Deep Sight:
@Plaetton -

Let's use the summary of the basic evolutionary timeline for discussion -

The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:

3.6 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),

3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,

2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),

1 billion years of multicellular life,

600 million years of simple animals,

570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),

550 million years of complex animals,

500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,

475 million years of land plants,

400 million years of insects and seeds,

360 million years of amphibians,

300 million years of reptiles,

200 million years of mammals,

150 million years of birds,

130 million years of flowers,

65 million years since the dinosaurs died out,

2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,

200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,

25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.

13,000 years since the disappearance of Homo floresiensis from the fossil record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

Observe any oddities, or grossly unlikely timeframes?

Are you assuming that each of these stage happened one after the other in a straight chronological order?

Reyginus: There wouldn't have been a better title.

plaetton:

Are you assuming that each of these stage happened one after the other in a straight chronological order?

Definitely, the main divisions must indeed be in a straight order. To elucidate crudely - we will not have multicellular before unicellular. And under the theory we will not have land plants before sea plants, or amphibians before fish, or reptiles before amphibians, or birds before reptiles or mammals before birds, or humans before other apes. I hope you can look at the timeline again and therefore see that there is indeed a necessary chronology, with the attendant improbability of development within the time-frame in question?

Reyginus: There wouldn't have been a better title.

Excellently said: and quite a miracle that none of our intelligent atheists herein was able to spot my sleight of hand deployed in that title.

Logicboy03:




Butthurt much?


How the hell can an intermediate species have no traits of both species it comes from?

Olodo. That is not what was said. You do not read.

How many times do I have to clarify that it did not say "no traits"? ? ? ? ? ? Are you just dumb or something?

Go read the thing and stop being so illiterate.

Debunked. You are a foolish waste of time indeed.

thehomer:

It isn't just that the terms are similar, it is that the idea you tried to hang everything on made no sense.

O, SO AFTER making a big deal about the terms, you now wish to say its not just the terms? This is one of the weakest showings I have ever seen from you friend.

The idea I have hung everything on is that of seeking fossils between major divisions, simple.

Show me them.

Right on the page that you got the misleading information from, there's a list with pictures of the fossils. The link between fish and tetrapods is listed from here on that same page.

Useless, because you will see that what you refer to are designated as Fish, no? In fact, if you look through to list, you will see that when the going gets tough and assumptions begin to be made about creatures that had feet, no feet were in fact observed, but such were assumed from the shape of the jaws, which was all that was available! ! ! !

Now, what do you think a transitional fossil is? Since as I've shown you, the idea of intermediate fossil you were using was erroneous.

I have told you exactly what I refer to as transitional and intermediate fossils. You make issue with the definitions, so no worries.

To be clear: I ask you to show me the fossils that show features between the groups I mentioned. This is a very simple task. And you cannot run away from it with your excuses, because if indeed evolution occurred in the way described, then for heavens sake there must be simply trillions of such fossils all about. When U say that fossilization is rare, the high number of such creatures must still render a cognizable amount of fossils available.

Deep Sight:

Olodo. That is not what was said. You do not read.

How many times do I have to clarify that it did not say "no traits"? ? ? ? ? ? Are you just dumb or something?

Go read the thing and stop being so illiterate.

Debunked. You are a foolish waste of time indeed.

Oh, the lawyer lies again! note the words in red;

Deep Sight:

WRONG SIR: Apparently, you are not reading. Surprising for you, but normal for your "gbammist" above.

It does not say "no traits". That would be impossible. It speaks of where the new traits are not observed to come from the ancestral group!

The exact words again - "while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate".

So its simple: it does not say, no traits. It refers to species with traits that are not observed in the supposed ancestral groups at all. New traits.

So answer, sir? ? ? ?

Logicboy03:



Oh, the lawyer lies again! note the words in red;

And where in that did you see 'no traits', you scallywag of a blind reader? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are indeed and in truth and in spirit, a very foolish waste of time.

