Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
mike the wiz

Why The Transitionals Aren't Transitionals

Recommended Posts

When they found a lizard track 18 my before tetrapods, an evolution scientist said this;

"The closest elpistostegids were probably contemporaneous with these tracks," he said. "We now have to invent a common ancestor to the tetrapods and elpistostegids"

The elpistostegids WERE the transitionals for a group of organism, tetrapods. But what he is saying here is that, NOW THEY ARE NOT. (and before these claims, they used to believe the coelacanth was the ancestor until they found a live one. Lol.)

Similarly, Bonedigger told me that the transitionals for whales used to be mesonychids IIRC, but are NOW considered to be the artiodactyls.

In other words, the list of transitionals evolutionists usually provide along with their oft parroted claim that, "the transitionals have been found, we have LOADS of them", from the point of view of critical analysis would represent a sort of illogical, generic gibberish evolutionists repeat ad nauseam.

But that list has to be the weakest possible list, and not even close to factually proving transitionals if those facts can become, "not facts" when they change their minds. (talk about unconvincing.)

Because if your list of transitionals EVOLVES, then how on earth is it proof any of them are transitionals given they would represent the tiniest percentage of the whole?

Think about it, if you shown me the full list of transitionals, perhaps twenty years ago that list would be deemed to not be transitionals, or distant cousins or whatever, according to the science mainstream.

So logically how can you be personally CERTAIN it is a list of the transitionals of evolution? For example with the arboreal theory of avian evolution a crocodilomorph is supposed to be the ancestor (or one of them) to birds, but with the cursorial theory, therapods. 

Each evolutionist will give reasons why the other theory is false. Logically speaking, BOTH objections from both sides are sound objections, meaning we can infer that NEITHER were the ancestors of birds.

Logical deduction wins the day, yet again.

So in this opening message I believe there are two very powerful facts which means we can dismiss the transitionals evolutionists claim to be transitionals.

1. Slothful induction fallacy. No matter what word you used such as, "loads" or, "multitudinous", the problem is, those are just words. In reality the cleverer people know that it's really about the percentage compared to the whole. That is to say, if everything on earth evolved then the transitionals would be so numerous that the SUM TOTAL FIGURE would be VAST. This is something evolutionist scientists would be forced to acknowledge and likely would acknowledge so forgive me if a few amateur turkeys on a website don't agree because even your scientists would be forced to agree with me, that you simply can't avoid the mathematics.

Given that is the case, what do you actually have? About 1% of the sum total at best, which are;

2. An evolving list. The transitionals of yesteryear have become cousins or distant cousins, and are replaced each decade when falsification evidence of things found which would precede the things that supposed to have evolved into them, cause abandoned lineages. 

CONCLUSION: AT the very, very least, logical rules can show that you cannot know if any of these things you believe by faith in evolution, are actually transitionals. Indeed, some candidates are so farcical that the nearest, "ancestor" or, "transition", is something like this, by example, which has no transitional features and is simply put on the transitionals list because there aren't any real transitionals.

zeezzzee.jpg.3c350c87be4ddb8b6423678726692c8c.jpg

CONCLUSION: For those evolutionists that would argue it is a FACT that your transitional list representing a tiny percentage, are transitions of evolution, then if you had stated that about the list twenty years ago, many of those, "factual transitions" on that list, would now not be factual.

The rational thing to do here, is to acknowledge the tiny evolving list of transitionals is simply mistaken identity because the percentage is so small. They wouldn't have to renew that list if evolution was true and it is easy to explain that small percentage as simply mistaken identity, that they are not really transitionals of evolution, because the alternative is to explain away the majority of the evidence. 

So often do we hear evolutionists say we should dismiss evidence of youth and favour the majority of the evidence, so the correct logic here is to acknowledge the majority of the evidence; an absence of an evolutionary history, and admit you have just invented an evolution, which isn't really an evolution. This is an easy mistake to make, where there are millions of species, or millions of designed things. We can provably show where humans create thousands of designed things such as vehicles, it is easy to take a small percentage as an evolution, but it's simply mistaken identity.

What more is needed to refute the transitionals than;

1. Slothful induction, it's an undeniable FACT the percentage you have is TINY.

2. The list evolves, so why should we take it as a list of FACTUAL transitions?

3. We can easily show if you have millions of designed things with many close matches, you can get a small percentage appear to be an evolution when it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BIG problem with Evolutionists claiming that ANY bones we find in the ground are "Transitionals" is actually quite simple.. ALL that they can possibly know by observing those bones is that something died that WAS alive at some point in the past.. SOMETIMES they can conclude WHAT KIND of living organism it was, SOMETIMES they cannot.. That is ALL that can POSSIBLY be known about ANY fossil....

Can they know WHEN it lived? NOPE

Can they know if it had ANY offspring? NOPE

Can they know that EVEN IF it had any offspring, that they would have been DIFFERENT in any relevant way? NOPE

Can they know if ANY of it's ancestors were different in any relevant way? NOPE

So at the end of the day, all that they are left with is the very fertile Atheistic IMAGINATION..

