What makes a transitional organism transitional?

[Tristen]

On 8/19/2022 at 11:22 PM, The Barbarian said:

Even knowledgeable  YE creationists know you've got it wrong.  

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between
rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews andthe primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the
phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to
accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

As Wise admits, there are many finely graduated fossils which are "very good evidences" for a population of creatures morphing into a different population of creatures.    And the fact that we don't see these transitional forms where they shouldn't be, demonstrates that such finely graded transitions aren't just innumerable and wildly improbable coincidences.     They are what the evidence shows them to be; evolutionary change.

 Well, let's ask Dr. Gould about that...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

https://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Hmm... anyone who has read even a few of Gould's books would know what you were told about him is false.   I know from where that quote-mined snippet was extracted, and you would not agree with the paragraph in which it makes sense in context.   Notice that Gould says species-to-species transitions are "generally lacking"; he cites horses, ammonites and forams of examples where such transtitions exist.    If evolution were not true, there would be none at all.

Since we only find fossils of an extremely tiny percentage of organisms that ever lived, the only reason we have any perfect transitional series is that some organisms were extremely numerous, were where they fossilized readily, and we were fortunate to find them.

It comes down to evidence.   The shape of the whale is quite different, but you see, evolution shows up in homologies, not analogous structures.   Grey whale skulls have the same structure as the skull of Ambulocetus, (a very primitive whale with legs) only modified to other functions.   

Ancestry isn't the only way to classify organisms.   The Hebrews did it by function.   Which is why the Bible considers bats to be birds; they are functionally very close.   Analogous, but not homologous.

So what was Gould saying?  

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record"

Evolution’s Erratic Pace - "Natural History," May, 1977

Gould's argument, as subsequent research has confirmed, is that most evolution is allopatric.   It generally happens to small, isolated populations that (partially because of small size) evolve quickly to fit the new environement, and then remain relatively constant for a long time.    This is the "tips and nodes" of fossil records.   We are unlikely to see the transitions, but we do see the stasis.   Unless as Gould points, out, there happens to be a huge abundance of fossilized specimens.  

BTW, Darwin predicted that much.   He noted that a well-fitted population, in a constant environment, would be kept by natural selection from evolving very much.  Hence stasis of well-fitted populations.

 

 

 

“Even knowledgeable  YE creationists know you've got it wrong.”

You mean “knowledgeable  YE creationists” who are incorrectly using the same Equivocated definition as you, but a different definition to Darwin? So what? That doesn’t address the point of my post at all.

I provided two examples of “knowledgeable” secular palaeontologists who claimed there are no indisputable examples of “transitional fossils”.

This demonstrates why Arguments from supposed Authority (in this case an opposing ‘Authority’) are logically meaningless (i.e. logic fallacies). The fact that you can find “YE creationists” that disagree with me is no more meaningful than my secularist references that disagree with you. Truth can only be examined through argument and evidence. We can look at Kurt Wise’s examples if you like. The few I recognise use the wrong definition – and so, like your provided examples, have no actual bearing on the debate.

 

“As Wise admits, there are many finely graduated fossils which are "very good evidences" for a population of creatures morphing into a different population of creatures”

This is a very vague, and therefore largely rhetorical, claim. As a YE creationist, I have no problem with changes being evidenced within their ancestral "kinds". But your argument is trying to infer “finely graduated fossils” beyond that scope.

Again, the supposed quality of the “evidences” is both subjective, and entirely dependent on the facts and supporting arguments, not the general claims nor the alleged credentials of the claimant.

 

“And the fact that we don't see these transitional forms where they shouldn't be, demonstrates that such finely graded transitions aren't just innumerable and wildly improbable coincidences.     They are what the evidence shows them to be; evolutionary change”

By Darwin’s definition, there might be a handful of disputed examples – period.

By the definition you are using – who cares? If you are using a different definition to Darwin – then you are debating yourself (or else setting up a disingenuous Strawman Argument against YE creationism).

In terms of logical consistency, this line of argument is invalidated by your later claim of an imperfect fossil record. Therefore, specious claims about not finding them where we don’t expect to find them are logically redundant (and also, technically speaking, an Argument from Ignorance).

 

“Well, let's ask Dr. Gould about that...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”

Gould was understandably frustrated that “creationists” were accurately representing his meaning – i.e. that “transitional forms” are “lacking” according to the Darwinian definition of “finely graduated” fossil progressions (a.k.a. “at the species level”) – and he was supposedly further frustrated that “creationists” did not presume to read his mind – i.e. to incorporate his unstated caveat about “transitional forms” being “abundant between larger groups”. Therefore his quoted complaint is an Equivocation - moving between definitions. None of which discounts his claim that “transitional forms” are “lacking” at the scale described by Darwin.

Even in this quote, Gould's comments are made in the context of proposing “punctuated equilibria to explain trends” – thus demonstrating his unequivocal agreement with Darwin that such “transitional forms” are "lacking". If such fossils were abundant (as Darwin predicted), then finely graduated fossil forms would be the observed “trend”, and “punctuated equilibria” would make no sense.

 

“Hmm... anyone who has read even a few of Gould's books would know what you were told about him is false”

Innuendo (in particular, about how well read I am on a subject) is simply more logic fallacy.

