₦airaland Forum

Logicboy03: Good for you. If God works for you, then that is your own belief.

There are millions of atheists who went through worse and didnt call on any higher power. From what I can tell, you are not a young man.

Lol, funnily enough, most people around me regard me as atheist. And i'm just 34. That's not exactly a grandpa. . . !

MacDaddy01: People have been praying for me to see the light both in real life and nairaland for a year now. All ending in failure- both from Yahweh and Allah.


Why would your prayer be any different? People offered numerous prayers for Hitchens, yet nothing.


Seriously?

Why dont you forget Yahweh and Allah and think for once about the source of existence, whatever you may call it? I certainly abandoned Yahweh and Allah almost 20 years ago. . . and yet I believe in the existence of the compound eternal mind that is God. . . . .

You know, my family and friends always said - when you are in real trouble, you will call on Jesus. I had a heart attack at 21, I did not call on Jesus. I called on God. I survived. I have been in an amazing number of terrible auto accidents. I did not call on Jesus. I called on God. I survived. Including one accident in which the vehicle almost fell of a bridge in Abuja, just hanging barely. Another accident in which my car flew from one side of Osborne road in Ikoyi to the reverse side. Another one in which, pursued by armed robbers at Yaba, I did James Bond and ended up with a 180 degree spin that crashed me. I have been attacked by robbers who kidnapped me in lekki and killed 4 people in my presence and were set to execute me. I have been attacked in VI by robbers again, and reversed at unimaginable speed through a busy street and killed no one. I have been through experiences such as losing my job and marriage within the space of one month and not gone mad. Never called on Jesus. I have practiced as a lawyer on okada back in the day carrying my wig and gown with a ton of books sweating in a cheap suit and risen to become a director in several multi-nationals as cross regional head of legal. Never called on Jesus. I Have lost all of that, and more than I can tell and in the process somehow built from Okada to Two houses, great cars, personal businesses, et all, in spite of the struggle. From a 3 bedroom flat of struggle to a 7 bedroom GRA house for my mother and a victoria island one for myself.. Never called on Jesus. Even at the point of loss of most of my assets recently, never called on Jesus. Called on God. Called on my spirit.

Think on that. Call on yours.

It aint easy, but its life.

I am sorry i shared this much online, but its life. . . and i just had a feeling. Deal with life.

[quote author=Mr_Anony2]Good, now think about this carefully:

If you hold that the future has multiple outcomes, then you'll agree that our choices indeed matter. Now would you rather that God fixed the future so that you acted according to script or that God allow you to make your decisions and warn you about the outcomes even though He knows what decision you'll make and if you will heed His warning? Remember that we have established that the fact that He knows what you will choose does not mean that He is therefore causing you to choose it.

You see on the one hand you want God to step in and control the outcome by presetting the conditions for everyone. Essentially, you want Him to fix the script. The problem with this is that if the script is fixed, then no one is really making choices rather they are just acting out the movie of life.

On the other hand, you want your choices to matter. For that to happen, God has to let you write your own script and only provide guidance while leaving you the choice of whether to heed His guidance or not.


Now, from the moment God created free-willed beings, the possibility of sin was born. But then one cannot really be said to have a relationship with God if one doesn't do it out of his/her free-will. One cannot be said to love if one does not choose to love.
God is not interested in our "good works"(we simply can't be good enough to impress God) if He wanted good works, He could easily have created "good-working robots" rather He wants us to be in a loving relationship with Him and for this to happen, we must have free-willed beings capable of love.


I'll use your father and son analogy to further illustrate this: As a father, does knowing that your children will disobey you mean that you shouldn't have them?
Will it be good of you to refuse to have children because you don't want disobedience to exist in your family? (I'll accept that you are well within your rights to do this)
Following from the above; In the case where you've had children and where your children act in disobedience, is their disobedience therefore your fault because you created that possibility by bringing them into the world?[/quote]Award winning post.

