What makes a transitional organism transitional?

[Tristen]

On 9/4/2022 at 12:24 PM, The Barbarian said:

So your barber is as good a source on medical issues as your doctor?  No, I don't think so.

Seems to me that when you have a technical issue, it would be best to talk to people who know something about it.   We'll just have to disagree on that.

So if your barber uses "rational paths of reasoning" then he's as good as y9ur doctor on medical questions?   No, I don't think so.

Rather, since I happen to have some coursework in paleontology, the question is whether you are happy for people claiming to be experts to tell you what to think about them.  

But I don't think your "barbers" are a very reliable source.  

As you've seen there are many, many transitional fossils and entire lineages of them.   

No point in denying the facts.

Knowing what one is talking about, is a huge advantage, yes.

 

 

So I explain why your comments are fallacious - and your response is to ignore my explanation, and simply repeat the fallacy?

Such a response indicates that you are beyond reason.

 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

Your Response - to insinuate (Innuendo fallacy) that I am unfamiliar with the facts and have failed to take the required time to examine the "information".

You have committed an “overly sensitive” fallacy. I know you are very familiar with science in general, and biology specifically. This is why I expect you to be very much aware of what Wood calls “intermediate” fossils. In fact, I would be very surprised if you were unaware of these.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

So I explain why your comments are fallacious - and your response is to ignore my explanation, and simply repeat the fallacy?

It appears that you don't understand what the fallacy is.   The reason people ask their doctors and not their accountants for medical advice is because physicians are knowledgeable about those things, and accountants generally are not. 

Your fallacy is in supposing that everyone's opinion has the same credibility.    And here's where your confusion really hits you.   An argument from authority merely presents the opinion of a knowledgable person.   Citing a knowledgeable person shows his reasoning and the evidence on which it is based.   So Dr. Wise's reasoning is based his presentation of over a dozen transitional series (not just transitional organisms).  Hence, not an appeal to authority. 

I don't  think you're beyond reason; I just think you aren't aware of what an "appeal to authority" is, and why Dr. Wise's evidence and reasoning cannot be dismissed as "an appeal to authority."

 

 

Edited September 6, 2022 by The Barbarian

[Tristen]

23 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You have committed an “overly sensitive” fallacy. I know you are very familiar with science in general, and biology specifically. This is why I expect you to be very much aware of what Wood calls “intermediate” fossils. In fact, I would be very surprised if you were unaware of these.

 

“You have committed an “overly sensitive” fallacy”

I don’t know of that supposed “fallacy”.

Can you explain how anything I have said has breached the rules of logic? Or is this simply another Adhominem attack designed to avoid dealing rationally with my arguments. Note again that, rather than engage with any of my arguments, you are simply casting personal accusations against me.

I am not offended whatsoever – just pointing out yet again that you are operating outside of logic, and you are therefore not engaged in an honest pursuit of truth.

 

“I know you are very familiar with science in general, and biology specifically. This is why I expect you to be very much aware of what Wood calls “intermediate” fossils. In fact, I would be very surprised if you were unaware of these”

Yet again, you are refusing to engage with my arguments. You are insinuating (i.e. Innuendo fallacy), without any rational support, that I am either “unaware” of the evidence or dealing dishonestly with my understanding of the evidence (both Adhominem fallacies).

Since you are intent on operating outside of logic, you are not engaged in a sincere examination of the truth.

 

[Tristen]

22 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It appears that you don't understand what the fallacy is.   The reason people ask their doctors and not their accountants for medical advice is because physicians are knowledgeable about those things, and accountants generally are not. 

Your fallacy is in supposing that everyone's opinion has the same credibility.    And here's where your confusion really hits you.   An argument from authority merely presents the opinion of a knowledgable person.   Citing a knowledgeable person shows his reasoning and the evidence on which it is based.   So Dr. Wise's reasoning is based his presentation of over a dozen transitional series (not just transitional organisms).  Hence, not an appeal to authority. 

I don't  think you're beyond reason; I just think you aren't aware of what an "appeal to authority" is, and why Dr. Wise's evidence and reasoning cannot be dismissed as "an appeal to authority."