It does not matter that Gould elsewhere clarified that he believed there are “transitional forms” in abundance - according to a revised definition. It only matters that he believed these “transitional forms” are “lacking” according to Darwin’s definition (the same definition which is at the base of the common YE creationist argument).

 

“I know from where that quote-mined snippet was extracted, and you would not agree with the paragraph in which it makes sense in context”

Well – if you feel that something has been decontextualised, you could always make that argument by providing the context demonstrating my incorrect interpretation. So far, everything you’ve provided has reinforced my point that we are operating on multiple definitions of “transitional forms” – only one of which is relevant to the debate.

 

“Notice that Gould says species-to-species transitions are "generally lacking"; he cites horses, ammonites and forams of examples where such transtitions exist”

So he “cites” examples of populations that would be considered by creationists to be related within the same kinds. Ok - I guess.

 

“If evolution were not true, there would be none at all”

What do you mean by, “If evolution were not true”? Creationists have long believed that change can occur in populations over time based on Natural Selection (i.e. environmental pressures selecting for, or against, existing characteristics). Why would such changes not be reflected in the fossil record?

 

“It comes down to evidence.   The shape of the whale is quite different, but you see, evolution shows up in homologies, not analogous structures.   Grey whale skulls have the same structure as the skull of Ambulocetus, (a very primitive whale with legs) only modified to other functions.”

This is a roundabout way of saying that you only look at the evidence that suits your preferred narrative, and you ignore the rest.

You’ve taken some very small bone “structures” (e.g. ear bones, dental structures) that were previously thought to be exclusive to whales (but have since been found to exist outside of whales), and utterly dismissed the overt, obvious fact that the whole skull structure is entirely different between the creatures.

Was it a “whale with legs”? That is highly disputable. Scientifically speaking, what we have is a fossil with legs, and also a few other characteristics that are commonly found in whales (most of which are also found in non-whales). Therefore, speaking about a “whale with legs” as a truism is ideological, not scientific (i.e. the claim goes well beyond what is justified by the facts).

 

“Ancestry isn't the only way to classify organisms.   The Hebrews did it by function.   Which is why the Bible considers bats to be birds; they are functionally very close.   Analogous, but not homologous.”

Carl Linnaeus (who invented the modern classification system used in biology) was a Biblical (or YE) creationist. Similarity is the basis for this classification system, not “ancestry”. Relatedness (or “ancestry”) based on similarity is inferred onto the system because of the influence of the secular world-view.

 

“So what was Gould saying? 

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record" Evolution’s Erratic Pace - "Natural History," May, 1977

Gould's argument, as subsequent research has confirmed, is that most evolution is allopatric.   It generally happens to small, isolated populations that (partially because of small size) evolve quickly to fit the new environement, and then remain relatively constant for a long time.    This is the "tips and nodes" of fossil records.   We are unlikely to see the transitions, but we do see the stasis.   Unless as Gould points, out, there happens to be a huge abundance of fossilized specimens.”

Everything here reinforces my argument, and nothing here refutes my position.

Let me try and explain with pictures. I adapted the below image from the following paper on whale evolution – [J. G. M. Thewissen and E. M. Williams (2002). “THE EARLY RADIATIONS OF CETACEA (MAMMALIA): Evolutionary Pattern and Developmental Correlations”, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 33:73–90]

The red dots are what we actually find in terms of fossils. That is, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils” (according to your Gould quote).

The blue dots are the “traditional forms” that Darwin expected to find abundantly represented in the fossil record – but are overwhelmingly “lacking” (or an “extreme rarity” according to Gould).

The problem with calling the red dots “transitional forms” is that you are suggesting a chain that looks like the following image.

But phylogenies are not depicted in this way because we know that would not be an accurate reflection of what is observed. At this scale, there are no neat “transitional forms” that link groups together this way.

Now – you may wish to argue that Darwin was wrong (or too “wedded to gradualism” as Gould said).

But – you can not legitimately call the red dots “transitional”, and then pretend that we are talking about the same thing - as though you are refuting the 'lack of transitional forms' argument. That is, the existence of red dots does not logically refute the argument that the blue dots are “lacking” in the observed fossil record.

 

[The Barbarian]

51 minutes ago, Tristen said:

“Even knowledgeable  YE creationists know you've got it wrong.”

You mean “knowledgeable  YE creationists” who are incorrectly using the same Equivocated definition as you, but a different definition to Darwin? So what? That doesn’t address the point of my post at all.

Nope.  Just pointing that your fellow YE creationists admit that the numerous transitional fossils predicted by Darwin are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

52 minutes ago, Tristen said:

provided two examples of “knowledgeable” secular palaeontologists who claimed there are no indisputable examples of “transitional fossils”.

You mentioned Gould, who has this to say about that misrepresentation:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

"Evolution as Fact and Theory", p. 260 - Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (1983)

Notice that he even admits that there are species to species transitions.    If you were right, there wouldn't be any.   And as Dr. Wise agrees, the very large number of transitonal series are very good evidence for evolution.

The equivocation we see from creationists regarding evolution is because the scientific definition describes the evolutionary process that can be directly observed.   Darwin said "descent with modification", which is what a change in allele frequencies in a population is.  Since genetics explained why Darwin was right about new traits, scientists have described descent with modification in terms of alleles.

