Defining "transitional"

[Mike Summers 454]

Defining a transitional

What are some of the characteristics a transitional needs?

For example:
1.) Must be upwardly compatible to transfer "evolved" genetic material to the evolving body type.

2.) It would seem that there be some consistancy in direction.

Feel free to add or crticize.

[Blitzking 1,998]

I Have had evolutionists assure me that each and every single living thing that we observe is a "Transitional"... How deluded can one be..

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Blitz, that is what a lot of evolutionists do. If they accept evolution then it follows that everything is a transitional, so I know why they have to believe that but the truth is it's a tautological definition, meaning it is worthless because there is no way to falsify the notion.

 

The true reason why people change with each generation has nothing to do with, "transitioning" like they may have told you, as that is another popular argument evolutionists tend to go with. In fact the 6 odd % of heterozygosity in the human genome guarantees endless variability without any evolution. Mathematically it can be proved that the number is more than known atoms in the universe, of any given number of possible diverse offspring.

 

So I would say Mike, the truly defining feature is found in the word, "transition" itself.

 

So  transition, as claimed by evolution theory, MUST show that it is anatomically derived from a progenitor, rather than just being something that looks like it evolved.

 

So for example, if evolutionists claim an Ichthyosaur, which is a sea-going reptile, evolved from a four-legged land-reptile progenitor, the "transitions" would show how the legs, step-wise, evolved into fins, and all of the problems with evolving such a creature, could be observed.

 

For example, with the transitionals from fish to amphibian, you would have to see step-wise, how the head being disconnected from the shoulder girdle in amphibians, was step-wise achieved in the evolution of fish, by showing how it transitioned by evolution.

 

In fact usually you will find mosaic features which can usually create a logical disjunction, ( a true dichotomy) of;

 

"either the feature is amphibian, or fish".

 

That is to say, the so called, "transitionals" will usually have a number of complete features, from that which they are allegedly evolving from, or evolving too, but never will they have transitional features between the respective anatomies.

 

So as an example, if we take birds and dinosaurs, feathers are an apomorphy to birds belonging to the group, birds. The alleged, "transitionals" between birds and dinosaurs will either have feathers or not have feathers, (remember the dichotomy, "either", "or") but they will never be found to have intermediate features between scales and feathers, like a transition would be expected to have.

 

They say feathers evolved from scales, but scales are part of a skin shed as a whole. Anatomically it would make much more sense to say feathers evolved from hairs, as hairs have follicles. Lol. So they conjecture this strange fuzzy proto-feather existed.

 

We never find such a proto-feather between scales and feathers, but like I said, according to my true dichotomy, you will always find features in these alleged transitionals, which are either from the thing it is purportedly evolving from, or from the thing it is purportedly becoming. (either X or P) but you will never find a true transitional feature, according to the definition of the term, "transition", which is between X and P.

 

...Judge and jury, ....I rest my case.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

This quick diagram may explain better what I meant in message #3 of this topic. Basically mosaic features shared with one group and the other group will be used to CLAIM, "transitions" of evolution, when in fact they share features of either which doesn't mean those anatomical features were derived from the progenitor;

 

[mike the wiz 1,210]

[popoi 1,078]

Is there any possible transitional form between a fin and a foot that couldn't be rationalized as just a specialized fin or foot?

[what if 1,650]

I Have had evolutionists assure me that each and every single living thing that we observe is a "Transitional"... How deluded can one be..

and it's true.

you are a "transition" between your parents and your children.

what evolutionists are hoping is, that you will take that to mean one lifeform can eventually change into a completely different one.

science has not demonstrated that this can happen.

let's not start the "ya gotta wait millions of years" stuff.

computer programs can reduce the time span by a factor of at least a billion, possibly a trillion.

IOW, a process that takes 10 million years can be modeled on a computer in about a month.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Popoi: Is there any possible transitional form between a fin and a foot that couldn't be rationalized as just a specialized fin or foot? 

 

Actually the Tiktaalik fin looks to me like some of the bones are more rugged, there seems to be some similarity to that of tetrapods. I would say it is fair to at least say as an evolutionist; "it is the type of evidence we might expect if it's on it's way to being a tetrapod".

 

The real problem is, how do we differentiate? I think the answer is, that we might also expect it's head to be transitional from fish's head/girdle, attached as one unit. The complex transitional changes are never seen. The simple ones seem easier to say are transitions.

 

This is what is happening and is what happens, they just seem to find a myriad of species which all have parts from each. For example artiodactyls have some whale-like features, but then so do oil birds and bats, for they also have echolocation.

 

So I am not so unfair as to say, "this fin is NOT an expected evidence", as I don't pretend to have knowledge I don't have. Heck I don't know for sure, no-one can so I wouldn't say it doesn't qualify as such, but it isn't clear-cut really, I think if it didn't evolve you could still claim it is a transition but my question to you is, what if it wasn't, but just is an appearance of transition? It's a strong possibility, where organisms are between environments, that they will look like transitionals.

[what if 1,650]

computer programs can reduce the time span by a factor of at least a billion, possibly a trillion.

IOW, a process that takes 10 million years can be modeled on a computer in about a month.

i have an applet where i can write programs and then run them.

i wrote a simple program that increases a variable by one.

IOW, it counts up from 1, 2, 3, . . . etc.

i let this program run for one minute.

it had counted to 2,518,814, that's 41,980 counts per second.

my computer is at least 10 years old and it isn't optimized for genetic research.

the time span is of no issue in the demonstration of common ancestrY

 

i wrote a more complex program that takes the square root of 2 random numbers, adds them, then takes the square root of the result.

i let this program run for one minute.

it had performed the above operations 789,747 times, 13,162 per second.

keep in mind that my computer is old, and only one.

it's not implausible for science to have at least 20 or so, with the latest technology, networked together.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

"What If" what would you say a jellyfish purportedly 500 million years old has "transitioned" into in 500 million years of reproduction? You guessed it, the offspring as transitioned into jellyfish, so to say our children are transitionals between parents and children, yes - if you mean they transition from individual humans, to individual humans, I can accept that, but obvious that's all that can be meant by, "transition" in this context because we have been transitioning humans into humans for thousands of years. You get humans.

[what if 1,650]

"What If" what would you say a jellyfish purportedly 500 million years old has "transitioned" into in 500 million years of reproduction? You guessed it, the offspring as transitioned into jellyfish, so to say our children are transitionals between parents and children, yes - if you mean they transition from individual humans, to individual humans, I can accept that, but obvious that's all that can be meant by, "transition" in this context because we have been transitioning humans into humans for thousands of years. You get humans.

without intermediates, we could say it transitioned into anything.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Fair enough. I only mention it because I hate the argument evolutionists sometimes use, that says we ourselves are transitionals of evolution because we are different from our parents. It's actually a biological fact that the genetics allow for those differences.

 

That is to say, had evolution never occurred, of any type, heck even micro evolution, then we would still see the next generation differ from their parents because when the dna is joined, one half from momma and one half from poppa, each allele for the loci whether it be dominant or not, this event is unique each time, and is randomly merged.

 

6% of the human genome consists of heterozygous loci which means a different allele from momma than poppa and about 94% homozygous which means the same gene from momma as from poppa. So that 6% when it randomly comes together, means one child might get blonde hair but another may get brown hair, they may have the same eye colour or may not, but also everything from nose shape, to types of fingers, etc.. is a unique event each time.

 

So why am I waffling about this? Because biologically we can 100% prove that it has absolutely nothing to do with evolution because biologically it is GUARANTEED to happen with each new child. They are guaranteed to be uniquely different but this is not an evo-transition. 

 

I'm not attacking you as I know you wouldn't call it a macro transition but this particular argument is one many evolutionists seem to think has something to do with evolution, it just doesn't, it's the random merging of male and female dna, every time. Also you as a parent, for however many children you have, are a unique set of dna for you, meaning the next generation will have new parents, which again compounds the fact our children will be forever varied in how they appear.

 

(or some such thing)

[what if 1,650]

I'm not attacking you as I know you wouldn't call it a macro transition but this particular argument is one many evolutionists seem to think has something to do with evolution, it just doesn't, . . .

it could, and probably is, a very tiny snapshot.

but that is all you would have, you would need a series of them.

there apparently isn't this series in the fossil record.

although, to be fair, i must say the evidence for common ancestry is "overwhelming" and "impressive".

this evidence must be genetic in nature, and genetic analysis requires a great deal of statistics.

so, let the buyer beware.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

What If: it could, and probably is, a very tiny snapshot.

 

No, it isn't a tiny snapshot of macro evolution, if it was how many generations has there been since an identical jellyfish to todays was buried in the cambrian? or a snail or the 400 million year old millipede or dragon fly? Since they are pretty much identical, then this type of snapshot of macro evolution would mean that jellyfish take 945 billion years to macro evolve.   

 

As I explained, the alternative genes you get, guarantee that there is 0% possibility, that when mom and dad mate, that the child will either be identical to mom or identical to dad. That means if we take the first mom and dad they will produce a unique child, and it has absolutely jack squat to do with evolution, provably.

