Does that mean that, unless we can find actual records of our own specific ancestors during the Middle Ages, we cannot infer how our ancestors lived, and what societal changes they were subjected to over the centuries? This would seem to be directly analogous to the fallacious argument you are making.
Anybody would think that no evilutionist had ever exposed you to the concept of collateral descent, and the fact that closely-related species frequently share the transitional features of each other, so that we can gain understanding of our past from these âuncleâ and âauntâ species. But the idea that you havenât been exposed to this concept is as absurd as your argument.
no. there is a different between transitional form which is belong to the same âkindâ (such as human vs human) and between âtransitional formâ between two different âkindsâ (such as monkey vs human). since we cant prove that human evolved from a fish, we cant prove that any fossil of different kind was the close ancestor (not a direct one of course, as an answer to crisprcas and timothy horton) of another fossil.
i think that you confuse genetic similarity with genetic identity.
@Tim, @Timothy_Horton, @Faizal_Ali, @Witchdoc, and I have all replied to your most recent comment with the exact same point: Your comment demonstrates a misunderstanding of the actual claims of evolution and the actual meaning of âtransitionalâ. I think it would be for the best if you acknowledged this error on your part and correct your language before you reply to anything else that may have been said.
To everyone else (tagged or not):
Iâd suggest not engaging with scd until such time as this point has been addressed. If scd is unable or unwilling to make a correction on this rather obvious point, correction on any other point is extremely unlikely. So just ignore anything posted until such time as a correction is made. Obviously this is only my opinion as I lack any moderation privileges.
To any actual moderators: My reading of the rules suggests that encouraging a âboycottâ of another user is within bounds. My apologies if this is incorrect.
Not even about âcloseâ ancestry. Not even about a close relative of an ancestor. You still need to actually learn what the theory actually says and what the words actually mean as they are actually used.
Yes, it is an analogy. This means that the circumstances do not have to be identical to each other, merely comparable. We should thus add English to Science as fields that SCD is obdurately ignorant of.
Specifically as I was using societal change as an analogy for paleontological change. This means that your claim as to âkindsâ, even if it had merit, is utterly and completely irrelevant.
Your declaration that âmonkey vs humanâ are âtwo different âkindsââ would appear to be purely arbitrary. It has no basis in science, but is rather founded upon a slavish and dogmatic devotion to the beliefs of a heretical Christian (Ellen G. Write), filtered first through those of a poorly-educated armchair geologist (George McCready Price) and thence through a theologian and a hydrolic engineer (Whitcomb and Morris).
Even if I take your âtwo kindsâ objection as distinguishing, it is trivially easy to modify my analogy to fit it. All I have to do is posit a hypothetical âsocietal essentialistâ who claims that (Pre-Norman) Anglo-Saxon society and modern English society are two different âkindsâ of society; that one could not have evolved into the other; and that all records of medieval English society in between are actually of degenerate anomalies in modern English society, rather than of the transition from Anglo-Saxon to modern English. (I would of course consider these views to be nonsensical, but no more nonsensical than the essentialist views of YEC.)
Your objection fails, completely independently, on so many different level, that it is quite hilarious.
no problem. what is your definition of âtransitional formâ and how that is so different from my earlier claim about âtransitional formsâ in desgined objects?
any group of animals that where able to reproduce in their creation moment.
Australopithecines and various Homo species all have a mixture of features from modern humans and other apes. They are transitional, by definition. You will also notice that transitional is not a synonym for ancestral. Please stop conflating those terms.
The theory of evolution predicts that there should have been species in the past who had a mixture of basal ape features and derived human features. Thatâs exactly what we see in the transitional hominid species. The theory of evolution also predicts that we wonât see species with a mixture of basal ape and derived dog features, or derived ungulate features. We donât see that. The mixtures of features predicted by the consensus evolutionary phylogeny are the mixtures we see.
Well, the really weird thing is that most creationists will have no problem accepting that humans belong to the categories vertebrate or eukaryote but will strongly deny belonging to the categories animal or ape.
Why would it be productive for me to tell you again? A half dozen people have told you the same thing in this thread and others. Review everyoneâs prior comments and see if you canât manage to synthesize it for yourself.
Iâm not sure anyone even got to that claim, as you were already so monumentally wrong in the prior sentence that nothing in the next could possibly have done anything but make things worseâŚ
and its also true for many designed objects. for instance: a jeep is a âtransitional formâ between a car and a truck.
i didnt said otherwise (see in my previous comment).
and again, its also true for designed objects. and yet we all know they are the result of design.
i dont think so, since evolution has no problem with âconvergent evolutionâ. so such a species isnt impossible by evolution.
no. we can well assess which species are considered to be of the same âkindâ. but we cant know it for sure, mostly because of gene loss (image from wiki):
no. as you can see with the felid case- we can get good idea in general. just not a perfect one.
so we cant differentiate between a banana and a cat?
As has been explained many times now, designed objects donât fall into a nested hierarchy.
You did say otherwise:
âbasically any fossil cant be consider as transitional, since we cant prove these animals evolved from each other.â
Thatâs false. The only thing we consider is morphology. If the fossil has a mixture of modern human and basal ape features then it is transitional, by definition.
Then you think wrong. The theory of evolution predicts a nested hierarchy, and that is what we see.
Then I assess humans as being in the vertebrate kind.
Is it possible this discussion has wandered off topic? Perhaps participants should make new threads as this happens. Let me know if you need help moving comments.
The fossil and archeological evidences donât support this claim but support the notion that Australopithecines were apish creatures whereas the various Homo types were human creatures devoid of transitional traits.
âApishâ. Uh huh. So exactly what sort of features prevent you from simply calling them âapesâ rather than âapishâ. Do they have features of dolphins? Ostriches? Daffodils? Or what?