58 minutes ago, Tristen said:

This is a roundabout way of saying that you only look at the evidence that suits your preferred narrative, and you ignore the rest.

No.  You're still hung up on the "looks like" idea.  That is why people once thought of bats being birds.    It's the specific tissues and structures that show common descent, even if they are greatly modified in use.   Hence, we see that DNA analysis shows whales and ugulates are closely related, which explains why they have so many homologies with ungulates.

And again, DNA phylogenies only exist where they should be, according to evolutionary theory.   Which is even more compelling.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Carl Linnaeus (who invented the modern classification system used in biology) was a Biblical (or YE) creationist. Similarity is the basis for this classification system, not “ancestry”.

Anatomy.   Linnaeus didn't even know about evolution, but he was able to show the same phylogenies that DNA, fossil transitionals and biochemistry show.    It wasn't just a "looks like" story; it looked like a family tree, because it was.    It's noteworthy that Linnaeus assumed that God made it that way, and was surprised that when he tried to make a similar tree for minerals, it wouldn't work.   Such trees only happen in common descent.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Let me try and explain with pictures. I adapted the below image from the following paper on whale evolution –

You've been misled on that.   Since the early 90s, many, many more whale transitionals have been found, and they fit nicely into that phylogeny:

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.

Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Many more have been found since Dr. Wise wrote this paper.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

But phylogenies are not depicted in this way because we know that would not be an accurate reflection of what is observed. At this scale, there are no neat “transitional forms” that link groups together this way.

See above.  Dr. Wise points out that there are.   And as you know, Dr. Gould points out that there are even transitional series in species-to-species detail.   He mentions horse, forams, and ammonites.

 

 

[Tristen]

19 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Nope.  Just pointing that your fellow YE creationists admit that the numerous transitional fossils predicted by Darwin are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

You mentioned Gould, who has this to say about that misrepresentation:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

"Evolution as Fact and Theory", p. 260 - Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (1983)

Notice that he even admits that there are species to species transitions.    If you were right, there wouldn't be any.   And as Dr. Wise agrees, the very large number of transitonal series are very good evidence for evolution.

The equivocation we see from creationists regarding evolution is because the scientific definition describes the evolutionary process that can be directly observed.   Darwin said "descent with modification", which is what a change in allele frequencies in a population is.  Since genetics explained why Darwin was right about new traits, scientists have described descent with modification in terms of alleles.

No.  You're still hung up on the "looks like" idea.  That is why people once thought of bats being birds.    It's the specific tissues and structures that show common descent, even if they are greatly modified in use.   Hence, we see that DNA analysis shows whales and ugulates are closely related, which explains why they have so many homologies with ungulates.

And again, DNA phylogenies only exist where they should be, according to evolutionary theory.   Which is even more compelling.

Anatomy.   Linnaeus didn't even know about evolution, but he was able to show the same phylogenies that DNA, fossil transitionals and biochemistry show.    It wasn't just a "looks like" story; it looked like a family tree, because it was.    It's noteworthy that Linnaeus assumed that God made it that way, and was surprised that when he tried to make a similar tree for minerals, it wouldn't work.   Such trees only happen in common descent.

You've been misled on that.   Since the early 90s, many, many more whale transitionals have been found, and they fit nicely into that phylogeny:

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61) followed on the one hand by modern mysticetes,62 and on the other hand by the family Squalodontidae and then modern odontocetes.63 That same series is also a morphological series: Ambulocetus with the largest hind legs;64-66 Rhodocetus with hindlegs one- third smaller;67 Prozeuglodon with 6 inch hindlegs;68 and the remaining whales with virtually no to no hind legs: toothed mysticetes before non-toothed baleen whales;69 the squalodontid odontocetes with telescoped skull but triangular teeth;70 and the modern odontocetes with telescoped skulls and conical teeth. This series of fossils is thus a very powerful stratomorphic series. Because the land mammal-to-whale transition (theorized by macroevolutionary theory and evidenced by the fossil record) is a land-to-sea transition, the relative order of land mammals, archaeocetes, and modern whales is not explainable in the conventional Flood geology method (transgressing Flood waters). Furthermore, whale fossils are only known in Cenozoic (and thus post-Flood) sediments.71 This seems to run counter to the intuitive expectation that the whales should have been found in or even throughout Flood sediments. At present creation theory has no good explanation for the fossil record of whales.

Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Many more have been found since Dr. Wise wrote this paper.

See above.  Dr. Wise points out that there are.   And as you know, Dr. Gould points out that there are even transitional series in species-to-species detail.   He mentions horse, forams, and ammonites.

 

 

 

“Just pointing that your fellow YE creationists admit that the numerous transitional fossils predicted by Darwin are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."”

You mean one “fellow YE creationist”?

Ok then. Well - I disagree with this “fellow YE creationist”. I think he has fallen into the trap of using a different definition to Darwin. Furthermore, I wouldn’t even know that this “fellow YE creationist” existed – except for the fact that you think his comments preclude you from having to engage in rational discussion on the subject. So presuming to use him as an authority for my position is pointless (and a logic fallacy besides).

