thehomer:

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

How many million years does it take, (give average, since we do not know the precise) for the sort of mutation sequences necessary in that timeline to occur?

Juxtapose this against the timeframe for the existence of only unicellular organisms!

@ Thehomer. I will continue tomorrow. (later today). I proceed to bed.

I will just point out for now another astonishing leap of yours. How do you exclude descendants from new traits of an intermediate specie. This is just pure magic and discombobulated reverse reasoning. The idea is of course that the intermediate specie is called intermediate because it has new features its ancestors did not have, but which it obviously passes to its descendants. Later.

Deep Sight:

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 I explained to you that they had to be classified somewhere didn't I?

Deep Sight:
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.

A fish with legs? Now you're talking nonsense on stilts. This is why you need some understanding of basic anatomy and it is for this reason that I asked you what you thought transitional fossils were. If you knew anything about anatomy, you'll know that taking a look at the shoulder girdle can give you some information about the structures that may been attached to it. e.g the significant difference between the human shoulder girdle and that of say gorillas tells you a lot about how they moved.

Deep Sight:
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?

How was it disproved? Was it by suddenly discovering a complete fossil or by a closer examination and comparison to other jaw bones, knowledge of skulls and considering the circumstances around the discovery?

Deep Sight:
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!

You're not even reading the links right before you to understand what is being said. The fact that fossilization is rare isn't an excuse, it is a fact about the earth we live in. It is as much a fact as it is a fact that Mt. Everest was formed by the movement of tectonic plates. Get that through your skull first. You can take a look at this link for more information on fossilization.

What I have italicized there is just information flowing from you maybe due to laziness or ignorance but if it is ignorance, you're not even trying to rectify it. Fish didn't evolve to reptiles and birds didn't evolve to mammals so I wonder why you think you'll find such fossils.

Deep Sight:
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.

Err you haven't restated it. We have to first agree that you know what we're talking about because from what you've said so far, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. So, I'm hoping that when you state if for yourself, that you'll actually read and digest it before proceeding once more.

Deep Sight:
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.

Pointing out that fossilization is rare isn't a cop-out, it is a natural fact. Just as naturally formed large diamonds are rare is a natural fact. Besides, I have presented you with some but due to your misconceptions, you're unable to see them as what they are.

Deep Sight:

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."!

Of course you don't but you may as well be saying that because it is one implication of your ridiculous notion.

Deep Sight:
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 possible, probable, or improbable.

Dang, Man!

For some reason, you're unable to actually state the error as usual. Rather than simply throwing out the words probable or improbable, why don't you present some ballpark figures or examples? I cannot trust your use of those words because you keep demonstrating that you do not understand the concept.

Deep Sight:
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.

Most likely.

Deep Sight:
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?

No it is not the case.

Deep Sight:
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?

Well 2 above is false though there were millions of species between the correct categories.

Deep Sight:
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.

I have shown you the fossils. I even gave you the names of some of the organism showing a nice transition yet you act as if you didn't read what I wrote.

Here are my questions.

1. Is it the case that fossilization is a rare process?
2. Is it the case that the process is biased towards organisms with hard structures?
3. Is it the case that these fossils are buried in diverse locations all over the earth from the sea to mountaintops? From crisis ridden areas to inhospitable areas?
4. Is it the case that we do not have access to all the locations where these fossils may be buried?
5. Is it the case that it takes a lot of resources to locate these fossils?
6. Is it the case that it takes a lot of resources to retrieve these fossils?
7. Given the sorts of problems indicated above, are you surprised that there will be gaps in the fossil record?

Deep Sight:

How many million years does it take, (give average, since we do not know the precise) for the sort of mutation sequences necessary in that timeline to occur?

Juxtapose this against the timeframe for the existence of only unicellular organisms!

It is your criticism. You do the work to back it up.

Deep Sight:
@ Thehomer. I will continue tomorrow. (later today). I proceed to bed.

I will just point out for now another astonishing leap of yours. How do you exclude descendants from new traits of an intermediate specie. This is just pure magic and discombobulated reverse reasoning. The idea is of course that the intermediate specie is called intermediate because it has new features its ancestors did not have, but which it obviously passes to its descendants. Later.

I didn't exclude descendants, you claimed that the traits were absent in both the ancestors and the descendants. My question then is; how do you know they are related?

Really? Is that the claim? How is that different from the concept of a transitional form? Then this is the quote you've been harping on that I told you and showed you was meaningless.

Deep Sight:
Fossils having relatively few such traits are termed "transitional", while those with a [size=16pt]host of traits found NEITHER in the ancestral or derived group[/size] are called "intermediate".

thehomer:

I didn't exclude descendants, you claimed that the traits were absent in both the ancestors and the descendants. My question then is; how do you know they are related?

Really? Is that the claim? How is that different from the concept of a transitional form? Then this is the quote you've been harping on that I told you and showed you was meaningless.

Hmmmm. . . . . .I think we should have an audio conversation. I'll send you an email.

Mr_Anony2:
Hmmmm. . . . . .I think we should have an audio conversation. I'll send you an email.

Okay. How does the e-mail thing work? I just dismissed it since I didn't see the actual message.

Deep Sight:

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?

That's what I thought. You have no clue what evolution actually means.

Deep Sight:
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. We don't know. Anybody that claims he knows how life started on earth is lying.

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? No. This is not the case. There is no linear progression in evolution.

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? No, " above is false so no "intermediate" species exist.

4. Please show me the fossils that link these general categories. There aren't.

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

End of.

Stop talking of things that don't exist. You just sound like a mad man.

thehomer:

And I explained to you that they had to be classified somewhere didn't I?

This in itself should render pointing them out easy. Your task is to bring up the known reptile-like amphibians, bird-like reptiles and such, for discussion. I already brought up some to other posters earlier in the thread but they refused to discuss them, such as Archeopetryx.

A fish with legs? Now you're talking nonsense on stilts.

Come on. You know very well I am referring to fish with paddle like feet as referred in the species in the link on Transitional Fossils. Why you seem determined to stunt the discussion on petty word games is of deep concern to me. This alone shows you are not willing to face the direct issues. Will you kindly stop doing this?

This is why you need some understanding of basic anatomy and it is for this reason that I asked you what you thought transitional fossils were. If you knew anything about anatomy, you'll know that taking a look at the shoulder girdle can give you some information about the structures that may been attached to it. e.g the significant difference between the human shoulder girdle and that of say gorillas tells you a lot about how they moved.

That is not a problem, but the fact remains that that creature remains "possibly the oldest" such to have feet - as alleged - and the fact remains that this is a deduction or inference from its shoulder girdle, and not that any such was ever found because its fins were never found, no?

Since we are speaking long evolution here, surely it is not inconceivable - infact, it must be the case, that even with creatures of such similar shoulder girdles, there would be gradations in the nature of the ensuing body part, no? This IS exactly why I point out that such a similarity cannot suffice to make the conclusion made.

Simple really.

How was it disproved? Was it by suddenly discovering a complete fossil or by a closer examination and comparison to other jaw bones, knowledge of skulls and considering the circumstances around the discovery?

Surely you will not claim to be unaware of the method of reconstruction deployed in many cases of supposed "ape-men"; wherein the pieces relied on are merely a jawbone and in some cases some teeth and fragments of skull? Surely, you are also aware that this method of reconstruction has led to many blind-alleys and even out-right forgeries such as Pilt-Down man?

The point being that the method of reconstruction which looks at a few bones only is grossly insufficient, and in some cases, outrightly presumptuous if not even totally deceitful and fraudulent, and this, you know for a fact. You cannot deny this.

Thus, it emerges that using such limited fragments is a window into a world of many presumptions and the possibility of many future forgeries and blind alleys. You know this to be true, and that is the point sought to be made.

You're not even reading the links right before you to understand what is being said. The fact that fossilization is rare isn't an excuse, it is a fact about the earth we live in. It is as much a fact as it is a fact that Mt. Everest was formed by the movement of tectonic plates. Get that through your skull first. You can take a look at this link for more information on fossilization.

Maybe you have not got the point yet. If fossilization is rare, on a planet with extinct creatures, say for example, several trillion, you will agree that even a mere fraction of this should be substantial enough for reasonable investigations - which of course in reality have been and are still ever underway.

Perhaps it does not occur to you that this excuse would serve well even with the most gap-filled fossil record imaginable. How then is that to be canvassed as proof of a positive claim, which evolution is? Arguing that your proof is rare, even if true, cannot be proof, can it?