[quote author=A-town]Why is it that these spirits are only peculiar to Africa? Do we serve a different God? Why is it that the "Oyinbos" that actually "BROUGHT" religion to us never have these spiritual husbands/wives.
People lets wake up and stop deceiving ourselves. If you're having symptoms, please go see a DOCTOR. You may have a previously undetected illness. There is no such thing as spiritual spouse. Chikena.[/quote]Thew words "incubus" and "sucubus" are not African words, my friend. If you don't know what they are, google them.

benodic: as part of this practical spiritual thread i will also be posting creative spiritual exercises that anyone can use for further spiritual growth. if you have one feel free to post it for the benefit of others.
below is a spiritual exercise you can try for this week

Journey on an Ocean of Light

Tonight when you go to bed, close your eyes and locate the Spiritual Eye. It is at a point right above and between the eyebrows. Now very gently look for the Light, which can come in a number of different ways.

At first you may see just a general glow of light that you think is merely your imagination. It might appear as little blue spots of light or as a ray of light. Or it could look like a beam of light coming through an open window from the sunshine outside. The white light may also show up in any number of ways.

As you look for the Light, chant your secret word or HU, a name for God which has a power greater than the word God for many people. Watch as this Light turns into an ocean of light. Then, as you see It turn into an ocean, look for a little boat that's coming to shore very near where you are standing. At the helm is the Mahanta or one of the ECK Masters, who will invite you into the boat. Don't be afraid; just get in.

When you get to this point, allow any experience to follow that may. Set no limitations on it. You may end up in a video arcade, or you may end up near or inside a Temple of Golden Wisdom. Or you may have an experience of the Light and Sound of God coming directly into Soul.

Sri Harold Klemp
The Spiritual Exercises of ECK

Have you ever been on any of these journeys?

MacDaddy01: Please, be civil.

[size=64pt]WHAT DID YOU SAY ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?[/size]

musKeeto: Total madness...

@DeepSight: I'd like to pm you. Just one tiny question i've been meaning to ask you..

PM Away.

O, just by the way, I have been thinking of ideas to make mosquitoes extinct

@ LB, IHEDINOBI, ANONY -

EVERYTHING HAS HAPPENED ALREADY.

YOU LIVE THE TAPE.

PROJECTOR LIGHTS.

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]

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.

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.

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: 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.

@ 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.

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: 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.

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: 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!

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,

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: 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?

I am really concerned that our dear Gbawe should even hint at it being "pragmatic" to consider an IBB membership of the new party. In terms of voting capital, it could only steal votes. In any sense of political influence also, the stark reality is that IBB is politically dead. Anyone who thinks the contrary is living very far in Nigeria's past.

Now, aside pragmatism, there are just some suggestions that should never be heard from 'progressives'. . . and the faintest sigh of IBB, is one of such.

If anyone thinks that IBB is useful to today's PDP, that person is dreaming. Nor will he be useful to the APC. He can only hobble it, and in fact, the slightest association he has with APC will instantly destroy the credibility of that party.

InesQor: Adeola: "God I know I haven't been good, but I'm your child and I know your love for me is real. I'll try to do better but now I am in urgent need of your help..."
God: Loves what he is hearing. Smiles and listens to her request, that he'd already been waiting for her to mention. Assigns angels to her aid.

Bintu: "God you know I've been a good girl. And you know I've not done any wrong recently and I've kept my holiness. I know you're just so you'll give me what I deserve"
God: "Oh really? You'd like to keep scores based on the fact that I'm just? Yes indeed I am just. And I have an excellent score-keeper" Summons the score-keeper. Score-keeper excellently reveals holes in her hol-iness. End of discussion.

Chinelo:"I've messed up badly. Everybody knows I'm done for. I won't even bother asking God to help me lest he hand me to the devil in anger"
God: "Sigh. I need to wait for this one to make up her mind & come home. I can't force her hand"
Devil: (rubs hands gleefully, hopes she stays right where she is)

What do you think of these three scenarios? Do they seem familiar to you?

Why are you crafting heathen evil demonic belching from the pit of utter darkness at this unseemly hour of the night? ? ? ?

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?

^^^ 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?

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

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? ? ? ? ? ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?