So where does the conversation go from here? Does the fact “Kurt Wise said” mean you do not have to engage with any of my arguments?

 

“You mentioned Gould, who has this to say about that misrepresentation:

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."Evolution as Fact and Theory", p. 260 - Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (1983)”

Gould originally described “transitional forms” as an “extreme rarity”. He then became frustrated (infuriated) that creationists quoted him as describing “transitional forms” as an “extreme rarity” – i.e. in support of the creationist position that there are only a few, highly debatable, examples of “transitional forms” (according to Darwin’s definition).

Did any creationist actually misrepresent Gould “as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms”, or did they just quote what he said?

And so, in this subsequent complaint, he mitigates his language to characterise “transitional forms” from “extreme rarity” to only “generally lacking” on the scale Darwin was referring to. It might have made him feel better to mitigate his language, and to call creationists “stupid”, but it doesn’t affect the debate in any substantial, logical way.

 

“Notice that he even admits that there are species to species transitions”

You outright accuse creationists of “misrepresentation” when we directly quote him – but then you interpret “extreme rarity” and “generally lacking” as allusions to existence. You are not being fair-minded.

As long as I have been a student of creationism, the YE creationist position has been that there is a very small number of highly disputed examples of “transitional forms” (according to Darwin’s usage). Given the creationist model and arguments;

·         Using a different definition to that used by Darwin is entirely, logically irrelevant to the debate

·         Examples that are between creatures that creationists consider to be related are entirely, logically irrelevant to the debate

 

“If you were right, there wouldn't be any.”

If I “were right” about what?

My main point is that we are operating on different definitions of “transitional forms”. I am 100% “right” about that.

I explained in my previous post why the YE creationist model allows for “transitional forms” within the scope of Biblical “kinds”. You apparently ignored that part of my post – so that you could repeat the same, unconsidered claim. How many times are we going to do that dance?

 

“And as Dr. Wise agrees, the very large number of transitonal series are very good evidence for evolution”

Lol. So now it’s “Dr. Wise”. Well then, if both you and “Dr. Wise” agree, that’s as good as scripture. 😊 No further discussion is required.

 

“The equivocation we see from creationists regarding evolution is because the scientific definition describes the evolutionary process that can be directly observed.   Darwin said "descent with modification", which is what a change in allele frequencies in a population is.  Since genetics explained why Darwin was right about new traits, scientists have described descent with modification in terms of alleles.”

What???

How is any of this related to the definition and debate over “transitional forms”?

 

“This is a roundabout way of saying that you only look at the evidence that suits your preferred narrative, and you ignore the rest.

No.  You're still hung up on the "looks like" idea”

You mean “looks like” legs? You mean “looks like” whale ear bones? – that kind of thing? That is the whole basis of establishing relatedness between these supposed whale fossils. But then you ignore the fact that every other structure in the supposed whale fossils does not look anything “like” a whale (including the legs).

You don’t get to play the game of characterising some small similarities significant, but then ignoring the overwhelming differences; as though insignificant. That demonstrates a confirmation bias on your part (again, not being fair-minded).

 

“That is why people once thought of bats being birds”

This example is about function, not form. And therefore makes the opposite point to the one you are trying to make.

Classifying things according to function is perfectly valid. It only trips you up because your paradigm needs the system to be reflective of putative relatedness. But that was not the paradigm of ancient Hebrews. Nor was it the paradigm of the inventor of our modern biological classification system. You’ve just been taught to interpret it from that perspective.

 

“It's the specific tissues and structures that show common descent, even if they are greatly modified in use”

So they are all whales based on similarities, and also, they are all whales based on their differences – got it 😉. There is no provision in your paradigm for the possibility that they are not whales – no matter what evidence is available.

 

“Hence, we see that DNA analysis shows whales and ugulates are closely related, which explains why they have so many homologies with ungulates”

Firstly, DNA composition is the only fact provided by “DNA analysis”. “DNA analysis” does not “show” relatedness. In terms of comparisons, “DNA analysis” can only inform about similarities between creatures. However, relatedness is read onto that information based on the secular paradigm of Common Ancestry (i.e. the premise that any shared DNA must be the result of inheritance).

Secondly, is it really surprising to anyone that similarities in DNA are reflected in similar structures?

 

“And again, DNA phylogenies only exist where they should be, according to evolutionary theory.   Which is even more compelling”

It might be “compelling”, if there was anything more than rhetorical bluster for me to consider.

 

“Linnaeus didn't even know about evolution”

That’s probably right (though evolutionary ideas pre-existed Darwin). But that’s my point. The concept of relatedness is not crucial nor necessary for the biological classification system to work. The idea of relatedness is merely the façade forced over the system because of secular biases.

 

“Let me try and explain with pictures. I adapted the below image from the following paper on whale evolution –

You've been misled on that.   Since the early 90s, many, many more whale transitionals have been found, and they fit nicely into that phylogeny:

At this point in time, the largest challenge from the stratomorphic intermediate record appears to this author to come from the fossil record of the whales. There is a strong stratigraphic series of archaeocete genera claimed by Gingerich60 (Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, and Prozeuglodon [or the similar-aged Basilosaurus]61)  …  Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

Many more have been found since Dr. Wise wrote this paper.”

I’m not exactly sure how to proceed with this. You utterly ignored my provided argument about using different definitions (i.e. you literally acted as though my stated argument doesn’t exist), then simply repeated the same “but Kurt Wise said” nonsense.

I’m sincerely not sure how we can move forward if you can not, or will not, consider my arguments.

 

“But phylogenies are not depicted in this way because we know that would not be an accurate reflection of what is observed. At this scale, there are no neat “transitional forms” that link groups together this way.

See above.  Dr. Wise points out that there are.   And as you know, Dr. Gould points out that there are even transitional series in species-to-species detail.   He mentions horse, forams, and ammonites”

Firstly, I have now several times addressed the claim that such examples exist at the relevant level proposed by Darwin. You have thus far failed to address my arguments, nor have you demonstrated any evidence that you even considered my arguments. Just more “Kurt Wise says” nonsense.

Secondly, my comment here was self-evidently not about the scale used by Darwin, but about the implication of “transitional forms” at the broader scale being depicted as a chain, rather than nodes on a tree (as they are more honestly depicted in the literature, and as “Dr. Gould” clearly stated in the quotes you provided).

 

[The Barbarian]

 

 Just pointing that your fellow YE creationists admit that the numerous transitional fossils predicted by Darwin are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

You mean one “fellow YE creationist”?

Hmmm...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.

YE Creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

Another?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I think he has fallen into the trap of using a different definition to Darwin. Furthermore, I wouldn’t even know that this “fellow YE creationist” existed – except for the fact that you think his comments preclude you from having to engage in rational discussion on the subject.

I'm just pointing out that these particular YE creationists are well-aquainted with the evidence and realize that it is very good evidence, and there are "gobs and gobs of it."

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Lol. So now it’s “Dr. Wise”. Well then, if both you and “Dr. Wise” agree, that’s as good as scripture.

Dr. Wise is getting on in years, so it's been Dr.Wise for a long time.   And since scripture neither supports nor denies evolution, you might as well say that physicists are a better source on protons than scripture.

You're still hung up on the "looks like" idea

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

You mean “looks like” legs?

No.  For example the limbs of coelacanths, horses, bats, and humans look very different but are homologous.  That is, they are derived from the same tissues, are mediated by the same genes, and show common descent.  

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

You mean “looks like” whale ear bones?

No, the sigmoid form of the bone in whales is different than in land ungulates.   But the connections are the same, showing that it's homologous, not analogous.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Firstly, DNA composition is the only fact provided by “DNA analysis”. “DNA analysis” does not “show” relatedness.

No, you're wrong about that.   We can check that by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent.  Moreover, DNA phylogenies very closely match those based on anatomy, embryology, and fossil transitionals.   They are even very close to the family tree found by Linnaeus.

And again, DNA phylogenies only exist where they should be, according to evolutionary theory.   Which is even more compelling.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

It might be “compelling”, if there was anything more than rhetorical bluster for me to consider.

I'm pretty sure that if you thought about it, you'd see that you are mistaken.   The fact that DNA relationships only occur where they should be, is powerful evidence that they show common descent.   And of course, there's the fact that it works with organisms of known descent.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I’m not exactly sure how to proceed with this.

Perhaps you should just deal with the evidence.   Sometimes, it's hard to remain calm polite when one is contradicted.   But it's worth the effort.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

You utterly ignored my provided argument about using different definitions (i.e. you literally acted as though my stated argument doesn’t exist)

Only some creationists use different definitions, and of course, that isn't a concern for science.  

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I’m sincerely not sure how we can move forward if you can not, or will not, consider my arguments.

Perhaps you're clear in your own mind what your argument is, and you're not presenting it very well.   I would like to see if we can clear that up.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Firstly, I have now several times addressed the claim that such examples exist at the relevant level proposed by Darwin. You have thus far failed to address my arguments, nor have you demonstrated any evidence that you even considered my arguments.

I don't see how anything you've said has been refutation of the species-to-species transitional fossils of (for example) horses.  

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Secondly, my comment here was self-evidently not about the scale used by Darwin, but about the implication of “transitional forms” at the broader scale being depicted as a chain, rather than nodes on a tree (as they are more honestly depicted in the literature, and as “Dr. Gould” clearly stated in the quotes you provided).

As you have seen, Gould has bluntly debunked that misinterpretation of his statement.   

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Evolution as Fact and Theory", p. 260 - Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (1983)

Some examples of species-to-species transitions in the fossil record:

Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

Would you like to see some more?

 

[Tristen]

On 8/22/2022 at 12:05 PM, The Barbarian said:

 

 Just pointing that your fellow YE creationists admit that the numerous transitional fossils predicted by Darwin are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.

Hmmm...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it.

YE Creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

Another?

I'm just pointing out that these particular YE creationists are well-aquainted with the evidence and realize that it is very good evidence, and there are "gobs and gobs of it."

Dr. Wise is getting on in years, so it's been Dr.Wise for a long time.   And since scripture neither supports nor denies evolution, you might as well say that physicists are a better source on protons than scripture.

You're still hung up on the "looks like" idea

No.  For example the limbs of coelacanths, horses, bats, and humans look very different but are homologous.  That is, they are derived from the same tissues, are mediated by the same genes, and show common descent.  

No, the sigmoid form of the bone in whales is different than in land ungulates.   But the connections are the same, showing that it's homologous, not analogous.

No, you're wrong about that.   We can check that by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent.  Moreover, DNA phylogenies very closely match those based on anatomy, embryology, and fossil transitionals.   They are even very close to the family tree found by Linnaeus.

And again, DNA phylogenies only exist where they should be, according to evolutionary theory.   Which is even more compelling.

I'm pretty sure that if you thought about it, you'd see that you are mistaken.   The fact that DNA relationships only occur where they should be, is powerful evidence that they show common descent.   And of course, there's the fact that it works with organisms of known descent.

Perhaps you should just deal with the evidence.   Sometimes, it's hard to remain calm polite when one is contradicted.   But it's worth the effort.

Only some creationists use different definitions, and of course, that isn't a concern for science.  

Perhaps you're clear in your own mind what your argument is, and you're not presenting it very well.   I would like to see if we can clear that up.

I don't see how anything you've said has been refutation of the species-to-species transitional fossils of (for example) horses.  

As you have seen, Gould has bluntly debunked that misinterpretation of his statement.   

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

Evolution as Fact and Theory", p. 260 - Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes (1983)

Some examples of species-to-species transitions in the fossil record:

Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million years.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

Would you like to see some more?

 

 

“Just pointing that your fellow YE creationists admit that the numerous transitional fossils predicted by Darwin are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory.”

Ok then – so go tell Kurt Wise that you found a “fellow YE creationist” that disagrees with him regarding his comments on “transitional fossils”. I’m sure he’ll immediately, and unreservedly, recant his position (as that seems to be what you are expecting from me upon seeing his comments).

Of course, that’s not how logic works. The implication you are trying to force onto me is not rational. You found someone who agrees with me on some stuff, but disagrees with me about other stuff – and therefore, somehow, I am now compelled to change my mind until we both agree on everything???

What you are proposing does not follow logic. With this line of argument, you are Appealing to the “YE creationist” Authority of Kurt Wise, rather than supporting your position through evidence and argument. Appeals to Authority are logic fallacies – and therefore technically irrational. That is, such fallacious arguments contribute nothing of rational substance to the conversation.

 

“You mean one “fellow YE creationist”?

Hmmm...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. YE Creationist Dr. Todd Wood The Truth About Evolution

Another?”

“Another” what?

You mean “another” quote that has nothing to do with the topic of discussion? Can you show me in the above quote where “transitional fossils” are mentioned?

Or do you mean “another” Appeal to Authority? I’ll try and be as clear as possible – Even if every other human on the planet disagrees with me, that would not entail that I am necessarily wrong. My putative error could only ever be demonstrated through evidence and argument. Unsupported statements of disagreement have no rational merit in the debate. Logically speaking, they are a waste of time (and space).

 

“I'm just pointing out that these particular YE creationists are well-aquainted with the evidence and realize that it is very good evidence, and there are "gobs and gobs of it."”

OK – so why are you “pointing” that “out”?

I don’t know these people. Their opinions mean nothing to me (though I am happy to consider their arguments – I have already established that Kurt Wise is making his claims based on an Equivocated definition of “transitional forms”).

 

“For example the limbs of coelacanths, horses, bats, and humans look very different but are homologous.  That is, they are derived from the same tissues, are mediated by the same genes, and show common descent.”

This is absurdly presumptuous. ‘They all have limbs, and even though those limbs are very, very, very different, the fact that they all have limbs demonstrates “common descent”’. That is a ridiculous leap of logic.

 

“the sigmoid form of the bone in whales is different than in land ungulates.   But the connections are the same, showing that it's homologous, not analogous”

As above.

At least here we can say that the Sigmoid Process structure is almost exclusive to whales.

 

“No, you're wrong about that.   We can check that by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent”

This is a Generalisation fallacy. ‘We observe that “organisms of known descent” have very similar DNA – therefore all DNA similarities across all of life demonstrates “common descent”’. That’s another massive leap of logic that fails to distinguish between observation and interpretation.

 

“Moreover, DNA phylogenies very closely match those based on anatomy, embryology, and fossil transitionals.   They are even very close to the family tree found by Linnaeus”

What “family tree” was “found by Linnaeus”? I asked this before. Can you point me to this information?

 

“And again, DNA phylogenies only exist where they should be, according to evolutionary theory.   Which is even more compelling”

And “again”, you might as well scream it at the wall if you are not prepared to explain what you mean; supported by evidence and argument.

 

“It might be “compelling”, if there was anything more than rhetorical bluster for me to consider.

I'm pretty sure that if you thought about it, you'd see that you are mistaken”

“Thought about” what? You’ve given me nothing to work with. You seem to think all that is required is for you to say it.

One of the reasons I originally started my science degree was to see if there was anything in all the one-sided rhetoric and confidence in the secular scientific narrative. So you can imagine how ludicrous it is to me to have someone suggest I haven't done my due diligence - based merely on the fact that I dare disagree with them.

 

“The fact that DNA relationships only occur where they should be, is powerful evidence that they show common descent”

Again, you need to explain what you mean. Either I don’t understand what you mean, or you are wrong. I have read many, many, many papers where supposed ‘evolutionary’ relationships had to be changed after DNA examination – if that’s what you mean.

 

“And of course, there's the fact that it works with organisms of known descent.”

What “works”?

You mean “organisms” that have an observed lineage inherited their shared DNA through that lineage? Did anyone here contest that DNA could be inherited? It’s like you’re just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Our conversation is about “transitional forms” – not about whatever anti-creationist idea pops into your head.

 

“Perhaps you should just deal with the evidence”

I dealt directly “with the evidence”. You provided three images of supposed whale “transitional forms”. I demonstrated that you were using a different definition of “transitional forms” to that used originally by Darwin (and thereafter by creationists). What that means is your provided “evidence” doesn’t actually address any contested argument.

 

“Sometimes, it's hard to remain calm polite when one is contradicted.   But it's worth the effort.”

Have I been impolite?

An argument could be made that to have one’s argument and efforts completely ignored could be considered impolite. Especially when followed by an insinuation that I am the one being impolite.

My intent is to provide emotionless responses. By contrast, I would point out that you are the one who has posted quotes characterising my position as being errant “through design or stupidity” and “either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence” or “deluded or lying”. You also insinuated that I was unread and quote-mining. You further insinuated that I am not “knowledgeable”, but that I am in some sense dishonest in my failure to “admit” what some selected other creationists “admit”.

To be clear, I am not offended in the slightest. I simply think that, before you start down the path of accusing me of impoliteness - perhaps some self-examination is in order on your part.

 

“Only some creationists use different definitions, and of course, that isn't a concern for science”

The creationist argument regarding the lack of “transitional fossils” in the fossil record uses the same definition as Darwin. The creationist argument is, in fact, based directly on Darwin’s claim.

Not even Darwin has contested the existence of supposed “transitional fossils” - according to the definition you (and Kurt Wise) are using. The idea that Darwin was unaware that there are certain fossils which could be theoretically squeezed between others on some kind of evolutionary tree, is absurd on the face of it. Such fossils contributed to the foundation of his evolutionary theory.

It doesn’t matter who is using which definition (creationists or otherwise). What matters is that only one definition of “transitional fossil” is relevant to the debate. Therefore, your providing evidence of one type of “transitional fossil” does not logically negate the claim of “extreme rarity” for the other type of “transitional fossil”. That is simple logic.

 

“I’m sincerely not sure how we can move forward if you can not, or will not, consider my arguments.

Perhaps you're clear in your own mind what your argument is, and you're not presenting it very well.   I would like to see if we can clear that up.”

Happy to have another go.

If you imagine an image of the so-called ‘Tree of Life’; Darwin expected that the whole tree (the trunk, branches and tips) should be represented in the fossil record at high resolution. That is, he expected that we would find fossils representing each small change (transition) throughout the whole tree. Yet, as Gould “admits”, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our text- books have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils”.

Now – what you are doing, and what Kurt Wise has seemingly done, and what Gould subsequently did in his clarification, is to take the data from “the tips and nodes of the branches”, and then squeeze them into an imaginary line based on small, structural patterns, and then proceed to call the in-between samples “transitional”. You then proclaim, ‘Look at this massive “abundance” of “transitional fossils” – what are creationists talking about?’.

You are not actually addressing the creationist claim if you are using a different definition of “transitional form” to the one being used by creationists. That is, the claim that we have putative “tips and nodes” of the tree does not logically refute the claim that the tree-trunk and branches are missing.

 

“I have now several times addressed the claim that such examples exist at the relevant level proposed by Darwin. You have thus far failed to address my arguments, nor have you demonstrated any evidence that you even considered my arguments.

I don't see how anything you've said has been refutation of the species-to-species transitional fossils of (for example) horses.”

I didn’t say “refuted” – I said “addressed”.

Creationists consider “horses” to represent a created “kind”. That means we consider all modern “horses” (inc. zebras, donkeys etc.) to be descended from an ancestral line that was represented on Noah’s Ark (which themselves were descendants of the original “horses” created by God). To get to their current, varied forms (from the original form), “horse” populations have undergone change over time (including speciation).

Therefore, observations of change at that scale are consistent with the creationist model – and as such, not logically relevant to the debate.

The stark absence of Darwin’s “transitional forms” refers to the preponderance of that ‘Tree of Life’ that supposedly existed between these groups. Darwin’s expectation was that the tree itself would be built on “the evidence of fossils”, and not just “inference” (as Gould “admits”).

 

“Some examples of species-to-species transitions in the fossil record:

Further work (Gingerich, 1980) in the same rich Wyoming fossil sites found species-to-species transitions for every step in the following lineage: Pelycodus ralstoni (54 Ma) to P. mckennai to P. trigonodus to P. abditus, which then forked into three branches. One became a new genus, Copelemur feretutus, and further changed into C. consortutus. The second branch became P. frugivorus. The third led to P. jarrovi, which changed into another new genus, Notharctus robinsoni, which itself split into at least two branches, N. tenebrosus, and N. pugnax (which then changed to N. robustior, 48 Ma), and possibly a third, Smilodectes mcgrewi (which then changed to S. gracilis). Note that this sequence covers at least three and possibly four genera, with a timespan of 6 million years. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html

Would you like to see some more?”

Lol. How about you hear what I have to say about this one before presuming to posture.

I read the “Gingerich, 1980” paper. It was simply a paper that put the fossils in order according to some structural patterns (and the evolutionary narrative). It was actually nice to read an older paper where they were (somewhat) careful to use properly hedged language. They were, for example, very clear that the proposed “phylogenetic relationships” were just what they “interpreted” or “hypothesised” over the facts.

There are, however, no claims of “transitional fossils” in this 18-page document. That is because, until 5 minutes ago, “transitional fossils” meant something different to the way you are using it; that is, until evolutionists realised that they needed to change the definition to generate an Equivocated rebuttal to the creationist claim 😊. Your “talkorigins.org” author uses the same irrelevant definition for “transitional forms” as you used in your OP (and as Kurt Wise apparently uses).

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Ok then – so go tell Kurt Wise that you found a “fellow YE creationist” that disagrees with him regarding his comments on “transitional fossils”.

I'm sure he'd be concerned if it was someone familiar with paleontology and the fossil record.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

No, you're wrong about that.   We can check that by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent”

This is a Generalisation fallacy. ‘We observe that “organisms of known descent” have very similar DNA – therefore all DNA similarities across all of life demonstrates “common descent”’.

This is like saying if a man can walk ten feet, we can't suppose he can walk a hundred feet.    Sorry, not a very good argument.   As you know, DNA analyses show common descent, and it is confirmed by the fact that it does for all organisms for which descent is known.   Nothing magical about longer periods.  Unless you can show something.  What do you have?

 

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

One of the reasons I originally started my science degree was to see if there was anything in all the one-sided rhetoric and confidence in the secular scientific narrative. So you can imagine how ludicrous it is to me to have someone suggest I haven't done my due diligence - based merely on the fact that I dare disagree with them.

Some of this seems to be a complete surprise to you.   So yes.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

You are not actually addressing the creationist claim if you are using a different definition of “transitional form” to the one being used by creationists.

Too bad for them, then.   As you may have noticed biologists who are YE creationists use the scientific term, not the religious term.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Therefore, your providing evidence of one type of “transitional fossil” does not logically negate the claim of “extreme rarity” for the other type of “transitional fossil”. That is simple logic.

And therein, your argument undermines itself.   If creationism were absolutely true, there would be no species-to-species transitions at all.  But they do exist.   On the other hand, we have (as Gould points out) abundant transitions from genus-to-genus and upward.    And give that most of the YE creationists organizations have conceded the evolution of new species, genera, and sometimes families from existing ones. That much is already off the table.   Would you like me to show you that?

Have I been impolite?

Doesn't bother me.   Just think about it.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I would point out that you are the one who has posted quotes characterising my position as being errant “through design or stupidity” and “either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence” or “deluded or lying”.

Those were from Gould and from one of your fellow YE creationists. 

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Creationists consider “horses” to represent a created “kind”. That means we consider all modern “horses” (inc. zebras, donkeys etc.) to be descended from an ancestral line that was represented on Noah’s Ark (which themselves were descendants of the original “horses” created by God). To get to their current, varied forms (from the original form), “horse” populations have undergone change over time (including speciation).

So then, you've conceded the evolution of species and genera here.  Which means the scarcity of species-t0-species transitions in the fossil record is not an issue at all.   Ironically, horses are one of the groups that does have species-to-species transitionals.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

The stark absence of Darwin’s “transitional forms” refers to the preponderance of that ‘Tree of Life’ that supposedly existed between these groups. Darwin’s expectation was that the tree itself would be built on “the evidence of fossils”

And as your fellow YE creationists admit, the existence of all those transitional series is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I read the “Gingerich, 1980” paper. It was simply a paper that put the fossils in order according to some structural patterns (and the evolutionary narrative).

Pretty much nothing but denial?   O.K.   But all that evidence remains.   But since YE creationists have conceded evolution of new species and genera (occasionally families) , it's a moot point, isn't it?

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

That is because, until 5 minutes ago, “transitional fossils” meant something different to the way you are using it; that is, until evolutionists realised that they needed to change the definition to generate an Equivocated rebuttal to the creationist claim

It's pretty much always been the same.  A transitional fossil is any fossil that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.

That was true in the 1960s when I first started studying biology.  Still true now.  You've been misled about this.

 

[Dave-regenerated]

Notice there are no pictures: - Pelycodus - Wikipedia

[The Barbarian]

A complete Pelycodus fossil:

 

Edited August 25, 2022 by The Barbarian

[Dave-regenerated]

On 8/25/2022 at 2:34 PM, The Barbarian said:

A complete Pelycodus fossil:

 

That looks like a drawing to me.  If it is in a museum somewhere, with the total skeleton intact, how did they make it stand up on top of a branch?

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Dave-regenerated said:

That looks like a drawing to me.

Photograph of the fossil.

1 hour ago, Dave-regenerated said:

If it is in a museum somewhere, with the total skeleton intact, how did they make it stand up on top of a branch?

After bones are removed from the matrix, they are wired together.    Pretty much the way you'd do that for any skeleton.

Thing is, you only get species-to-species transitions when there are a lot of specimens.  So the odds of finding a complete fossil go up dramatically for those transitions.

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2022 by The Barbarian