What I have italicized there is just information flowing from you maybe due to laziness or ignorance but if it is ignorance, you're not even trying to rectify it. Fish didn't evolve to reptiles and birds didn't evolve to mammals so I wonder why you think you'll find such fossils.

Here again you are deliberately trying to read absurdity into what I have asked of you. Just like you did when you referred to a creature with a billion mutations in an instant, in which case, you were just trying to absurdify the analogy of probability made. Of course no body talks about a fish that gives birth to a frog as its direct offspring or other such, as you have tried to insinuate here. You know very well that we speak of broad groups, which over time, and through evolution, devolve and branch out into further and further groups, thus producing in the long run the other groups of species which I dumbed down in the OP as general groups for Id.iots. Surely you know that. Please stop trying to absurdify simple statements.

Err you haven't restated it. We have to first agree that you know what we're talking about because from what you've said so far, you don't seem to know what you're talking about. So, I'm hoping that when you state if for yourself, that you'll actually read and digest it before proceeding once more.

As far as this issue of "transition" versus 'intermediate' fossils is concerned, I believe I can now see the area of confusion. The area of confusion results from either deliberate mangling of the text on your part, or from another attempt to absurdify.

Here it is -

When it is said that an intermediate fossil shows a host of traits not common to ancestral or derived groups, this factors time, and does not mean that it shows "no traits" common to either group. It means that there are traits it has, which are not seen in its ancestral groups and also not seen in its derived groups.

The reason I say that you are absurdifying the matter is because you are reacting as though we are speaking three generations of Grandfather, Father and Grandson here, whereas you know very well that we are speaking millions of years during which new features may appear and dissapear. This you know very well. And on account of the fact that the fossils in question are not necessarily or likely direct and immediate offspring of the anscetral group in question, then it is obvious that there will be other intermediate or transitional forms between them which will show gradual evolution or dispensation with such features, even if not found as yet.

As such, by way of analogy -

1 - - [MILLIONS OF YEARS] - - 12 - - [MILLIONS OF YEARS] - - 123 - - [MILLIONS OF YEARS] - - 234 - - [MILLIONS OF YEARS] - - 456.

Where 1 is the ancestor Group, 456 is the descendant group and 123 and 234 are intermediate groups that have a host of traits ("2" and "3" ) (mark you, not "no traits" ) that are present in neither 1 nor 456.

This is a simple analogy and is intended only to show you that when you factor in the extensive period of time between the said fossils being referred to, then of course, since they are not direct offspring, but species that have mutated through time, of course it is perfectly possible and even reasonable to speak about such intermediate species, which will have a host of traits (not no traits) that the ancestor Group or the derived group do not have, based on environmental adaptation over time, etc.

So you have to understand that this does not mean that the descendants do not inherit traits, they do, naturally.

This is why I was shocked at your conclusion in that regard, when you speak about descendants not inheriting traits. That is not what is inferred in the article by that definition.

At all events, I have told you already that I do not care for these definitions that you have decided to stunt the discussion with. Since you say they are the same, I am happy to go with that without further trouble. There is no logical basis to strangulate the discussion on that. I already showed you a distinction from an article that you rejected. It matters not, because the distinction is largely a matter of quantum of traits.

For peace and consistency, let us use the term "transitional fossil" only, going forward. Let us proceed.

Pointing out that fossilization is rare isn't a cop-out, it is a natural fact. Just as naturally formed large diamonds are rare is a natural fact. Besides, I have presented you with some but due to your misconceptions, you're unable to see them as what they are.

I did not say it is not a fact. Cop-outs, as far as I know, are usually based on one fact or the other. In any event, what a cop-out does is to attempt to absolve the "outter" of responsibility. In this case I say that this is a cop-out and does not absolve of responsibility because -

1. The sheer quantum of species that have walked the earth surely provide a pool of fossils useful for this matter - even if only a small fraction of species have fossilized or are useful at all - such a fraction will still represent a veritable bank of many millions of fossils for useful comparison. And given that this is in fact what evolution is based on, and has in fact been proved on severally, it becomes odd to begin to point at the same fact as your reason for not producing at least some of the key links that creationists like to make noise about.