But THAT is more than good enough for THEM as they dont NEED any evidence to believe in something that they desperately want to believe ANYWAY!! And this is simply due to an emotional attachment to the fairytale of Evolutionism because its IMPLICATIONS happen to align with their philosophical worldview... It has ZERO to do with science and never did.. 

 

2 Timothy 4:3-4

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."

"DARWIN MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN INTELLECTUALLY FULFILLED ATHEIST" 

RICHARD DAWKINS 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

So logically how can you be personally CERTAIN it is a list of the transitionals of evolution?

I don't think anyone said you could, at least not in a way that wouldn't be subject to later revision if new evidence is found.  As Colin Patterson said shortly after he said something else creationists love taking out of context: ". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."  We most likely can't know if something is a direct ancestor, but we can identify things that were around at the right time and have the right features that are very likely to be similar to those ancestors.

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

For example with the arboreal theory of avian evolution a crocodilomorph is supposed to be the ancestor (or one of them) to birds, but with the cursorial theory, therapods. 

Each evolutionist will give reasons why the other theory is false. Logically speaking, BOTH objections from both sides are sound objections, meaning we can infer that NEITHER were the ancestors of birds.

Logical deduction wins the day, yet again.

I doubt both sides of that dispute have conclusive evidence the other is wrong.  My guess (if there's any truth to the scenario at all) is that both sides have evidence they think supports their theory, but overall there's not enough to conclusively decide on one or the other, or some as yet unknown third thing.

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

So in this opening message I believe there are two very powerful facts which means we can dismiss the transitionals evolutionists claim to be transitionals.

1. Slothful induction fallacy. No matter what word you used such as, "loads" or, "multitudinous", the problem is, those are just words. In reality the cleverer people know that it's really about the percentage compared to the whole. That is to say, if everything on earth evolved then the transitionals would be so numerous that the SUM TOTAL FIGURE would be VAST. This is something evolutionist scientists would be forced to acknowledge and likely would acknowledge so forgive me if a few amateur turkeys on a website don't agree because even your scientists would be forced to agree with me, that you simply can't avoid the mathematics.

Given that is the case, what do you actually have? About 1% of the sum total at best, which are;

Let's see some math then.  What percentage of transitionals should we expect to find, and why?

Have any evolutionist scientists actually acknowledged your claim?

The problem is that you're basing this on assumptions about how evolution would have to work that I don't think have any real basis to them.  You're assuming that a large number of transitional forms would mean a large number of fossils, but it's possible (I'd say more than likely) that a lot of transitional forms might pass without anywhere close to the same number of individuals as you'd get in a form that was more successful and stable.

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

2. An evolving list. The transitionals of yesteryear have become cousins or distant cousins, and are replaced each decade when falsification evidence of things found which would precede the things that supposed to have evolved into them, cause abandoned lineages. 

If you're upset by scientists revising conclusions in light of new evidence, I'd recommend you brace yourself before you read anything about the entire rest of the history of science.  It's gonna get bumpy for you.

5 hours ago, mike the wiz said:

We can provably show where humans create thousands of designed things such as vehicles, it is easy to take a small percentage as an evolution, but it's simply mistaken identity.

You can, but in the absence of an actual evolutionary history, it's more or less inevitable that you'll find conflicting histories that aren't resolvable because there is no actual lineage there.  I've been asking for examples of that from the history of life, and so far all I've seen is examples of conflicts being successfully resolved and continuing to make sense according to multiple lines of evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2020 at 3:10 AM, popoi said:

I don't think anyone said you could, at least not in a way that wouldn't be subject to later revision if new evidence is found.  As Colin Patterson said shortly after he said something else creationists love taking out of context: ". . .Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."  We most likely can't know if something is a direct ancestor, but we can identify things that were around at the right time and have the right features that are very likely to be similar to those ancestors.

But then isn't that kind of my point though, when they did find things that fitted like for tetrapods, they then found tetrapods before their evolution, so had to basically admit they had to find new transitionals, as shown in the opening message.

On 3/27/2020 at 3:10 AM, popoi said:

The problem is that you're basing this on assumptions about how evolution would have to work that I don't think have any real basis to them.  You're assuming that a large number of transitional forms would mean a large number of fossils, but it's possible (I'd say more than likely) that a lot of transitional forms might pass without anywhere close to the same number of individuals as you'd get in a form that was more successful and stable

The problem for me with this reasoning is basically you have to use a bit of a double standard where all transitional species are not that successful and stable and all the things they turned into, are. But the evolution theory would regard all forms that are selected for as successful and stable, there is no reason as such to believe a transitional species would be any different to any other species in it's success.

When it comes to the maths, I haven't done a calculation but there is going to be a big number. I think that's unavoidable, even if you got a smaller number, even much smaller than you thought, it would still be a big number.

