Wibble: We’ve already found a multitude of intermediate forms so it seems a bit bizarre to make a prediction that doesn’t even get off the starting block.
Well to start with you need to learn the difference between a prediction and a deduction, so this doesn't bode well for the rest of your post. But talking about predictions, since if you predict both outcomes your theory is unfalsifiable, which prediction would you go with? Would you say evolution would predict finding intermediates, had we never found the fossil record until now, or would you predict we wouldn't? In this post you have argued both, meaning there is no way to infer that evolution did not happen.
I specifically have referred to intermediate forms so that you must provide them. You can't simply say they are there, you have to show how they are intermediate. That is to say, you have to show the intermediate steps for how a leg became a wing, for bats, pterodactyls, winged beetles, pterosaurs, dragonflies, etc...are you saying you can show the intermediates, that were between leg and wing? Are you saying you can show the intermediates for dugongs that have a cousin with elephants, coming on to land? Are you saying you can show the intermediates for jellyfish and seahorses.
To STATE you have found a, "multitude" of intermediates, means you can show how exapting features became what they presently are, meaning you can show how ears became ears, how legs became legs, wings became wings, eyes became eyes, organs became organs.
I should tell you, your claim a, "multitude" of intermediates have been found, will not be supported by showing one or two examples, but by showing multitudinous examples.
Wibble: I think your problem is that you are picturing evolution in a very one dimensional way. Your objections that there is a lack of transitionals relative to “complete” forms in the fossil record would only carry any weight if evolution of a particular lineage always proceeded at a consistent rate while at each and every point on that line the representative species were equally abundant and widespread.
Like I said to Popoi, if you reason it this way that means that because they are absent (which you now seemingly tacitly admit, now that you are arguing they shouldn't be there it seems) then you have to treat intermediates as different from real lifeforms. That is to say, logically your argument is now tantamount to saying that, "all the missing intermediates would be low in number, but all the real lifeforms wouldn't be, meaning we would only find real lifeforms in the fossils".
There is no escaping the logic, because deductively we have real forms in the fossils, and then there are absent intermediate forms. They don't exist, you can't show how one form became what it is. Not one solid case.
Wibble: Take your frequently stated example of the bat. Why do we only find fully formed bats you cry and no non flying ‘pre bats’ ? Well once evolution hits upon a highly advantageous formula (as would be the ability to fly, clearly) then it is likely that that first form would subsequently radiate into many bat species taking advantage of different niches, becoming widespread and abundant. However, the ‘pre bat’ may only have been a local population in a geographical limited area and/or adapted to a habitat not conducive to fossilisation like a forest. So logically, the “pre bat” is much less likely to be found as a fossil than the later “fully formed” bat of many species over a large range in different habitats. Still, very few of these will have been found as fossils but those found would appear to have no precursors due to statistical probability.
This would also be the case for everything that allegedly evolved wings, they have no intermediates. I have heard this argument before, but the problem is you have to say that every real lifeform is highly successful, but never the intermediate stages, and since we do have examples of the stages BEFORE the intermediate stages which were also highly successful by your reasoning, then logically this means evolution chose to leave a highly successful place with high numbers, take a path towards low numbers and unsuccess then when they turn back into real lifeforms that actually exist, become successful again. And this must apply to all intermediates.
Yes, yet another story for why evolution is somehow true without any evidence it is. Logically a weak story, a very tenuous case because your speculation is simply that - speculation that could be regarded as mental gymnastics.
Wibble: Clearly, examples of groups that are diverse, abundant and widespread are much more likely to be encountered than groups with opposite qualities ! Your wrong assumption is that everything through evolutionary history has been equally likely to be fossilised and found
So you're saying every real lifeform is "diverse, abundant and widespread" and all the intermediate were not? And how do you test this notion? For example, can you show evidence that a pre-bat form lived for a short while? Oh I forget how can you, for there is no evidence a pre-bat existed, so I could also equally conjecture that it wasn't a pre-bat but was some sort of spaghetti monster.