2. The fossil record is the scripture for evolution. Inchoate records in most or all of the crucial areas will mean that people will indeed be entitled to say that this is a theory that should not be regarded as grounded science as yet until more and more fossils are found, with continuous work going on for the next few hundred years and beyond.

alfaman2:

That's what I thought. You have no clue what evolution actually means.

Please do yourself a favour and see the comment I was responding to before jumping in with your lame one-liners about everyone not knowing what evolution is. It is of course only empty barrels like yourself who behave in such a manner on account of the very weighty but very appropriate burden of unintellibility, which hobbles their ability to speak or write, that they resort to such empty and lame prattle.

That discussion with Plaetton was about looking for the length of time it would likely take for unicellular life to evolve this far and he asked a specific question on chronology - and in reference to calculating time, and yes of course, you dolt, there must needs be a chronology of evolution to look at as far as that is concerned.

thehomer:

I didn't exclude descendants, you claimed that the traits were absent in both the ancestors and the descendants. My question then is; how do you know they are related?

Really? Is that the claim? How is that different from the concept of a transitional form? Then this is the quote you've been harping on that I told you and showed you was meaningless.

This has been explained in my post above.

thehomer:

Of course you don't but you may as well be saying that because it is one implication of your ridiculous notion.

And how on earth does a question on the probability of a sequence result in an implication that a billion mutations occur to a single creature instantaneously. What absurdity. How you derived such, you really have to tell, sir. You obviously did not read what Plaetton and I were saying.

For some reason, you're unable to actually state the error as usual. Rather than simply throwing out the words probable or improbable, why don't you present some ballpark figures or examples? I cannot trust your use of those words because you keep demonstrating that you do not understand the concept.

thehomer:

It is your criticism. You do the work to back it up.

No worries, I will elucidate that. Let us just get over our fossils questions first and we will come to that.

Answers to my questions from Alfaman -

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

We don't know. Anybody that claims he knows how life started on earth is lying.

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?

No. This is not the case. There is no linear progression in evolution.

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?

No, " above is false so no "intermediate" species exist.

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

There aren't.

[b]Thank you very much for your answers. I was tempted to treat your answers and those of thehomer together, but there are differences between your responses and so I will have to do so separately.

I hope you very clearly recognize the dire implications of your answers - unless of course your answers are some form of subterfuge.

1. You claim that we do not know whether life started with unicellular organisms. That is a very interesting thing for an evolutionist to say.

2. You at least accede that further and more complex creature slowly emerged through the process of evolution. I would therefore ask - what did each further specie evolve from? Thin air, or a preceding specie? This is critical because you tried to dismiss the existence of any chronology in evolution.

3. You say that no intermediate species exist! Wow, just wow. As such are you proposing evolution by magic?

4. You conclude that there are no intermediate species because evolution is not linear.

My friend, you have just presented a most incoherent view of evolution - which is not even evolution at all, but frankly bears greater resemblance to creationism, since you are rejecting the core essence of evolution - the existence of gradations of species.

I can safely conclude therefore (unless there is clarification from you) that my inquiries with you are over. Your view of things frankly discloses an evolutionist who does not believe in evolution and also says no intermediate fossils exist. Thank you very much. This much is ok for me to close the discussion on your front. [/b]

@deepsight, must you respond to all those one liners, gbams, who have not contributed anything to the thread?
I'm trying to learn stuff here not read 'gbam' and unwarranted insults. All these go on while the questions remain ignored.

Deep Sight: @ Ooman.

Thank you for your attempt (it is to be noted in your favour as against those who neither can nor will address anything substantive). Regrettably, nothing you have written addresses the very simple question I have asked in the OP - namely - about Intermediate Fossils. What you have done is simply to rehash basic evolutionary principles for us, which we do not need.

I find your reply unbelievable. You presented 2 premises for debate, i attended to one here and the other in another post, yet you still wrote this.

Deep Sight: And DNA itself evinces no special design?

Deep Sight: This is all too funny. Your analogy is comparable to saying that defects in already highly developed systems, and the changes that such defects bring, therefore show that the highly developed system in the first place required no design.

The evolution of DNA is quite another arm of evolution on its own. In order to fully understand evolution, you have to take the theory step by step, you cannot pack it together like creation. The existence of DNA does not evince design but repetitive patterns of constant composition of matter. The evolution of DNA itself isnt fully understood yet, chemical evolution is the only possibility conceived by brilliant minds. Feeble minds conceive creation.

