temporal/spatial matrix again. The same problem creationists have with intermediate/transitional fossil "explanations" like design and progressive creation.
But an IDologist shouldn't be concerned with biblical stories, unless of course it is just a dodge ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 1:49 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 283 of 403 (851060)
04-18-2019 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by mike the wiz
04-18-2019 2:12 PM


IQ card? Really?
As I remember Dennis Markuze also claimed a high IQ. That claim didn't get him any respect either.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by mike the wiz, posted 04-18-2019 2:12 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 284 of 403 (851078)
04-18-2019 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Faith
04-18-2019 2:05 PM


Re: Transitionals are intermediate in form/features/time/location from before and after
Faith writes:
The depth of the strata proves one worldwide Flood without any other evidence being taken into account.
And when all the rest of the evidence is taken into account, it becomes obvious that your assertion is completely wrong. Studying all the real evidence leads to understanding.
What does this have to do with what a transitional fossil looks like?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Faith, posted 04-18-2019 2:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 285 of 403 (851104)
04-19-2019 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by Faith
04-18-2019 12:48 PM


I notice you rewrite such pieces to bring out those negatives ("wits" gave way to "guile" I see.)
Wrestling with words is one of those things I do. Took about 15 minutes of debate but in the end opted for the more accurate term. I liked the "wit" meme as true enough but, alas, it just didn't fit the facts as well.
And, no, there is no concerted leftist atheist conspiricy against you, M'Lady. Neither one of us, even in this small community, is important enough to so concentrate the thoughts of all the others.
If you would use that natural intellect in full instead of dabbling in ghosts, goblins and majik you would know that.
And a major bone to pick! Why so degrading to leftist atheists? What about alt-right atheists? They deserve your loving attention as well. We're supposed to be more inclusive and tolerant toward all our neighbors' viewpoints.
Is, somehow, an alt-right atheist less of a person in your religion-rattled mind? Well, yeah, I guess that's true but they did get the atheist bit right so there is that but still.
Don't be so discriminatory.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 04-18-2019 12:48 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 04-19-2019 3:36 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024