 

 

 

“It appears that you don't understand what the fallacy is.   The reason people ask their doctors and not their accountants for medical advice is because physicians are knowledgeable about those things, and accountants generally are not. Your fallacy is in supposing that everyone's opinion has the same credibility.”

So you have decided to persist with this Strawman misrepresentation of my position. You have decided to ignore my own stated position, and instead decided to misrepresent my position - to provide yourself an opportunity to knock down the position you have falsely (and now, intentionally, dishonestly) attributed to me.

 

“And here's where your confusion really hits you.   An argument from authority merely presents the opinion of a knowledgable person”

What “confusion”?

I actually agree with this. The logic is simple; just because someone presents an “opinion” does not make that “opinion” necessarily correct, nor obligate anyone else to accept that “opinion”. This is true regardless of how “knowledgeable” the person presenting the “opinion”. The relationship between the “opinion” and the truth can only be ascertained through consideration of the supporting arguments – and not the letters beside the person’s name.

 

“Citing a knowledgeable person shows his reasoning and the evidence on which it is based”

I offered to go through his examples. Do you remember me saying; “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.”

 

“So Dr. Wise's reasoning is based his presentation of over a dozen transitional series (not just transitional organisms).  Hence, not an appeal to authority”

You simply stating that “Dr. Wise says …” is a blatant Appeal to authority. Your suggestion that I should accept his position because “he is the authority.  He knows more about paleontology than either of us.” is a blatant Appeal to Authority.

Only the supporting argument matters. So if you’d like to go through “Dr. Wise’s” “presentation of over a dozen transitional series” – then let’s do that. I’m happy to go through them one-by-one. But you simply continuing to say, ‘Kurt Wise says this-&-that’ and ‘Todd Wood says such-&-such’ is a meaningless waste of time.

 

“I don't  think you're beyond reason; I just think you aren't aware of what an "appeal to authority" is, and why Dr. Wise's evidence and reasoning cannot be dismissed as "an appeal to authority."”

I haven’t “dismissed” anything. I’m near begging someone to deal rationally with the arguments in accordance with the rules of logic.

 

[one.opinion]

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Can you explain how anything I have said has breached the rules of logic?

You are ignoring sound arguments because if perceived infractions of formal logical argument.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

Note again that, rather than engage with any of my arguments, you are simply casting personal accusations against me.

I am not aware that you posted any arguments to me. What I do know is that I found information from Todd wood in two minutes that you would not look for yourself. It seems counterproductive to spend as much time as you do critiquing formal logic while not making the slightest effort to come closer to understanding.

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I am not offended whatsoever

I didn’t say you were offended, I said you were overly sensitive. I fully expect you to be aware of intermediate fossil forms. If I gave you too much credit, I apologize.

 

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

you are not engaged in a sincere examination of the truth.

So you refused to spend two minutes looking up some easily accessible information, yet I’m the one that is not engaged in sincere examination of the truth. Hypocrisy fallacy.

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You are ignoring sound arguments because if perceived infractions of formal logical argument.

I am not aware that you posted any arguments to me. What I do know is that I found information from Todd wood in two minutes that you would not look for yourself. It seems counterproductive to spend as much time as you do critiquing formal logic while not making the slightest effort to come closer to understanding.

I didn’t say you were offended, I said you were overly sensitive. I fully expect you to be aware of intermediate fossil forms. If I gave you too much credit, I apologize.

 

So you refused to spend two minutes looking up some easily accessible information, yet I’m the one that is not engaged in sincere examination of the truth. Hypocrisy fallacy.

 

“You are ignoring sound arguments because if perceived infractions of formal logical argument”

For the love of God – What “sound argument” have I ignored?

If you have provided an argument, and I have overlooked it, please restate the argument here so I can scrutinise it.

Otherwise, this is just more fallacy – yet more of you making empty, Adhominem accusations against me rather than dealing with anything of logical substance.

If an argument does not conform to the rules of logic, then the argument is illogical (i.e. not logical, irrational). It has no substance or weight of truth. It is, by definition, nonsense. It has no meaning with regards to the truth of the matter being discussed. It is literally, a waste of time for everyone involved. Conforming to logic is the most basic requirement of an argument – and yet it seems so hard for so many people.

 

“I am not aware that you posted any arguments to me”

Is that the game we are playing now?

You enter into a discussion with insinuations about me being too rigid in my adherence to logical guidelines, and insinuations about my supposed lack of familiarity with the evidence – but you were too lazy to go back in the conversation and actually consider my arguments? That indicates something of your motives and agenda concerning me (and/or people who agree with my position).

Even so, I said directly to you, that “I have argued that we are operating on different definitions of "transitional fossils" - such that the provided evidence does not address any contested issue”.

Even if you didn’t want to go back in the conversation, you could have asked me to restate my position. But you didn’t. After all, who needs to deal with pesky arguments when you are clearly so comfortable throwing around empty accusations and insinuations against an opponent? 😉

 

“What I do know is that I found information from Todd wood in two minutes that you would not look for yourself”

You posted a statement of opinion from someone who agrees with you and disagrees with me. That means literally nothing with regards to what is true in the debate about transitional fossils.

Now – presumably “Todd Wood” has an argument to support his opinion. If you had suggested an investigation of that argument, instead of some unsupported “Todd Wood said …” quote, that might have made for a meaningful discussion.

But for some reason, you think simply because “Todd Wood said” something, I have some obligation to consider changing my mind. That implication does not follow the rules of logic. The reasoning is fallacious. The argument that “Todd Wood said” something does not speak whatsoever to the truth of the issue being discussed.

 

“It seems counterproductive to spend as much time as you do critiquing formal logic while not making the slightest effort to come closer to understanding”

The purpose of logic is to provide a basis for examining the relationship between a claim and the truth. If you insist on operating outside of logic, you have no interest in truth. It is 100% “counterproductive” to invest in a conversation with someone who insists that the rules of logic are optional for them.

 

“I didn’t say you were offended, I said you were overly sensitive. I fully expect you to be aware of intermediate fossil forms. If I gave you too much credit, I apologize.”

How many times do you get to attack me with the same fallacies before I am permitted to become more direct in my criticisms of your intellectual integrity (without you having a cry to the moderators about how “unchristian” I’ve been)? Not only are you refusing to consider what I’ve said, but you are choosing to double-down on your cognitive failings.

More remarkably, you actually think you are being clever in your fallacy (when technically speaking, logic fallacies are the opposite of clever).

 

“you are not engaged in a sincere examination of the truth.

So you refused to spend two minutes looking up some easily accessible information, yet I’m the one that is not engaged in sincere examination of the truth. Hypocrisy fallacy.”

Lol. So whenever I enter an argument, rather than think for myself and defend my own position, I should rather be spending “two minutes” to find out what “Todd Wood” thinks about the issue. Because that’s how you do ‘logic’.

The answer is, self-evidently, ‘Yes’. If you are so insistent, so determined, that you are allowed to operate outside of logic, then you are absolutely, unequivocally “not engaged in a sincere examination of the truth”.

I am nevertheless impressed how you used a fallacy to accuse me of a fallacy. 😉

 

[The Barbarian]

13 hours ago, Tristen said:

You simply stating that “Dr. Wise says …” is a blatant Appeal to authority. Your suggestion that I should accept his position because “he is the authority.  He knows more about paleontology than either of us.” is a blatant Appeal to Authority.

Since I included a list of the evidence he presented, along with his reasoning (and yes, he is more qualified than either of us to say whether or not such series of transitional fossils are good evidence) you've simply misunderstood the concept of "appeal to authority."    If I merely noted his opinion, that would be an appeal to authority.   If I pointed out the evidence and his understanding of it, that is pointing out that a knowledgeable expert has good reason to believe as he does.

 An argument from authority merely presents the opinion of a knowledgeable person.   Citing a knowledgeable person shows his reasoning and the evidence on which it is based.   So Dr. Wise's reasoning is based his presentation of over a dozen transitional series (not just transitional organisms).  Hence, not an appeal to authority. 

Perhaps you don't know what a transitional is in biology.  Just so we don't get sidetracked again, what do you think it is?

 

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

You enter into a discussion with insinuations about me being too rigid in my adherence to logical guidelines

I did insinuate that, but...

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

and insinuations about my supposed lack of familiarity with the evidence

did not insinuate that. I even clarified in a subsequent post.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

That indicates something of your motives and agenda concerning me (and/or people who agree with my position).

You mistakenly applied my words to derive something that wasn't there. As a result, your conclusions about my motives and agenda are completely incorrect.

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

You posted a statement of opinion from someone who agrees with you and disagrees with me. That means literally nothing with regards to what is true in the debate about transitional fossils.

This is not the point. The point is you are making no attempt to find common ground. You use formal argumentation tactics to actually AVOID common ground.

I understand that you feel the need to champion young earth creationism, but finding common ground with Christ followers that think differently from you should be a higher goal.

[Tristen]

On 9/7/2022 at 11:11 PM, The Barbarian said:

Since I included a list of the evidence he presented, along with his reasoning (and yes, he is more qualified than either of us to say whether or not such series of transitional fossils are good evidence) you've simply misunderstood the concept of "appeal to authority."    If I merely noted his opinion, that would be an appeal to authority.   If I pointed out the evidence and his understanding of it, that is pointing out that a knowledgeable expert has good reason to believe as he does.

 An argument from authority merely presents the opinion of a knowledgeable person.   Citing a knowledgeable person shows his reasoning and the evidence on which it is based.   So Dr. Wise's reasoning is based his presentation of over a dozen transitional series (not just transitional organisms).  Hence, not an appeal to authority. 

Perhaps you don't know what a transitional is in biology.  Just so we don't get sidetracked again, what do you think it is?

 

 

“Since I included a list of the evidence he presented, along with his reasoning (and yes, he is more qualified than either of us to say whether or not such series of transitional fossils are good evidence) you've simply misunderstood the concept of "appeal to authority."”

[Meanwhile – back in reality.]

- After it being pointed out that you were Appealing to Authority, you provided a quote where your expert listed some supporting examples for his claim (the makings of an actual summary argument).

- I then offered to go with you through those examples – i.e. to scrutinize the examples to see if they qualified for Darwin’s definition of “transitional” (a finely graduated chain of fossils linking all related creatures together), or your definition of “transitional” (any fossil that shares some features with both assumed ancestor and descendant creatures).

- Your response was to ignore my offer to investigate further, and to revert to Appealing to Kurt Wise’s Authority as a “fellow creationist”, and his supposed Authority as, ‘Dr. Wise – fossil expert’.

 

“Perhaps you don't know what a transitional is in biology.  Just so we don't get sidetracked again, what do you think it is?”

Well – “perhaps” you should try asking the question without posturing that the conclusion has already been decided – i.e. that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong.

Or – “perhaps” you should go back in the conversation and read where I’ve already explicitly defined what I mean.

Shall we call this Attempt 3

In ‘Origin of Species’, Darwin devoted a chapter to ‘The Imperfection of the Geological Record’ where he describes the expectation of his “theory” – i.e. that “every geological formation and every stratum” should be “full” of fossils representing a “finely-graduated organic chain” of “intermediate links”.

Darwin was therefore expecting that we would find a “chain” of fossils - where each subsequent “link” reveals a creature that is only slightly different to the previous “link”. And the next fossil only slightly different from the previous fossil – and so-on – characterizing most of the tree of life in the fossils (i.e. linking the disparate groups together).

This is what Gould was referring to when he claimed that such examples are an “extreme rarity” – which he later toned down to “generally lacking”. He has also written, “The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution”. Gould stated very clearly, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils”. Notably, it was the stark scarcity of this expected data in the fossil record that led Gould to his conclusion of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Darwin considered this conspicuous absence of “intermediate” fossils to be “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”. Obviously, this claim has some synchronicity with YE creationism, and so the point has been reiterated by YE creationists.

More recently, the term “transitional” has been used (redefined) to refer to any creature that can be theoretically squeezed between an assumed ancestor and an assumed descendant based on some shared features. These are the types of examples Gould referred to as being “abundant”. Of course they are “abundant”. By this definition, any fossil which is not a supposed evolutionary dead-end is “transitional”. So generally speaking, it’s not a very useful definition.

Now – you can obviously use whatever definition you want. But in terms of the debate, presenting evidence according to the newer definition does not logically address (or even relate to) the concerns expressed by Darwin (and thereafter echoed by Gould and YE creationists).