Deep Sight:

And where in that did you see 'no traits', you scallywag of a blind reader? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

You are indeed and in truth and in spirit, a very foolish waste of time.

lol...........

Logicboy03:




Butthurt much?


How the hell can an intermediate species have no traits of both species it comes from?

Logicboy03:



Oh, the lawyer lies again! note the words in red;

For the last time I will help you out with your illiteracy and wasted school fees.

"A host of traits" is what was said. What does "A host of traits" mean? It means several traits.

Therefore when it is said that - "while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate".

- - -> This simply means that they are referring to creatures that had several traits not traceable to their supposed ancestors and not creatures that had no traceable traits!

Disgraceful! Simply disgraceful!

Like, guy, seriously? ? ? ? ? ?

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html

Evolutionary Timeline

Time
(Myr ago) Event
4600 Formation of the approximately homogeneous solid Earth by planetesimal accretion
4300 Melting of the Earth due to radioactive and gravitational heating which leads to its differentiated interior structure as well as outgassing of molecules such as water, methane, ammonia, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide
4300 Atmospheric water is photodissociated by ultraviolet light to give oxygen atoms which are incorporated into an ozone layer and hydrogen molecules which escape into space
4000 Bombardment of the Earth by planetesimals stops
3800 The Earth's crust solidifies--formation of the oldest rocks found on Earth
3800 Condensation of atmospheric water into oceans
3500-2800 Prokaryotic cell organisms develop
3500-2800 Beginning of photosynthesis by blue-green algae which releases oxygen molecules into the atmosphere and steadily works to strengthen the ozone layer and change the Earth's chemically reducing atmosphere into a chemically oxidizing one
2400 Rise in the concentration of oxygen molecules stops the deposition of uraninites (since they are soluble when combined with oxygen) and starts the deposition of banded iron formations
2000 The Oklo natural fission reactor in Gabon goes into operation
1600 The last reserves of reduced iron are used up by the increasing atmospheric oxygen--last banded iron formations
1500 Eukaryotic cell organisms develop
1500-600 Rise of multicellular organisms
580-545 Fossils of Ediacaran organisms are made
545 Cambrian explosion of hard-bodied organisms
528-526 Fossilization of the Chengjiang site
517-515 Fossilization of the Burgess Shale
500-450 Rise of the fish--first vertebrates
430 Waxy coated algae begin to live on land
420 Millipedes have evolved--first land animals
375 The Appalachian mountains are formed via a plate tectonic collision between North America, Africa, and Europe
375 Appearance of primitive sharks
350-300 Rise of the amphibians
350 Primitive insects have evolved
350 Primitive ferns evolve--first plants with roots
300-200 Rise of the reptiles
300 Winged insects have evolved
280 Beetles and weevils have evolved
250 Permian period mass extinction
230 Roaches and termites have evolved
225 Modern ferns have evolved
225 Bees have evolved
200 Pangaea starts to break apart
200 Primitive crocodiles have evolved
200 Appearance of mammals
145 Archaeopteryx walks the Earth
136 Primitive kangaroos have evolved
100 Primitive cranes have evolved
90 Modern sharks have evolved
65 K-T Boundary--extinction of the dinosaurs and beginning of the reign of mammals
60 Rats, mice, and squirrels have evolved
60 Herons and storks have evolved
55 Rabbits and hares have evolved
50 Primitive monkeys have evolved
28 Koalas have evolved
20 Parrots and pigeons have evolved
20-12 The chimpanzee and hominid lines evolve
10-4 Ramapithecus exist
4 Development of hominid bipedalism
4-1 Australopithecus exist
3.5 The Australopithecus Lucy walks the Earth
2 Widespread use of stone tools
2-0.01 Most recent ice age
1.6-0.2 Homo erectus exist
1-0.5 Homo erectus tames fire
0.3 Geminga supernova explosion at a distance of roughly 60 pc--roughly as bright as the Moon
0.2-0.03 Homo sapiens neanderthalensis exist
0.05-0 Homo sapiens sapiens exist
0.04-0.012 Homo sapiens sapiens enter Australia from southeastern Asia and North America from northeastern Asia
0.025-0.01 Most recent glaciation--an ice sheet covers much of the northern United States
0.02 Homo sapiens sapiens paint the Altamira Cave
0.012 Homo sapiens sapiens have domesticated dogs in Kirkuk, Iraq
0.01 First permanent Homo sapiens sapiens settlements
0.01 Homo sapiens sapiens learn to use fire to cast copper and harden pottery
0.006 Writing is developed in Sumeria

^^^^
How about this time line?

^^^^^ What is this about, Plaetton? Does it address my question on the statistical probability of the timeline?

^^^^^^

Geological Timeline
Era/Period/Epoch Time
(Myr ago)
Archaeozoic (Archean) era 5000-1500
Proterozoic era 1500-545
Paleozoic era Cambrian period 545-505
Ordovician period 505-438
Silurian period 438-410
Devonian period 410-355
Carboniferous (Mississipian/Pennsylvanian) period 355-290
Permian period 290-250
Mesozoic era Triassic period 250-205
Jurassic period 205-135
Cretaceous period 135-65
Cenozoic era
"Recent Life" Tertiary period Paleocene epoch 65-55
Eocene epoch 55-38
Oligocene epoch 38-26
Miocene epoch 26-6
Pliocene epoch 6-1.8
Quarternary period Pleistocene epoch 1.8-0.01
(Lower Paleolithic) 0.50-0.25
(Middle Paleolithic) 0.25-0.06
(Upper Paleolithic) 0.06-0.01
Holocene epoch 0.01-0

^^^ Whatever timeline you use, the statistical improbability of evolution of the flora and fauna we see today is evident from simple math. Why are you posting all these then?

You mean ofcourse, the statistical probability of all these changes occuring in that a 4.7 billion year time frame.
My answer is why not?
what evidence do you have that they could not?

Deep Sight:
^^^ Whatever timeline you use, the statistical improbability of evolution of the flora and fauna we see today is evident from simple math. Why are you posting all these then?

So far everything seems to add up. I am still waiting to see your math.

Human evolution is the only area where there seems to show a gap, perhaps an intervention yet to be known or acknowledged.

plaetton: You mean ofcourse, the statistical probability of all these changes occuring in that a 4.7 billion year time frame.
My answer is why not?
what evidence do you have that they could not?

Alright, I see we have to take this one step by step, even though, I should note, that if such a staggering claim were made by the religionist, and you questioned him as to why that could be so, you would not accept an answer of "why not?"

Nevertheless, to be specific, I ask you to kindly assess the timeframe required for each of the stated evolutionary developments. We are talking millions and millions of years here. Each time people wonder how feasible evolution is, you guys are the first to jump in and say - aha, but this was a slow process over millions of years, right? Very good - I am therefore calculating the millions of years that each of the significant changes would have taken, and from the timeline, its obvious there is just not enough time for it all to have credibly occurred, when you bear in mind 3.6 billion years for micro life to appear alone. Not to speak of the many drastic gradations between that - all of which would require hundreds of millions of years, right up to the homo-species - which, came fully formed via evolution of a mere 2.5 million years? Am I missing something here?

Deep Sight:

For the last time I will help you out with your illiteracy and wasted school fees.

"A host of traits" is what was said. What does "A host of traits" mean? It means several traits.

Therefore when it is said that - [size=18pt]"while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate".
[/size]
- - -> This simply means that they are referring to creatures that had several traits not traceable to their supposed ancestors and not creatures that had no traceable traits!

Disgraceful! Simply disgraceful!

Like, guy, seriously? ? ? ? ? ?

What are you arguing? The highlighted words are false! That is the point. I said no traits from the two speceis it comes from (The ancestral and the ones that came later)

Deep Sight:

O, SO AFTER making a big deal about the terms, you now wish to say its not just the terms? This is one of the weakest showings I have ever seen from you friend.

The idea I have hung everything on is that of seeking fossils between major divisions, simple.

Show me them.

Obviously, you've not been reading what I wrote because you're once again making ridiculous claims. Did you notice this line?

thehomer:
If the traits aren't observed in the ancestral or derivative groups, how does anyone know they're related? Go ahead and explain it.

Deep Sight:
Useless, because you will see that what you refer to are designated as Fish, no? In fact, if you look through to list, you will see that when the going gets tough and assumptions begin to be made about creatures that had feet, no feet were in fact observed, but such were assumed from the shape of the jaws, which was all that was available! ! ! !

This is astonishingly and amazingly ignorant. Did you actually read through that link? Did you look at organisms like Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega? They're all fish? Take a look at even Tiktaalik alone and you'll see that it had features present in both fish and tetrapods and some features between both. The fact that it is "classified" as fish simply shows that it had to be grouped somewhere. Just bear in mind that these classifications are human impositions on the natural world.

If you actually understood the concept of transitional fossils, you'll understand why you do not need the entire fossil to tell that an organism belongs to one group and not another. That is why I asked you to state it again for clarity.

Deep Sight:
I have told you exactly what I refer to as transitional and intermediate fossils. You make issue with the definitions, so no worries.

Simply state it here for clarity. Surely since you've done it before, you can do it again. I want to be sure that you have some idea of what you're talking about because so far, you're showing some confusion with respect to these concepts.

Deep Sight:
To be clear: I ask you to show me the fossils that show features between the groups I mentioned. This is a very simple task. And you cannot run away from it with your excuses, because if indeed evolution occurred in the way described, then for heavens sake there must be simply trillions of such fossils all about. When U say that fossilization is rare, the high number of such creatures must still render a cognizable amount of fossils available.

And I've shown you these fossils but in your confusion, you're unable to see what is right before you. Can you give an estimate on the amount of fossils to be expected, where to dig for them and how much it would cost to do that? Or do you think that the fossils will be shouting out from the ground to invite scientists to dig them up? Ridiculous.

Deep Sight:

For the last time I will help you out with your illiteracy and wasted school fees.

"A host of traits" is what was said. What does "A host of traits" mean? It means several traits.

Therefore when it is said that - "while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate".

- - -> This simply means that they are referring to creatures that had several traits not traceable to their supposed ancestors and not creatures that had no traceable traits!

Disgraceful! Simply disgraceful!

Like, guy, seriously? ? ? ? ? ?

Why do you persist with such ignorance and misconceptions? I've explained to you that the idea you're pushing here makes no sense, I've shown that the specialists don't misuse that idea in that way yet you continue with this misconception. If this host of traits cannot be found in either the ancestral or derived groups, how do you know they're related?

Why don't you answer that?

Deep Sight:

Infinite, you say? How presumptuous! Anyway, I posted the timeline of evolution for the earth up there for you right after my post, maybe you should scrutinize it.

But before you do so, please let us agree on a simple principle.

Note carefully the following:

If we were to agree that the probability of a given sequence of events, is 1 in say, 1 billion days.

This is misunderstanding of probability. Probability is a ratio and has no units so introducing days here shows you don't understand what you're talking about.

Deep Sight:
And that sequence of events requires 1 billion precise mutations and incidents of chance to occur as a full sequence once in 1 billion days.

This is a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. What you need to keep in mind is that while there are random mutations, it is the organisms that live that can serve as ancestral species so the "1 billion precise mutations" to use your frame of reference doesn't mean that one individual organism had that number of mutations instantaneously.

Deep Sight:
Now let us say that we are given a timeframe for a venue for such an event to occur.

Let us say that that venue exists for only 1 day so far.

Would you agree, given the foregoing analogy, that it would be statistically improbable to say that the 1 day could support the occurrence of the full sequence of events?

Your analogy fails because you obviously don't understand what the actual theory says.

Deep Sight:
I ask this question (and I hope you appreciate it) in order to see if you understand the fundamental reasoning behind my assertion that the age of the earth does not support the full spectrum of evolution. If you understand the analogy, you should see the point already - that is, once you take on board the period required for each instance of relevant macro evolution.

Finally, please note that although this problem became apparent to me without reference, I find that it is a huge issue which has been debated by even evolutionary scientists. Some have come to their own conclusions. What do you say?

Ooh it became apparent to you without reference. You must be very good to figure all this out from your armchair. I just think that you need to be humble and study the abundant material available. You could also try to actually calculate the probabilities involved.

Deep Sight:
@Plaetton -

Let's use the summary of the basic evolutionary timeline for discussion -

The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:

3.6 billion years of simple cells (prokaryotes),

3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,

2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),

1 billion years of multicellular life,

600 million years of simple animals,

570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),

550 million years of complex animals,

500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,

475 million years of land plants,

400 million years of insects and seeds,

360 million years of amphibians,

300 million years of reptiles,

200 million years of mammals,

150 million years of birds,

130 million years of flowers,

65 million years since the dinosaurs died out,

2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus Homo,

200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,

25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.

13,000 years since the disappearance of Homo floresiensis from the fossil record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolutionary_history_of_life

Observe any oddities, or grossly unlikely timeframes?

Not really. Can you let us know what these oddities or grossly unlikely timeframes are?

thehomer:

Why do you persist with such ignorance and misconceptions? I've explained to you that the idea you're pushing here makes no sense, I've shown that the specialists don't misuse that idea in that way yet you continue with this misconception. If this host of traits cannot be found in either the ancestral or derived groups, how do you know they're related?

Why don't you answer that?

Because, sir, they share traits with the said ancestral groups. What is said is that such intermediate fossils also show new traits as well, period. Are you seriously trying to discuss, or kidding me?

@ Thehomer,

I see we are right about where we usually get when we discuss. I am going to briefly reply some of your comments which are clear misconceptions either of facts or of things that I have written. However, the what is more important is that I do you the usual style summary of few questions that nails the point home and lucidly to you in just a few questions. I will leave that for my next post. Just for clarity, I will devote this post to some of your comments above.

thehomer: Obviously, you've not been reading what I wrote because you're once again making ridiculous claims. Did you notice this line?

thehomer:
If the traits aren't observed in the ancestral or derivative groups, how does anyone know they're related? Go ahead and explain it.

Now you see, I really remain shocked that you cannot see the simplicity of that which was stated in that wiki-article. It made a very simple distinction between intermediate and transitional species which you prefer to toss into the sink. No matter. Regardless the words used, the precept explained there remains simple and valid. For the avoidance of doubt, I reproduce it here -

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.[2] They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Now the description and delineation here is very simple and commonsensical and I cannot imagine why you take issue with it, if not to escape the question I have asked: namely, produce intermediate fossils, a simple question which seems to have rubbed you the wrong way this morning. You prefer to ask for a reference for the explanation given, rather than show why the explanation is wrong in principle. You will not find references in any articles for statements that read like 1 + 1 = 2. Nobody is going to start giving you a reference for such self-evident statement.

Now, worse you choose to dwell on word play rather than address the issue raised in that simple delineation. The very simple issue is as follows -

- - - For creatures to evolve, there will be naturally occurring changes in the species with time. If these changes lead to mere subsets of the same creature, without differences said to create a new specie, then you will agree that these are transitional species. What is referred to as intermediate species are the species that show new characteristics which are not discernible from their ancestors, and the emergence of which show the emergence of a new specie, or at least the beginnings of it. To use a very crude analogy, I might say that a breed of bird developing more feathers as it procreates or longer wings as it procreates may be transition: but what we are looking for is that breed of bird that begins to show a loss of feathers or wings altogether and even perhaps mammalian claws such as to suggest that there is a transition from bird to mammal.

This is not hard to comprehend. To the extent that it is contended that mammal arose from the bird, then, and it is also contended that this occured over millions and millions of years, then IRREVOCABLY, there must have been species of intermediate bird that would display the dying characteristics of the preceding ancestry and the merging characteristics of the emerging specie. This, my friend, is indubitable, and this is all I ask you for: to show me such species, fossils of such. There must be a great many, sir.

Therefore it is disconcerting that you could begin to ask such an odd and inappropriate question as that which you ask - namely that if new features are observed, (which is of course necessary at some point, for evolution to hold true): how then do we know the ancestry of the emergent creature. We know it because of the common features that still exist in the said creature, with its ancestors! Come on, this is 101.

In all of this your grand pretense is simply the semantics of "intermediate" and 'transitional' and whether they mean the same thing or not. My friend, so as not to waste our time, as I told you earlier, you can readily fling those distinctions out the window as you wanted to do anyway. Just provide for me the transitional/ intermediate/ middle/ existing/ continuing/ preceding/ [*add choice word*] FOSSILS that necessarily existed for there to be a development into new species. As that process was slow, there needs be many such gradations of such changes, simple sir.

I hope you are clear on this issue now.

I will proceed to your other comments before summarizing the key question yet again. Many thanks.

thehomer:

This is astonishingly and amazingly ignorant. Did you actually read through that link? Did you look at organisms like Tiktaalik, Elginerpeton, Ventastega, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega? They're all fish? Take a look at even Tiktaalik alone and you'll see that it had features present in both fish and tetrapods and some features between both. The fact that it is "classified" as fish simply shows that it had to be grouped somewhere. Just bear in mind that these classifications are human impositions on the natural world.

I really don't know what to make of your wild flipping about here. I did not say that everything there were fish, certainly not, I pointed you to what was categorized as fish within the Fish - Tetrapods list.

And in that list, as a good example of the sort of fossil I have been demanding, a good one would be to show me a fish with legs that serves as a genuine intermediary (or whatever else you want to call it) fossil. I do not say they do not exist; I say point them out for discussion. Now in this regard, that was exactly why I zeroed in on the creature described thus -

A large, dorso-ventrally flattened predatory fish with a well armoured labyrinthodont-like skull. While the fins themselves has not been found, the shoulder girdle is essentially similar to that of Acanthostega, indicating it too had feet rather than fins.[16]

And stated to be "Possibly oldest animal to have feet rather than fins.[16]"

And of course it is of interest that in this case, no feet were ever observed on this creature, rather the mere similarity of its shoulder girdle to another creature was used to arrive at this conclusion.

This is a simple fact that speaks for itself and you would be being disingenuous if you claim not to be aware of multiple instances where this has been done in the fossil record which turned up false or simply unsubstantiated. The same has been done with apes and even birds, surely you know this? Where a Jaw bone has been used to artistically reconstruct a head and claim similarities later disproved, abi I lie?

Please the simple point here is that the genuine link is not proved by that which is shown. Do not cry about how difficult fossilization is, because, with the sheer quantum of creatures, biolgists would find the links we are talking about, inspite of rarity.

Now, so as to avoid much back and forth on this matter, I suggest to you the following. If you believe that there are linking fossils which show that fish evolved to reptile and reptile to bird and bird to mammal, please, just indulge me and name and shame these fugitive fossils here for me, with pics and sources. Fossils linking these major groups, that is what I ask of you, and we are on 4 pages now, so please dont lets get to 10 pages with me still begging for these!

Simply state it here for clarity. Surely since you've done it before, you can do it again. I want to be sure that you have some idea of what you're talking about because so far, you're showing some confusion with respect to these concepts.