I think we could use some starting assumptions for that calculation, given how many species exist within a phylum. Basically with the level of, "phyla", to "get to" that level, you have to go through a very large amount of diversity. That's because the sub-groupings such as, "family" or, "genera" or whatever, to get changes on those levels takes a long time in and of itself.

For example if we agree the apes and humans basically have a primate body plan, to get something as divergent as an ape and a human according to evolution, takes about five million years. So then the logic is, to get something as different as a feline and a canine, would take more time, and so on. But basically the longer and longer the amount of time the more conducive that would be for more and more diversity until you reach a point of disparity. That is to say a horse and a bat are both mammals, but the amount of divergence hypothetically speaking would represent so much divergence that you have a large disparity at say the phyla level. 

I think mammals are the, "order" level beneath, "phyla". 

So basically if we look even at mammals, and the amount of disparity at that level, that would represent and awful lot of transitions. All I am asking is; is it really all that realistic to expect to not find them? And what would the numbers be.

In terms of the cambrian era, we find many phyla in the Cambrian that are disparate, but don't have any preceding diversity. There are many phyla so you would need a lot of diversity to occur BEFORE that disparity can occur, because as I explained, it would take time, theoretically, as it takes time to get something as different as a horse and a bat, even on the level of, "order". 

So I think it's fair to then say, "if you need a lot of diversity, you need a fair amount of transitions". Obviously to get something like a bat from say, a quadruped mammallian ancestor, would take a lot of time, especially if we look at the difference in say a horse. 

CONCLUSION: You MIGHT be able to argue to some extent that the percentage wouldn't be as big as I think it would be, but I don't think it would change the fact that there simply had to be an innumerable amount of ancestors in the past if evolution is true, and by comparison the list of transitionals they put forward compared to that entire history would be pretty small. 

I am open to what scientists would say but it seems to me they're so convinced/entrenched in evolution, they would never stop to actually mathematically evaluate whether there is a tenable history there in terms of numbers.

I am open to your view on it, and can modify my own if there is some science I have not understood but even if the number wasn't what I thought I still think there has to be a majority missing from the record. But I am happy to look at that if there is something I have missed which is easy to do.

I did take your point in the long-ago transitional thread, about the numbers, it seems to me I could have been wrong on that one point in terms of how many species to expect, you seemed to make a correct point on that one at the time but I am not sure we were discussing the EXACT same thing, I think I was referring to a slightly different thing, I'd have to go back and find it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, mike the wiz said:

But then isn't that kind of my point though, when they did find things that fitted like for tetrapods, they then found tetrapods before their evolution, so had to basically admit they had to find new transitionals, as shown in the opening message.

Not really, no.  Patterson's point is that we can't know for sure but we can get close enough to make meaningful conclusions, whereas yours seems to be more we can't know for sure therefore it's all nonsense.

52 minutes ago, mike the wiz said:

The problem for me with this reasoning is basically you have to use a bit of a double standard where all transitional species are not that successful and stable and all the things they turned into, are. But the evolution theory would regard all forms that are selected for as successful and stable, there is no reason as such to believe a transitional species would be any different to any other species in it's success.

Natural selection operates on success relative to the environment and competition, it's not an absolute measure across all of time.  There's certainly no reason to expect that a particular lineage will be necessarily be equally successful in terms of population at all times throughout its history.  Even a basic glance at the rise and fall of populations now should tell you that much.

52 minutes ago, mike the wiz said:

When it comes to the maths, I haven't done a calculation but there is going to be a big number. I think that's unavoidable, even if you got a smaller number, even much smaller than you thought, it would still be a big number.

To be clear I'm much more interested in the "why" part than in you actually producing a number.  Although if you're not actually going to produce one I'd prefer you use a more accurate word than "maths", such as "guess".

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

I think we could use some starting assumptions for that calculation, given how many species exist within a phylum. Basically with the level of, "phyla", to "get to" that level, you have to go through a very large amount of diversity. That's because the sub-groupings such as, "family" or, "genera" or whatever, to get changes on those levels takes a long time in and of itself.

I don't think it's valid to compare the time it took for a members of a particular phylum to diversify into the species we see now to the time it took for that phylum to originate.  A phylum can in one sense be thought of as a major point of difference from another group, but in another sense it's just a point (or group) of divergences.  The time required for chordates to originate isn't the same as the time it would take a modern species of chordate to evolve into something that isn't considered part of Chordata anymore, if that's even how classifying future organisms would work.

1 hour ago, mike the wiz said:

CONCLUSION: You MIGHT be able to argue to some extent that the percentage wouldn't be as big as I think it would be, but I don't think it would change the fact that there simply had to be an innumerable amount of ancestors in the past if evolution is true, and by comparison the list of transitionals they put forward compared to that entire history would be pretty small. 

Sure, but that gets into the other part of my question.  It wasn't just "How many transitionals were there?", it was "How many transitionals should we expect to find?".  The additional factor is how likely it is that a particular individual is to be fossilized and later found.  I'd agree that we're missing the vast majority of ancestors of everything, but the question is whether or not that's expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms