Denton said that a transition between two sentences is impossible because there are no viable intermediates. He was wrong. He had only considered trivial direct routes, not all possible ones.
You are saying that a transition between two animals is impossible because there are no viable intermediates. You are making the same mistake.
That’s what Denton said about sentences, and he was wrong. He hadn’t actually looked at all possible transitions, only at trivially non-viable ones. He was limited by his own lack of imagination, his preconceptions, and his unwillingness to check whether he was wrong.
Also, all life that has ever lived has only used the tiniest of fractions of all viable DNA sequences. Even for a single amino acid sequence in a protein there are countless DNA sequences that will produce that specific amino acid sequence. For a given protein function there are countless amino acid sequences that will have that function. For example:
That’s 1 with 93 zeros after it. That’s the number of estimated protein sequences that will have cytochrome c function. And yet, we see the tiniest fraction of those sequences in life. In fact, they only differ slightly from one another from species to species. Yet another fact, the pattern of those differences are exactly what we would expect to see from common descent and evolution.
Added in edit:
I was curious about the math, so I attempted it. Using the amino acid sequence for cytochrome c I found the number of codons possible at each amino acid and then multiplied them all together to get the final result, which is 4.94E46 possible DNA sequences (including stop codon) that would produce human cytochrome c protein. I think this math is right.
Genetic sequences are way, way more flexible than words in English. There aren’t billions of ways to spell fish. There are ~10^93 ways of spelling cytochrome c at the protein level.
So what? I was not looking at the microcellular. Physiology is about the organs and connections. it is macro not micro.
You are not understanding the analogy.
I am talking about metabolic systems not amino acids.
When I was at school, one of the ways of establishing understanding was to rephrase in your own words or to compare with another system. It means you understand the whole mechanics not just formulae or the standard definitions. You seem unable to see beyond your microscope. Can’t you see the comparisons between the powering of a vehicle and the powering of a biological system?
That seems to be you standard retort. It comes from lack of understanding. You think I am talking gibberish, because you have not learnt the right language (reasoning). I may as well be talking Chinese. You are trying to write Chinese using the Western Alphabet.
You need to supply the evidence as to why it can’t exist.
If I said that square planetary orbits could not exist I could supply the evidence as to why they can’t exist. I could show you all the math and reasoning.
So show us the evidence for why these intermediates can’t exist. We need more than “Because I say so”.
We do not know how a zygote holds all the information to make the adult.
We do not know how DNA code manifests in terms of bones, organs, size, shape and so on
We do not know why a cell becomes a bone, or organ tissue, or non deliniated . if we did we could cure cancer.
We do not know why if you cross a horse with a donkey you get an infertile Ass.
We do not know whether a small change in DNA can actually completely change the characteristics of the adult
If DNA code was like a module, so that a certain code formed a complete system then Evolution would just be a glorified lottery where a random result could strike lucky and build wings, complete with all the anciliary muscles, blood vessels and nerve control already intact. But evidence would prove otherwise.
We just don’t know enough to tell you why Pegassi cannot exist ,let alone the transitional creatures you insist upon.
All we have is basic physiology. And if you understood the difference between the working of endotherms and ectotherms you would think twice before trying to swap them over.
ToE jumps the gun. It is claiming what cannot be proved and trying to convince by making connections that it cannot even understand. You could be comparing the recipes for egg nog or pancakes for all you know.
The onus is on you to prove it can, not on me to prove it can’t.
Processes like evolution don’t have ‘understanding’ - but people do; or at least those like T who have studied all this. You don’t have understanding, but that doesn’t mean others here don’t.
No - he couldn’t. Because he understands. And he has mountains of evidence which have been repeatedly offered to you, enough that those with understanding can see it and understand it as the near-proof that it is. They have passed the test. Meanwhile what they are waiting for from you is evidence - even just any bit of it at all - for what you believe or your reasons for refusing to look at any evidence that you don’t like. So far … you’ve not been able to provide anything.
If I showed a biological system with both exothermic and endothermic elements, would you retract this point of impossibility or this use of flawed metaphors? Or would it simply be another gap to retreat to?
It also engages in selective reading of the text, picking some things to take scientifically while ignoring other things – it’s thoroughly inconsistent.
This struck me pointedly since I’ve been watching all the old Monk shows from about 2002 to 2010 – he never witnesses a thing but he always solves the crimes.
You just stated that it can do X but it can’t do X. It’s the bricks can’t make a building" fallacy.
My high school general science would laugh at this because there is nothing coherent in what you wrote – and the explanation of why there is no coherence is a simple exercise.
You claimed you did know. Are you now saying that you don’t know if these intermediates are viable?
We may not know every single fine detail, but we understand the general outline. These very things are studied in the fields of Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) and in developmental biology in general. You should read up on Hox genes.
It should also be noted that many cancers have been cured, and we know a lot more about what causes cancer than you seem to think.
You are a scientific layperson, so I don’t expect you to know these things. However, when you feel the need to tell an entire field what they know or don’t know I would strongly encourage you to read up on the field first.
I would suggest reading up on how DNA actually works. Don’t assume that your lack of knowledge is shared by scientists.
Didn’t we already go over this? Didn’t I already show you a very simple modification in tuna that allowed them to be endotherms (i.e. warm blooded)?
Then let’s look at birds.
First, we have a dinosaur with no adaptations for flight, but it has feathers.
Next, we have a dinosaur with flight feathers, but still incapable of powered flight. It still has a front limb with a three fingered claw, long bony tail, and it even has flight feathers on its hind legs to help with gliding.
I could keep going. Here is a list from the Rational Wiki page on transitional fossils:
Kulindadromeus — A basal neornithischian (Ya know, Triceratops, Iguanadon, Hypsilophodon, and such) with feathers.
Allosaurus — A large theropod with a wishbone.
Aerosteon — A large theropod of the same lineage as the aforementioned Allosaurus that was discovered to have air sacs supplementing lungs, like modern birds.
Compsognathus — A small coeleurosaur with a wishbone.
Epidendrosaurus
Epidexipteryx
Scansoriopteryx
Gigantoraptor — A large oviraptorosaur discovered brooding its nests in order to protect and incubate eggs.
Gobivenator
Mei — A troodont discovered sleeping with its head underneath its wing/
Saurornithoides
Sinovenator
Buitreraptor
Pyroraptor
Unenlagia
Graciliraptor
Bambiraptor
Balaur — A large flightless bird that was wrongly thought to be a dromaeosaurid dinosaur…
Tsaagan
Dromaeosaurus
Sinosauropteryx — a basal coelurosaur discovered to be covered in feathers. It is also the first dinosaur to have its colour determined, thanks to preserved pigment structures in the feathers.
Protarchaeopteryx
Caudipteryx
Velociraptor — a famous dromaeosaurid discovered to have quill knobs on its wrists. For some odd-like reason, sadly. Everyone sees these things as mutant dragon-like things.
I’m late to the game, but the biblical definition of “faith” is more along the lines of “trust” or “allegiance” than “belief” (See: Salvation By Allegiance Alone)
We have bought the “belief/opinion” definition foisted upon us by the Enlightenment that positioned “faith” against “reason.” New Testament faith repeatedly appeals to evidence, not least the evidence of witness and testimony. Why, if “faith” is just “blind belief”?
The real definition of “faith” persists in some places today, like the motto of the U.S. Marines: semper fi (“keep the faith” or “keep faith”), which does not at all mean “hold on to opinions of blind belief.”
The Hebrew and Greek words for “faith” mean both “faith” and “faithfulness.”
That is not to diminish Kierkegaard’s “leap of faith.” We misread that as “leap of blind faith.” It’s not.
I have some but limited information, data, evidence, etc., of what it is to be a husband, father, or homeowner. I can only truly know these things (existentially) by getting married, having a child, or buying a house. I can only be successful in each of those endeavours by being “faithful to them”—committing in trust and allegiance to them. In the case of marriage, the strongest example, my (unprovable) faith is in my wife (someone who actually exists, despite the impossibility of my ability to prove that to you). My faith is based on observation, experience, etc., but the relationship is based as much on my faithfulness to her than the mere fact of her existence.
Every species is a “transitional species.” What are the criteria for a “transitional species”? Like…the specific criteria? How would I know one to see it?
I will agree with you on this point. I do think it is entirely valid for evidence to mean “something that convinces us”. I don’t think it is fair to force everyone to only refer to objective, empirical observations as evidence. Christian scientists are able to navigate this issue without much effort. They understand that certain types of evidence aren’t compatible with their scientific work, but it is still evidence for their beliefs.
In the past, I was a bit more stubborn on this issue. It was actually conversations with @Dale on this forum that helped me shift my thinking.
I don’t like the first example. I am less than convinced tht there are feathers present.
I am curious as to how a wishbone could develop, and likewise feathers in general (I was curious to see that pictures showed feathers but there was nothing about them in the text (eg * Falcarius). Flightless birds? Most modern flightless birds are looked on as having lost the ability rather than having wings but unable to use them. I really fail to see the advantage of wings without flight, but there you go.
I can see your conviction but the sheer size of the creatures involved is a stumbling block, considering the general size of birds. Yes, there are some large ones, but they are the exception not the rule.
IOW although you post a convincing list, it would appear less convincing if you delve into it… In terms of survival advantages the developments make little or no sense.ANd why a feather should just appear fully functional but only as plumage is quite frankly beyond me. (But that is just personal bias)
I thank you for your efforts, but am not as convinced as I might be. It would take more time than I am prepared to give to make a full cri’t.
Let’s just say that there might be a little reaching imvolved but I am probably more guilty of bias the other way.
— a famous dromaeosaurid discovered to have quill knobs on its wrists. 