Stated and re stated. Nevertheless, for best clarity just use the blanks in my OP. Those are the fossils I want to see, regardless of what you call them. I am not interested in defeating the discussion with semantics. Intermediate, Transitional, Linking, Middle, etc, whatever words you wish to use, I dont care. So long as they are fossils that show an evolutionary link between those major groups I mentioned.

And I've shown you these fossils but in your confusion, you're unable to see what is right before you. Can you give an estimate on the amount of fossils to be expected, where to dig for them and how much it would cost to do that? Or do you think that the fossils will be shouting out from the ground to invite scientists to dig them up? Ridiculous.

This is just a cop-out. As said above, just show me the linking fossils for the major groups mentioned.

In all of this, just also remember that I am not trying to disprove evolution. I am trying to show that the factors referred to cannot conceivably be solely responsible for what we see.

thehomer:

This is misunderstanding of probability. Probability is a ratio and has no units so introducing days here shows you don't understand what you're talking about.



This is a misunderstanding of the theory of evolution. What you need to keep in mind is that while there are random mutations, it is the organisms that live that can serve as ancestral species so the "1 billion precise mutations" to use your frame of reference doesn't mean that one individual organism had that number of mutations instantaneously.

Now it is past 4 am here and I am getting tired, but I just had to point this one out. This is by far the most ridiculous and nonsensical response you have ever given me on this forum. I will leave you to discern your error. Or maybe not!

Don't be so silly in your reading, sorry sir! Of course no one says that "one individual organism had that number of mutations instantaneously."!

We speak of the probability of the sequence of mutations that led up that that creature's genetic make-up, occurring over a period of time! We then compare those chances all-in-all for the overall global sequences to the overall age of the earth to see it as possible, probable, or improbable.

Dang, Man!

Deep Sight:

Because, sir, they share traits with the said ancestral groups. What is said is that such intermediate fossils also show new traits as well, period. Are you seriously trying to discuss, or kidding me?

What do you think is the distinction between transitional fossils and intermediate fossils? I ask because what you've just said above applies to transitional fossils.

Now, as sleep weighs heavy on my eyes, let me give you the promised summary of questions which I am always compelled to do for you in every discussion. These questions will address the point.

1. Is it the case that life commenced with unicellular organisms.

2. Is it the case that the progression of the development of life in evolution is understood to be from unicellular - multi-cellular - waterbased/fish - amphibian - reptile - bird - mammal?

3. If 2 above is true, is it not the case, that since these transitions were not instantaneous but over millions of years, then millions of species would have existed in between/ part of these general categories?

4. Please show me the fossils that link these general categories.

Once you do that, we discuss them. And please do not hedge in the water only.

End of.

thehomer:

What do you think is the distinction between transitional fossils and intermediate fossils? I ask because what you've just said above applies to transitional fossils.

I have explained this ad tedium in my posts above. Please read all the posts I have just spent the last hour writing above. You are however free to dunk the distinction since you say there is none. My questions remain intact, as explained above. Do not please turn this to a semantic circus.

Deep Sight:
@ Thehomer,

I see we are right about where we usually get when we discuss. I am going to briefly reply some of your comments which are clear misconceptions either of facts or of things that I have written. However, the what is more important is that I do you the usual style summary of few questions that nails the point home and lucidly to you in just a few questions. I will leave that for my next post. Just for clarity, I will devote this post to some of your comments above.



Now you see, I really remain shocked that you cannot see the simplicity of that which was stated in that wiki-article. It made a very simple distinction between intermediate and transitional species which you prefer to toss into the sink. No matter. Regardless the words used, the precept explained there remains simple and valid. For the avoidance of doubt, I reproduce it here -

Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral species from which later groups evolved, but most if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor.[2] They will all include details unique to their own line as well. Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a host of traits found neither in the ancestral or derived group are called "intermediate". Since all species will always be subject to natural selection, the very term "transitional fossil" is essentially a misconception. It is however a commonly used term and a useful concept in evolutionary biology. The fossils listed represent significant steps in the evolution of major features in various lines and therefore fit the common usage of the phrase.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

And I've told you and shown you that:
it makes no sense,
the terms are synonymous based on the usage by the professionals,
the part you're hinging your entire idea on is un-referenced.