 

So when I say, "provably" I don't mean, "hey I'm throwing out an opinion here", no, what I am saying is if macro evolution never existed, we could do an experiment for nine months and a child would come out, and it would be different from the parents, because these facts of biology do not depend or require macro evolution.

 

 

 

What If: In eukaryotes, recombination during meiosis is facilitated by chromosomal crossover. The crossover process leads to offspring having different combinations of genes from those of their parents, 

(from wiki)

 

So this is known to be caused by genetics, random shuffling. When I say it has nothing to do with macro evolution, what I am saying is that to argue it does is like saying that giraffe anatomy has something to do with photosynthesis, or maths is something to do with history. So you have to realise genetics alone causes the differences in offspring, not evolutionary transition.

 

 

Conclusion: if evolution does not happen, this still would provably happen because of chromosomal crossover and the differences of alternative alleles. Proving macro evolution is not causing it.

 

EXAMPLE; you catch fleas, and your neighbours dog used to have fleas. You argue the dog gave them to you but an expert finds out that the source of your fleas is eggs in the carpet from when your sister's cat came to stay for the night to watch the wrestling on the TV with you. Now if you get rid of the dog, and the dog has now been gone away for four years, you will still get the fleas if you don't deal with the infestation, proving the cause is not the dog.

 

The unique differences in offspring in the same way, is proven to be because of genetics, so the only way you can say the cause is somehow evolution is if you assume evolution created the genome. But the facts alone don't show any macro-evolution, because it quite literally has nothing to do with evolution but the variation of combinations of genes. That actually IS the cause.(100% FACTUAL)

 

Example; "the moon exists". Would you dispute the moon exists as a fact? Then why dispute facts of genetics?

[what if 1,650]

No, it isn't a tiny snapshot of macro evolution, if it was how many generations has there been since an identical jellyfish to todays was buried in the cambrian? or a snail or the 400 million year old millipede or dragon fly? Since they are pretty much identical, then this type of snapshot of macro evolution would mean that jellyfish take 945 billion years to macro evolve.   

it seems you are making the false assumption that the old form dies out when the new form branches off.

the actuality is like a european coming to america.

all the rest of the europeans don't die out.

As I explained, the alternative genes you get, guarantee that there is 0% possibility, that when mom and dad mate, that the child will either be identical to mom or identical to dad. That means if we take the first mom and dad they will produce a unique child, and it has absolutely jack squat to do with evolution, provably.

genetic mutations are a fact of life for DNA.

DNA mutates itself on each generation, and most likely is an ongoing process during it's existence.

i believe it's these mutations that allows epigenetics to work.

i also have a sneaky suspicion that epigenetics is closely associated with the s@x chromosome.

if that is true, then the "hopeful monster" scenario might not be as far fetched as it sounds.

OTOH, the multiple origin scenario could be true, and if that's the case then there is no need for macro evolution at all.

 

So when I say, "provably" I don't mean, "hey I'm throwing out an opinion here", no, what I am saying is if macro evolution never existed, we could do an experiment for nine months and a child would come out, and it would be different from the parents, because these facts of biology do not depend or require macro evolution.

i'm in no position to catagorically state macro evolution is false . . . or true for that matter.

there is a reason glansdorf says LUCA appears to be a diverse community, both metabolically and morphologically.

So this is known to be caused by genetics, random shuffling. When I say it has nothing to do with macro evolution, what I am saying is that to argue it does is like saying that giraffe anatomy has something to do with photosynthesis, or maths is something to do with history. So you have to realise genetics alone causes the differences in offspring, not evolutionary transition.

here is what koonin says:

There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate.

- Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics.htm

Example; "the moon exists". Would you dispute the moon exists as a fact? Then why dispute facts of genetics?

darwinism is so entrenched that we may never get rid of it.

when a discipline is willing to falsify evidence, ingore evidence, effectively destroy evidence, you can expect anything.

 

here are the facts as i know them:

abiogenesis has not been confirmed, science has no plausible scenario for how life got here.

the question of multiple origins has not been answered.

common ancestry has not been confirmed.

[piasan 1,402]

 

.....
OTOH, the multiple origin scenario could be true, and if that's the case then there is no need for macro evolution at all.

I read somewhere a few years ago that life on Earth does not have a single common ancestor.  Instead, there may have been several (maybe as many as 5) original life forms from which all existing life has descended.

 

Unfortunately, it's one of those things I didn't bookmark then and can't find now......