Deep Sight: Your understanding of DNA sir, is suspect. What is DNA, is not control itself already?

your question here is not fully understood.

Deep Sight: None of this addresses anything. In fact, from your surmise, you should be able to show us millions and even billions of examples of intermediate fossils, arising from macro evolution, no?

Every past animals, fossilized or not, every organ extant and extinct are a proofs of micro and macro evolution

Deep Sight: Now let me address your "Premises". Many thanks for them.

Watch your step son. Who has said anything here about perfection or omnipotence? Please dont wax religious on me. As such, this excuse fails. I do not advance any such thing to you as perfection or omnipotence in this matter. In fact, if you were keen, careful and thorough enough, you would realize that I do not even advance God to you in this equation. God, in my view, stands far too transcendent even for the matter of physical evolution to concern God. Please do not assume that every reference to intelligent input is a reference to God. Thank you.

If all reference of intelligence is not in reference to a kind of God, then to whom do you reference? to you self? or to some aliens?

Deep Sight: Survival of the fittest is no doubt true, but to say that there is no sign of intelligence in nature is more than stretching things. In fact, it might suggest that there is no intelligence in everything we are thinking and writing right now, no? For we are within nature, no? Careful buddy.

Natural reactions and man's intelligence cannot be the yard stick in determining whether an intelligence is present in nature or not. Man's intelligence beats the "intelligence" found in nature in all ways. Man corrects nature's mistakes. Look into man's creations, then look with deep-sight into nature, you will notice an ideal deviation, suggesting that nature does not have an intelligent but chaotic beginning. More on that, if you request with civility.

Deep Sight: I hope I have understood you kind sir, and many thanks for your time and responses.

I am, however, constrained to repeat the question in my OP. For this primary school class sir, you are yet to show me a single intemrediate fossil between the major branches of creatures - given that in theory, they evolved one from another, with millions going extinct along the way. Where are they, kind sir?

let me ask you again, shall we focus on fossils or on the randomness of nature?

below is another illustration

Deep Sight:
Answers to my questions from Alfaman -

I can safely conclude therefore (unless there is clarification from you) that my inquiries with you are over. Your view of things frankly discloses an evolutionist who does not believe in evolution and also says no intermediate fossils exist. Thank you very much. This much is ok for me to close the discussion on your front.

@ Deep Sight. This is the problem I have with you. You first of all posted yourself as a student who is willing to learn but then started showing that somehow you know more than your teacher. So what are you? Do you want to learn or do you want to teach?
My "one liners" as you call them, are mostly an attempt to put you in the right direction because we do not even agree on what this evolution we are discussing actually is.
After going through your posts again, I realised one thing: you are confusing a lot of things and assuming things without proofs.
Let me give you examples of your confusion.
1- You think humans descended from apes. This is wrong. Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor.
2- You think evolution goes only in one direction. It doesn't. It is called evolution, not linear progression. (e.g. a multicellular organism can develop into a unicellular one if conditions warrant)
3- You believe everything you read on wikipedia.
4- You believe that fossils of every being that have been in existence must exist somewhere. This is suprising coming from you as you know very well that most reconstructions today are based of a tiny part of surviving fossils. I already asked you if you knew what a fossil is but you didn't answer. Please note that 99% of fossils of plants and animals that ever existed have been liquidised and gone forever. Infact, you are currently using those fossils to run your car and power your generators. (And those are just land based)

So I tell you once again, if you want clear answers, ask clear questions about facts. Not things people just imagine must be. Understand evolution first.
Or you can do what have been doing all along and wallow in your ignorance.

thehomer:

Okay. How does the e-mail thing work? I just dismissed it since I didn't see the actual message.

Here's my email address: dibsdadon@yahoo.com. Email me your number and I'll give you a call

kwangi: @deepsight, must you respond to all those one liners, gbams, who have not contributed anything to the thread?
I'm trying to learn stuff here not read 'gbam' and unwarranted insults. All these go on while the questions remain ignored.

Commot for road jo.

You can use as much style to support Deepsight but yu are full of crap! If you want to learn about evolution read a biology text book or scientific jouranl or article on the internet.

^^It' only natural that I address deepsight directly.
For pete's sake, he started the thread.
Support no. I'm learning.
Scientific journals and biology textbooks?
I swear you need help!.
You can post one more comment, after that we'll excuse them to continue their discussion. Please.

