What would a transitional fossil look like?

You would do well to dispense with the stubborn denial and unsupported assertions. I understand that you are constrained by myth and your own personal pride. Utter nonsense. You will not see a different body plan for trilobites and if you did, your blind denial will reject any such information.And why should a different species have a different body plan? No body does. This is a meaningless statement.

When people don't even try to communicate sensibly, which means you, the whole idea of debate is trashed.

Your opinion is noted.However, all I see in your post is an effort to end communication.

This is your main impetus: to create a fictional "kind" that appears nowhere in the bible (or other religious documents), for the sole purpose of making a frivolous line of argument based purely on your ego and your insistence on keeping each "kind" crammed into one "species" ... which in your usage bears no relationship to the scientific biological definitions of species.The fact that the same criteria you use to force this argument can be applied with equal validity to other families of plants, animals, and other organisms is ignored as bias.Keep the comedy rolling.Enjoy

Yes, one species or one Kind, that's how I see all those trilobites climbing up the fossil record for the supposed hundreds of millions of years represented there, and it is the sameness of their body structure that enables me to classify them that way. And where did I call it bias to classify other creatures the same way: I thought I've been pretty clear that the Kind or species is identified by the body structure. It may take some discussion to define it but that's the basic criterion.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Yes, one species or one Kind, that's how I see all those trilobites climbing up the fossil record for the supposed hundreds of millions of years represented there, and it is the sameness of their body structure that enables me to classify them that way

---

No it isn’t. It’s your inability to accept the fact that you are obviously wrong. As I pointed out wild species do not show anything like the range of variation seen in trilobites. It is obvious that trilobites are not a single species. Even to you if you bother to look.

quote:

---

And where did I call it bias to classify other creatures the same way:

---

I can guess. But what is your reason for refusing to classify other creatures the same way ? Why the glaring, obvious double standard ? And how can you possibly expect to get away with it ?

You aren't making any sense, sorry.

And again, no actual reply, just trolling.

So humans and chimps are the same kind. Glad you cleared that up.(Remember you said length and size of bones doesn't matter). Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Of course you have trouble with facts that contradict your fantasies.Let me put them more simply.First, trilobites1) trilobites vary considerably.2) species in the wild do not vary to anything like the same extent.3) therefore trilobites are obviously not a single speciesSecond your “kind” criterion:1) you do not apply it to any other “kind”2) in recent discussion you were quite happy to accept minor differences as distinguishing “Kinds” e.g. cats having sharper claws than dogs - while rejecting bigger differences between trilobites.3) the double standard is so glaringly obvious that you can’t expect anyone to believe you.

You've never seen a trilobite let alone classified one. You haven't the first idea what is involved in classifying a fossil - not the faintest idea how long it takes to learn how to do that kind of work. Science has classified 50,000 trilobite species. They are not the same and they show development over time.You can call them kinds or carrots or Ford Transits if you like, it has no effect on what they are and you are adding no new information - except perhaps humour. The discussion and effort has been taken. It's done. It took many years of painstaking work by many people. A religiously motivated woman looking blindly and uncomprehendingly at a computer screen is not going to add much to the work - except, as I say, humour.

The problem you have is that you refuse and ignore classifying other creatures the same way: Then dogs and cats are a "Kind or species (faith usage)" and chimps and humans a "Kind or species (faith usage)" ... where "species (faith usage)" means some original fantasy "species genome" and NOT species as used in biology, science, reality.So funny to watch you wiggle around the actual evidence.Enjoy

So far, Faith has only made one factual statement about Trilobites, "Trilobites have a body plan." She has not given us any other information that indicates she has any further knowledge about Trilobites.Tangle Message 341

quote:

---

A religiously motivated woman looking blindly and uncomprehendingly at a computer screen is not going to add much to the work - except, as I say, humour.

---

RAZD Message 342

quote:

---

So funny to watch you wiggle around the actual evidence.

---

I just do not understand what motivates her to come here and post things that seem more and more unhinged and that even a child would see do not correctly describe the evidence.She says she hates this place and all of us who disagree with her about almost everything, yet she stays. Is it some form of self imposed penance or is she the martyr character in her own fantasies?I agree there is a humor element, but I don't think that is her intent. I guess it must be entertaining for her, but I don't think I will ever understand it.

I think there is a fairly good possibility that Faith is not all what she seems and is in fact just a very persistent troll. Either that or the true personification of a Poe.

You are probably correct.