[what if 1,650]

I read somewhere a few years ago that life on Earth does not have a single common ancestor.  Instead, there may have been several (maybe as many as 5) original life forms from which all existing life has descended.

 

Unfortunately, it's one of those things I didn't bookmark then and can't find now......

i have seen species trees that depict multiple origins, but it shows all life arising from only one of them.

 

it could very well be that HGT has been used so they can make this depiction.

 

Unfortunately, it's one of those things I didn't bookmark then and can't find now......

yes, it took me awhile to get into the habit of saving material to my hard drive.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

What If: here is what koonin says:

 

Oh no not him again, you use him like a cowboy draws his gun. Who is this guy, he's made a lifelong impression on you.

 

 

 

What If: it seems you are making the false assumption that the old form dies out when the new form branches off.

the actuality is like a european coming to america.

all the rest of the europeans don't die out.

 

No, I understand the hypothetics of evolution. For example, if an isolated population splits off and purportedly evolves, such as some therapods splitting off and becoming birds, the original progenitor group, larger group could remain under normalised selection but the isolated group would undergo allopatric speciation.

 

But that doesn't really pertain to some creatures. For example they have found many species unchanged in the fossils, with no evolutionary history but also there's no sign of any side branches either. Or if they speculate there are side-branches, an evolutionary bush so to speak, really it's speculation.

 

But what I am saying is that if you find a jellyfish that is 500 million years old and it looks pretty much identical to todays, then at least one lineage had to lead from that fossil, to today's living counterpart, logically.

 

Otherwise you have to say that the living jellyfish has no relation to the fossil which is identical to it. Or that the living bat had no relation to the identical fossil bat, etc..

 

Can you see what I mean?

 

So what I was saying is that there had to be 500 million years worth of jellyfish that produced identical jellyfish, and to say each new generation was a "transition" can't be right because that lineage is still anatomically identical to the ancient fossil.

 

 

 

What If: i'm in no position to catagorically state macro evolution is false . . . or true for that matter.

 

Technically nobody is, I was only saying that it is proven that genetics are the cause of variation in each new generation of people, because of chromosomal crossover.

 

This specific issue isn't caused by macro-evolution as we know it is caused by chromosomal crossover and the shuffling of heterozygous alleles. 

 

Look at it this way, prokaryotic cells don't undergo chromosomal crossover because there is no male and female, they reproduce asexually so a bacteria will look identical to it's predecessor (I hope I've understood that right, perhaps Goku could tell me if I have), so then if macro evolution is causing variation in the next generation, then we would see that variation in bacteria, but we don't because bacteria don't undergo chromosomal crossover, proving that without the crossover, there is no variation.

 

So it's not that I am saying, "evolution is false because of this", I am just saying that the sophistry some evolutionists use to make the variations in new generations seem like they are transitions of evolution, is flushbunking codswallop.

 

Not that all evolutionists use that argument, of course. Many wouldn't.

[Mike Summers 454]

As a teacher I have had several sets of identical twins in my classes. Despite the fact that they are genetically identical they had different personalities . Easy to tell the difference between the two once you got to know them. Identical twin cannot mate.

There are 3.5 billion genes in our gene pool supposedly. There is only 2/10 of a percent difference between any two human beings on planet Earth. Percentagewise that doesn't seem like a lot. But, it equals 70 million differences. That's enough to make sure there are no duplicate people on planet Earth with the exception of identical twins.

Despite the fact that they are 3.5 billion genes in our genome there is ot enough to code for language nor personality. We are self programming creatures. We acquire our language skills and personality after birth.
This proves that there is much more to us than simply biology.

[Mike Summers 454]

There is a law that says life only comes from life. Christians do not believe that God created life. They believe that God always has existed and is life. He gives life to whomever he chooses.

[what if 1,650]

So it's not that I am saying, "evolution is false because of this", I am just saying that the sophistry some evolutionists use to make the variations in new generations seem like they are transitions of evolution, is flushbunking codswallop.

yes, i agree wholeheartedly.

i think i alluded to this earlier when i said "what evolutionists are hoping is that you apply this to macro evolution".

so far, science has been unable to demonstrate how body plans change.

this could change in the next 5 to 10 years or so.

science now has the tools to cut and paste DNA at its whims, you can be sure it won't be long until science comes up with a scenario, if there is one.

 

BTW, this cutting and pasting is achieve by the cells own mechanisms, it wasn't created in the lab and then applied to the cell.

genetic palindromes are probably key sequences in this operation.