Deep Sight:

This in itself should render pointing them out easy. Your task is to bring up the known reptile-like amphibians, bird-like reptiles and such, for discussion. I already brought up some to other posters earlier in the thread but they refused to discuss them, such as Archeopetryx.

No it doesn't because they don't fit neatly into either group. Take the description of the Tiktaalik. This is what has been noted about their features.

Wikipedia:
Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Anchiornis is to birds, troodonts and dromaeosaurids. While it may be that neither is ancestor to any living animal, they serve as evidence that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. The mixture of both fish and tetrapod characteristics found in Tiktaalik include these traits:

Fish
fish gills
fish scales
fish fins
"Fishapod"
half-fish, half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, including a functional wrist joint and radiating, fish-like fins instead of toes
half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region
Tetrapod
tetrapod rib bones
tetrapod mobile neck with separate pectoral girdle
tetrapod lungs

Deep Sight:
Come on. You know very well I am referring to fish with paddle like feet as referred in the species in the link on Transitional Fossils. Why you seem determined to stunt the discussion on petty word games is of deep concern to me. This alone shows you are not willing to face the direct issues. Will you kindly stop doing this?

Then I would advise you to put some effort into properly putting your ideas into words. As far as I know, feet are different from legs and due to the sorts of errors you've been making, I'm hesitant to assume such things with you.

Deep Sight:
That is not a problem, but the fact remains that that creature remains "possibly the oldest" such to have feet - as alleged - and the fact remains that this is a deduction or inference from its shoulder girdle, and not that any such was ever found because its fins were never found, no?

Since we are speaking long evolution here, surely it is not inconceivable - infact, it must be the case, that even with creatures of such similar shoulder girdles, there would be gradations in the nature of the ensuing body part, no? This IS exactly why I point out that such a similarity cannot suffice to make the conclusion made.

Simple really.

For the shoulder girdle to work effectively, it would need to be coupled with certain anatomical features. Just as for the gorilla's shoulder girdle to work, it would need to be coupled with certain anatomical features of its arms and fore-arms.

Deep Sight:
Surely you will not claim to be unaware of the method of reconstruction deployed in many cases of supposed "ape-men"; wherein the pieces relied on are merely a jawbone and in some cases some teeth and fragments of skull? Surely, you are also aware that this method of reconstruction has led to many blind-alleys and even out-right forgeries such as Pilt-Down man?

The point being that the method of reconstruction which looks at a few bones only is grossly insufficient, and in some cases, outrightly presumptuous if not even totally deceitful and fraudulent, and this, you know for a fact. You cannot deny this.

Thus, it emerges that using such limited fragments is a window into a world of many presumptions and the possibility of many future forgeries and blind alleys. You know this to be true, and that is the point sought to be made.

And your point is erroneous. That is why I asked you if you knew how those frauds were discovered to be frauds. They were discovered to be frauds not by discovering complete skeletons, but by proper examination of the bones. My point is that the complete structure while being a nice finding, isn't quite necessary to arrive at certain conclusions.

Deep Sight:
Maybe you have not got the point yet. If fossilization is rare, on a planet with extinct creatures, say for example, several trillion, you will agree that even a mere fraction of this should be substantial enough for reasonable investigations - which of course in reality have been and are still ever underway.

Perhaps it does not occur to you that this excuse would serve well even with the most gap-filled fossil record imaginable. How then is that to be canvassed as proof of a positive claim, which evolution is? Arguing that your proof is rare, even if true, cannot be proof, can it?

You do realize that we have a mere fraction that is substantial enough for reasonable investigations. In fact, that is what has happened so far. The evidence isn't that it is rare, the evidence is that what has actually been found despite the rarity dovetails nicely with the theory of evolution.

Deep Sight:
Here again you are deliberately trying to read absurdity into what I have asked of you. Just like you did when you referred to a creature with a billion mutations in an instant, in which case, you were just trying to absurdify the analogy of probability made. Of course no body talks about a fish that gives birth to a frog as its direct offspring or other such, as you have tried to insinuate here. You know very well that we speak of broad groups, which over time, and through evolution, devolve and branch out into further and further groups, thus producing in the long run the other groups of species which I dumbed down in the OP as general groups for Id.iots. Surely you know that. Please stop trying to absurdify simple statements.

