I'm fairly certain I've blogged on this topic before, or at least mentioned this tactic in passing at least once or twice, but I wanted to devote something like an entire post to this. We see this all the time from creationists; evolution doesn't happen in real life, they say, because there's no proof of it. When pressed, "proof" becomes synonymous with "transitional fossil." The absence of transitional fossils, then, is why evolution clearly isn't happening.
Here in lies the rub. I named this after Zeno's dichotomy paradox: according to Zeno's dichotomy paradox, you have Point A and Point B. Say that Point A is your car door, and Point B is your house door. Now, you're leaving your house to get to your car. According to Zeno, you will never reach your car door. In order to go between Point A and Point B, you have to go 1/2 way. But in order to 1/2 way, you have to 1/4 the way. But before you can go 1/4 the way, you have to 1/8 the way. But before you can do that, you have to go 1/16 the way, and then 1/32, and then 1/64, and then 1/128, and then 1/256, et cetera. Thus, since you're always going 1/2 of the 1/2 to get there, you can never reach your point. I've also seen this referred to as Zeno's arrow paradox; in order for an arrow to fly to its target, first it has to go 1/2 the way, but before that, it has to go 1/4, and you can see where this goes. It goes on like this for infinity.
Why is the transitional fossil argument creationists use identical to Zeno's paradox?
We have Species A (sA) and from it, evolved Species B (sB). Creationists claim evolution doesn't happen, because there's no evidence that Species A evolved from Species B. In order to find the evidence sA evolved into sB, we need to present a transitional fossil that shows traits of both sA and sB; call this fossil species sb. So we have sA --> sb ---> sB. No sooner do we do this, though, than we have a demand for another transitional fossil, between sb and sA. Call this one sab. So now we have sA --> sab --> sb --> sB. Then we get another request to find a transitional fossil between sA and sab, and so forth. In order to get from Point A to Point B, we have to travel halfway, but we must travel halfway to get there, and then travel halfway again to get to the quarter of the way, and so forth. The same paradox is at work here. You will continually get requests of a halfway species representing a transitional fossil, ad naseum, and when you can't present it, then Tada! God! Evolution is wrong, suck it, Darwinists! They are aware that the fossil record is incomplete; that's why eventually you're going to run into a situation where this "argument tactic" will prevail.
How do we go about solving the problem? Simple.
Here in lies the rub. I named this after Zeno's dichotomy paradox: according to Zeno's dichotomy paradox, you have Point A and Point B. Say that Point A is your car door, and Point B is your house door. Now, you're leaving your house to get to your car. According to Zeno, you will never reach your car door. In order to go between Point A and Point B, you have to go 1/2 way. But in order to 1/2 way, you have to 1/4 the way. But before you can go 1/4 the way, you have to 1/8 the way. But before you can do that, you have to go 1/16 the way, and then 1/32, and then 1/64, and then 1/128, and then 1/256, et cetera. Thus, since you're always going 1/2 of the 1/2 to get there, you can never reach your point. I've also seen this referred to as Zeno's arrow paradox; in order for an arrow to fly to its target, first it has to go 1/2 the way, but before that, it has to go 1/4, and you can see where this goes. It goes on like this for infinity.
Why is the transitional fossil argument creationists use identical to Zeno's paradox?
We have Species A (sA) and from it, evolved Species B (sB). Creationists claim evolution doesn't happen, because there's no evidence that Species A evolved from Species B. In order to find the evidence sA evolved into sB, we need to present a transitional fossil that shows traits of both sA and sB; call this fossil species sb. So we have sA --> sb ---> sB. No sooner do we do this, though, than we have a demand for another transitional fossil, between sb and sA. Call this one sab. So now we have sA --> sab --> sb --> sB. Then we get another request to find a transitional fossil between sA and sab, and so forth. In order to get from Point A to Point B, we have to travel halfway, but we must travel halfway to get there, and then travel halfway again to get to the quarter of the way, and so forth. The same paradox is at work here. You will continually get requests of a halfway species representing a transitional fossil, ad naseum, and when you can't present it, then Tada! God! Evolution is wrong, suck it, Darwinists! They are aware that the fossil record is incomplete; that's why eventually you're going to run into a situation where this "argument tactic" will prevail.
How do we go about solving the problem? Simple.