Do you disagree with criticisms I've raised above?

Deep Sight:
Now the description and delineation here is very simple and commonsensical and I cannot imagine why you take issue with it, if not to escape the question I have asked: namely, produce intermediate fossils, a simple question which seems to have rubbed you the wrong way this morning. You prefer to ask for a reference for the explanation given, rather than show why the explanation is wrong in principle. You will not find references in any articles for statements that read like 1 + 1 = 2. Nobody is going to start giving you a reference for such self-evident statement.

If the very idea of intermediate fossils as you're using the term makes no sense, then how do you expect to find examples of such a fossil? If you want examples of transitional fossils or intermediate fossils as the term is used by biologists, then you'll see them on the article you posted.

Deep Sight:
Now, worse you choose to dwell on word play rather than address the issue raised in that simple delineation. The very simple issue is as follows -

- - - For creatures to evolve, there will be naturally occurring changes in the species with time. If these changes lead to mere subsets of the same creature, without differences said to create a new specie, then you will agree that these are transitional species. What is referred to as intermediate species are the species that show new characteristics which are not discernible from their ancestors, and the emergence of which show the emergence of a new specie, or at least the beginnings of it. To use a very crude analogy, I might say that a breed of bird developing more feathers as it procreates or longer wings as it procreates may be transition: but what we are looking for is that breed of bird that begins to show a loss of feathers or wings altogether and even perhaps mammalian claws such as to suggest that there is a transition from bird to mammal.

How is it that you do not see your ridiculous notion? Using your example, the ostrich is a bird showing a huge reduction in wings is it an intermediate specie? If it became extinct, would it still be intermediate? Now if the bird developed mammalian claws, won't the claws then be a trait shared between it and its descendant? Based on the way you're using that term "intermediate" here, it won't be so but based on the concept of transition, it would.

Deep Sight:
This is not hard to comprehend. To the extent that it is contended that mammal arose from the bird, then, and it is also contended that this occured over millions and millions of years, then IRREVOCABLY, there must have been species of intermediate bird that would display the dying characteristics of the preceding ancestry and the merging characteristics of the emerging specie. This, my friend, is indubitable, and this is all I ask you for: to show me such species, fossils of such. There must be a great many, sir.

You obviously haven't even taken a look at the basics of the theory. It isn't contended that mammals arose from birds, but that they shared common ancestors.

Deep Sight:
Therefore it is disconcerting that you could begin to ask such an odd and inappropriate question as that which you ask - namely that if new features are observed, (which is of course necessary at some point, for evolution to hold true): how then do we know the ancestry of the emergent creature. We know it because of the common features that still exist in the said creature, with its ancestors! Come on, this is 101.

Now you're being a tad disingenuous. According to your usage of the word, the organism had traits absent in both descendants and ancestors. Well where then did the traits come from? Where did they go? Were they mutations caused by gamma rays like the hulk?

Deep Sight:
In all of this your grand pretense is simply the semantics of "intermediate" and 'transitional' and whether they mean the same thing or not. My friend, so as not to waste our time, as I told you earlier, you can readily fling those distinctions out the window as you wanted to do anyway. Just provide for me the transitional/ intermediate/ middle/ existing/ continuing/ preceding/ [*add choice word*] FOSSILS that necessarily existed for there to be a development into new species. As that process was slow, there needs be many such gradations of such changes, simple sir.

I hope you are clear on this issue now.

I will proceed to your other comments before summarizing the key question yet again. Many thanks.

Like I said, the examples are right in the article you posted a link to.