And I have to inform you again that I'm trying not to assume anything with you. Frogs aren't reptiles and I didn't take you to be saying that a fish gave birth to a frog, but that you said reptiles were sort of direct descendants of fish.

Deep Sight:
As far as this issue of "transition" versus 'intermediate' fossils is concerned, I believe I can now see the area of confusion. The area of confusion results from either deliberate mangling of the text on your part, or from another attempt to absurdify.

Here it is -

When it is said that an intermediate fossil shows a host of traits not common to ancestral or derived groups, this factors time, and does not mean that it shows "no traits" common to either group. It means that there are traits it has, which are not seen in its ancestral groups and also not seen in its derived groups.

The reason I say that you are absurdifying the matter is because you are reacting as though we are speaking three generations of Grandfather, Father and Grandson here, whereas you know very well that we are speaking millions of years during which new features may appear and dissapear. This you know very well. And on account of the fact that the fossils in question are not necessarily or likely direct and immediate offspring of the anscetral group in question, then it is obvious that there will be other intermediate or transitional forms between them which will show gradual evolution or dispensation with such features, even if not found as yet.

As such, by way of analogy -

1 - - [MILLIONS OF YEARS] - - 12 - - [MILLIONS OF YEARS] - - 123 - - [MILLIONS OF YEARS] - - 234 - - [MILLIONS OF YEARS] - - 456.

Where 1 is the ancestor Group, 456 is the descendant group and 123 and 234 are intermediate groups that have a host of traits ("2" and "3" ) (mark you, not "no traits" ) that are present in neither 1 nor 456.

This is a simple analogy and is intended only to show you that when you factor in the extensive period of time between the said fossils being referred to, then of course, since they are not direct offspring, but species that have mutated through time, of course it is perfectly possible and even reasonable to speak about such intermediate species, which will have a host of traits (not no traits) that the ancestor Group or the derived group do not have, based on environmental adaptation over time, etc.

So you have to understand that this does not mean that the descendants do not inherit traits, they do, naturally.

This is why I was shocked at your conclusion in that regard, when you speak about descendants not inheriting traits. That is not what is inferred in the article by that definition.

At all events, I have told you already that I do not care for these definitions that you have decided to stunt the discussion with. Since you say they are the same, I am happy to go with that without further trouble. There is no logical basis to strangulate the discussion on that. I already showed you a distinction from an article that you rejected. It matters not, because the distinction is largely a matter of quantum of traits.

For peace and consistency, let us use the term "transitional fossil" only, going forward. Let us proceed.

Then this will serve as my last response with respect to your confusion about these terms.

You should have realized by now that classification isn't done based on absence of traits but based on the presence of traits. And your tailor made example happily distorts the concept of evolution. But just think through your example carefully. Surely you can see that it isn't really different from the term "transitional fossil" as it is commonly used.

Deep Sight:
I did not say it is not a fact. Cop-outs, as far as I know, are usually based on one fact or the other. In any event, what a cop-out does is to attempt to absolve the "outter" of responsibility. In this case I say that this is a cop-out and does not absolve of responsibility because -

Cop-outs are supposed to be flimsy but the facts about the rarity of fossilization and the other things I pointed out aren't flimsy, they're just facts about the world we live in.

Deep Sight:
1. The sheer quantum of species that have walked the earth surely provide a pool of fossils useful for this matter - even if only a small fraction of species have fossilized or are useful at all - such a fraction will still represent a veritable bank of many millions of fossils for useful comparison. And given that this is in fact what evolution is based on, and has in fact been proved on severally, it becomes odd to begin to point at the same fact as your reason for not producing at least some of the key links that creationists like to make noise about.

Creationists aren't interested in the science so fossil discovery isn't to please them or bother with their claims. And as I said, a small fraction of the fossils are in fact, what we have and they work well enough to buttress the theory.

Deep Sight:
2. The fossil record is the scripture for evolution. Inchoate records in most or all of the crucial areas will mean that people will indeed be entitled to say that this is a theory that should not be regarded as grounded science as yet until more and more fossils are found, with continuous work going on for the next few hundred years and beyond.

False. The fossil record isn't the "scripture for evolution". The lines of evidence of evolution are numerous and the results generally confirm the theory. You can take a look at just how diverse the lines of evidence for it are here.