(April 25, 2014 at 12:38 am)Simon Moon Wrote:(April 24, 2014 at 11:50 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Part of the problem lies is what you guys see as a transitional fossil, I don't. That is why we are at a standstill and we need to go to Argument #1 but I am waiting for something.
How does Tiktaalik not fit the definition of a transitional form?
It has fins like a fish, and also has rudimentary fingers like a reptile. The head of a croc and the gills of a fish. The ability to turn its head like a reptile, shoulders like a reptile, yet has scales like a fish.
There are others, but lets start there.
But it doesn't seem transitional to creationists, mostly because they never bother to define their terms in anything other than vagaries, specifically so they can move the goalposts like this.
We're arguing over a scientific term- transitional form- with somebody who doesn't care about science at all; of course there's going to be difficulties. Rev's idea of scientific is "what seems intuitively right to me at the time."
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects!