What makes a transitional organism transitional?

[Tristen]

On 8/27/2022 at 8:41 AM, The Barbarian said:

Rather, he is the authority.  He knows more about paleontology than either of us.

As you see, you were just confused as to what Gould says.

Didn't say it was.  I'm just pointing out that if YE creationism were true we wouldn't say any transitional fossils.   And yet the are abundant, accourding to Gould whom you cited.   (They are not common between species, but are common from genera on up, and of course, since most YE creationists admit that new species come from old species, that's not at issue)

Well, let's look at that...

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.

Kurt Wise   Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

No, it's merely accepting evidence as it is.   We know that in every case for which we know the descent of organisms, DNA analyses predicts the descent.   Your argument is that it doesn't work if we can't know descent by other means.   But it does.  For example, if you were to do the analysis first, and then learn about the descent, it would still work.

If you were to analyze DNA (for example of wolves, Tasmanian devils and kangaroos) without knowning anything about paleontology or anatomy, it would still give you the correct phylogeny even without know that the wolves would be the outgroup.

But since YE creationists have conceded evolution of new species and genera (occasionally families) , it's a moot point, isn't it?

Just for the record; do you agree with other YE creationists that new species, genera, and (sometimes families) are produced by other taxa?

(continued in next post)

 

 

“Here you are accusing Kurt Wise of the logic fallacy Appealing to Authority

Rather, he is the authority.  He knows more about paleontology than either of us.”

Do I need to explain again why Appeals to Authority (or Appeals to Expertise) are logic fallacies? Did you miss that part in my last post? Or do you simply not care to argue in accordance with the rules of logic?

The fallacy known as an Appeal to Authority is a simple concept in logic. How can we expect to discuss complicated things if you refuse to come to terms with simple structures of logic?

- Authorities/Experts can be wrong/mistaken

- Authorities/Experts can exaggerate and/or overstate claims

- Authorities/Experts can have their own biases and/or agendas and/or worldviews - which influence how they interact with the data

- Authorities/Experts can lie

- Authorities/Experts commonly have disagreements between themselves

Because of any one of the above truths, Authority/Expertise/Credentials do not contribute whatsoever to the logical validity of a conclusion. Only a supporting argument is relevant to the validity of the conclusion – and not the credentials of the one making the claim.

Now – we could fairly assume that someone with Expertise has some learned capacity to provide a quality argument. And their credentials could be a determinant as to whether or not they are worth hearing/considering/referencing. Nevertheless, only the argument itself logically supports the conclusion. The credentials of the arguer are entirely irrelevant to the legitimacy of the conclusion.

No one is ever logically obligated to accept a conclusion purely on the basis of the arguer’s credentials. To suggest such is a breach of this simple rule of logic. Likewise, any suggestion that I have no right to contest the claim of an Expert is an Appeal to Authority.

 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Do I need to explain again why Appeals to Authority (or Appeals to Expertise) are logic fallacies?

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

"This can be a fallacy if the referenced person does not have proper authority."
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/appeal-to-authority/

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

Authorities/Experts can be wrong/mistaken

Nevertheless, knowing what one is talking about is a huge advantage.

"There are two fallacies people have about experts.  First is that experts know everything.   The second is that anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's."

Robert Heinlein

I'll still listen to my doctor about whether or not I'll need an operation, regardless of what my accountant says.

3 hours ago, Tristen said:

No one is ever logically obligated to accept a conclusion purely on the basis of the arguer’s credentials.

Happens all the time.   A neighbor says "it's time to refinance your house."    I go to an expert on real estate and get her input.   And I pay more attention to what she says.  Which is a logical decision.   Either or both could be wrong.   But the likelihood of the real estate professional being wrong is less. 

We all have to make decisions based on incomplete information and go with what we see as the likelihoods.   That's perfectly logical.  

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by The Barbarian

[Dave-regenerated]

The Barbarian, are you an atheist?  Yes or no please

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, Dave-regenerated said:

The Barbarian, are you an atheist?  Yes or no please

If you are, then one of us is.   I'm an Apostolic Trinitarian Christian.  Roman Catholic.  Are you an atheist?   Feel free to tell us in detail, if you want.

For maybe the fifth time, are you going to show us that math that rules out evolution and show us which law of thermodynamics rules out any process required for evolution?

If you don't have any idea whether or not those idea are right, and just trusted that guy in the video, just copy his evidence and show us.

How hard would that be for you?

 

 

Edited August 31, 2022 by The Barbarian

[Dave-regenerated]

18 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

If you are, then one of us is.   I'm an Apostolic Trinitarian Christian.  Roman Catholic.  Are you an atheist?   Feel free to tell us in detail, if you want.

For maybe the fifth time, are you going to show us that math that rules out evolution and show us which law of thermodynamics rules out any process required for evolution?

If you don't have any idea whether or not those idea are right, and just trusted that guy in the video, just copy his evidence and show us.

How hard would that be for you?

 

 

What is an Apostolic Trinitarian Christian?

[The Barbarian]

8 minutes ago, Dave-regenerated said:

What is an Apostolic Trinitarian Christian?

A Christian who follows the apostles' teachings and who holds that there are three persons in one God.

For maybe the sixth time, are you going to show us that math that rules out evolution and show us which law of thermodynamics rules out any process required for evolution?

If you don't have any idea whether or not those idea are right, and just trusted that guy in the video, just copy his evidence and show us.

How hard would that be for you?   I notice you declined to say whether or not you're an atheist.   Why is that?

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by The Barbarian

[Dave-regenerated]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

A Christian who follows the apostles' teachings and who holds that there are three persons in one God.

For maybe the sixth time, are you going to show us that math that rules out evolution and show us which law of thermodynamics rules out any process required for evolution?

If you don't have any idea whether or not those idea are right, and just trusted that guy in the video, just copy his evidence and show us.

How hard would that be for you?   I notice you declined to say whether or not you're an atheist.   Why is that?

 

Who are the apostles?

[The Barbarian]

For maybe the seventh time, are you going to show us that math that rules out evolution and show us which law of thermodynamics rules out any process required for evolution?  You said you'd answer those questions, and now you're stonewalling.  

There never was any math or science for this, was there?  

If you don't have any idea whether or not those idea are right, and just trusted that guy in the video, just copy his evidence and show us.

How hard would that be for you?   I notice you declined to say whether or not you're an atheist.   Why is that?

Edited September 1, 2022 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

I guess we're never going to see that stuff.   Darn.   I was really looking forward to it.

 

[Dave-regenerated]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

I guess we're never going to see that stuff.   Darn.   I was really looking forward to it.

 

I'll get to it by and by.  I wanted to ask you some questions first.  Who are the apostles?