[Blitzking 1,998]

it could, and probably is, a very tiny snapshot.but that is all you would have, you would need a series of them.there apparently isn't this series in the fossil record.although, to be fair, i must say the evidence for common ancestry is "overwhelming" and "impressive".this evidence must be genetic in nature, and genetic analysis requires a great deal of statistics.so, let the buyer beware.

 

"although, to be fair, i must say the evidence for common ancestry is "overwhelming" and "impressive".

 

 

Not this again... Lets beat that dead horse some more and see if that ol nag can come back to life again..

 

 

Just what is this "Overwhelming" and "Impressive" so called "Evidence" for UCA for all flora and fauna..

 

You are all over the map.. I still dont have any idea where you are coming from ir if you are just pushing buttons for entertainment..

[what if 1,650]

Just what is this "Overwhelming" and "Impressive" so called "Evidence" for UCA for all flora and fauna..

i haven't seen the evidence, but i assume that a large part of it is the commonality of DNA to all life.

koonin uses the term overwhelming.

james tour, a creationist, uses the term impressive.

OTOH, science has been unable to demonstrate it.

plus, we have glansdorf saying LUCA appears to be a community of prokaryotes.

you be the judge.

You are all over the map..

yes, i'm trying to touch all the bases.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

What If: science now has the tools to cut and paste DNA at its whims, you can be sure it won't be long until science comes up with a scenario, if there is one.

 

I'd bet one million pounds they won't come up with any evolutionary answer to the design in organisms. They never have. Darwinian evolution is a victorian story, think how many failed predictions there are now. Think how many times they've had to say, evolution mark 2, evolution mark 3.

 

We are on 3 now, with a mixture of punctuated equilibrium and neo. First it was natural selection, so they used glue to make evolution work and called it neo-Darwism. Then when it was too obvious that stasis is all we see and they have to come up with at least some attempt to make it fit evolution, they used sellotape and called it punctuated equilibrium.

 

By analogy what does this remind you of? I can think of an analogy. Imagine I said to you that an orange snooker ball exists. (there is no such thing as an orange ball in snooker.), so I said, "well, we can't see one on Bob's table, so let's check the pockets."

 

No joy, no orange ball in the pockets. Excuse 1 gone.

 

Okay, so maybe Bob keeps the orange ball and doesn't use it, and that's why we see all the other balls but not the orange because simply by choice he prefers to not play the orange. Okay, so let's look around his house, in all his hiding areas. So we search the whole house and find squat.

 

Excuse 2 gone. Beginning to see a pattern here? It's like Mikes Summers says, all you need is an imagination in order to propose any number of possibilities but what about the little thing called, reality?

 

So finally we say, "AHA! We shall check the snooker set box, because each ball has a compartment, we can fit all of the balls into their place and there will be one compartment left empty where the orange ball should go!"

 

So we put all the balls in the box and there is no space for the orange. 

 

Question; At what stage do we conclude there is no orange ball?

 

For example, do we go so far as to say; "well, Bob must have got a snooker set custom made, because he didn't want to use the orange ball, so he got one with one less compartment and has now lost his orange ball or put it in the trash, which is obvious because it would make sense for him to lose it if he no longer uses it."

 

So from my perspective, there is no macro evolution, it only exists in the sense that an orange snooker ball exists. If you can give me a reason to believe the orange ball exists, then I will also believe evolution does.

[Blitzking 1,998]

it could, and probably is, a very tiny snapshot.but that is all you would have, you would need a series of them.there apparently isn't this series in the fossil record.although, to be fair, i must say the evidence for common ancestry is "overwhelming" and "impressive".this evidence must be genetic in nature, and genetic analysis requires a great deal of statistics.so, let the buyer beware.

"although, to be fair, i must say the evidence for common ancestry is "overwhelming" and "impressive".

 

 

Not this again... Lets beat that dead horse some more and see if that ol nag can come back to life again..

 

 

Just what is this "Overwhelming" and "Impressive" so called "Evidence" for UCA for all flora and fauna..

 

You are all over the map.. I still dont have any idea where you are coming from ir if you are just pushing buttons for entertainment..

 

 

I feel like We are playing a game called "Whack a Mole" You pop up, get smacked down, pop up again somewhere else, get smacked down.. And up you come again.. Ignoring or forgetting the continued smack downs from before.. Over and over again....

 

Let me repeat again There exists ZERO Evidence for UCA for all Flora and Fauna that conforms to the Scientific Method... If you think differently, please present it.. But you wont.. Because you cant.. Because it DOESNT EXIST....

 

Btw...Just typing the word "Epigenetics" isnt going to cut the mustard on this forum....