Before you say, "that's unfair", why is it? Think about it - you have zero proof a pre-bat existed and I have zero proof a spaghetti monster existed, so why can't I argue that the way to become a bat is to become a spaghetti monster as it makes evolution easier to reach a successful stage?
Wibble: That coupled with denial of the many intermediates that have been found, and denial of the robustness of our dating methods that shows the evolutionary pattern of first emergence of major groups in the fossil record allows you to remain in your creationist bubble.
Well that's twice you claimed intermediates, I expect your multitudinous examples in your next post then. Can you show the world the intermediate stages for wings, not from artwork but from the multitude of evidence you have claimed? Oh I forget, you don't have multitidinous examples because those stages are not "diverse, abundant and widespread"
Heads it's evolution if it's not there, as only intermediates aren't successful
Tails the intermediates are there despite no examples of intermediate stages.
So you have to show how legs became legs. Not once but for everything that had to evolve them. You have to show how wings became wings for all things that evolved them, and vice versa, etc....you have to show how a seahorse evolved from a fish since fish came first as a rudimentary vertebrate, etc..to prove it is an intermediate stage, it has to show how a feature was in no uncertain terms, becoming another feature we presently have. So for example with an ichthyosaur you have to show a stage between the correct fins, and limbs. The popular examples have all been refuted, and it can be shown those examples don't really "count" because of what Blitzking said, you actually have to show how the anatomy DEFINITELY was derived from a previous form. If you don't it's just speculation that it was an intermediate, but maths shows us a few things that may look like them, out of a world of millions of species, is expected, but that those forms won't really show a definite ancestral derivation of anatomy.
Indeed, Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom,3 but evolutionists had similar high hopes for the coelacanth fin. However, when a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938, the fins turned out not to be used for walking but for deft manœuvering when swimming.[T]here are functional challenges to Darwinian interpretations. For instance, in fish the head, shoulder girdle, and circulatory systems constitute a single mechanical unit. The shoulder girdle is firmly connected to the vertebral column and is an anchor for the muscles involved in lateral undulation of the body, mouth opening, heart contractions, and timing of the blood circulation through the gills.6However, in amphibians the head is not connected to the shoulder girdle, in order to allow effective terrestrial feeding and locomotion. Evolutionists must suppose that the head became incrementally detached from the shoulder girdle, in a step-wise fashion, with functional intermediates at every stage. However, a satisfactory account of how this might have happened has never been given.’
Wibble, there are none mate. I don't mind if you accept evolution theory but don't pretend there are intermediates unless you can show me your multitudinous examples AND how they must be anatomically derived. In the above example, they don't show they are anatomically derived so it is merely SPECULATED that tiktaalik was an intermediate, because a happy coincidence with some strange fish made for living a particular way, gives a superficial appearance-of-evo because of mosaic features (plesiomorphies from either tetrapod or fish but not intermediate between fish and tetrapod). These aren't intermediates, you simply SAY they are.
Like Mike said, if it's just another "just so" story of how intermediates have somehow not been captured in time, then we might as well also accept superman-theory; (message one)
That's the problem - you could invent any excuse for evolution but the fact it doesn't turn up in the fossils, is anything but, "statistically probable". Nor can it's absence be the predicted evidence for if we enter that kind of weak conjecture then it isn't even science any more for I could argue the same for spaghetti monsters filling the gaps, and reason some imaginative reason why we wouldn't expect to see them if they had existed.
Imagine if I said a Martian war destroyed Mars leaving no evidence there were ever any martians and gave a clever explanation of why we would find exactly what we would see, that being nothing. Is, "nothing" really the best evidence of Martian existence? In the same way, is, "nothing" really good evidence for evolution? If we accept such tenuous ad-hoc reasoning solely invented as an escape for the fact the predicted evidence is not there, then really I have shown we could also accept any absurd thing. For example your story that intermediates were not diverse and successful, you state that as though it is a scientific fact but nobody has ever tested it. It is like me saying this; "spaghetti monsters with slow metabolisms could still exist because we know from real life forms things with slow metabolism exist."
Goodness grief, how does that make a pre-bat a reality? There is no functional stage you can show for any bat between limbs and wings, without selection culling the freak as soon as it lost it's claw.