The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of transitional fossils.
Kant
transitional fossils.
If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form
to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find
as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the
distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be
considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and distinctly
set apart from each other as they are today.Instead of finding a record of
fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large
gaps.
This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
Consider well these immense Gaps:
1. The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition
of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the works
of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.
2.There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.
3.The evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates is
completely missing.This is absolutely incredible since evolutionists propose
100 million years of developmental time between the two,which would have
involved billions of transitional forms,Yet,not one has ever been found.
4.The evolutionary advance from fishes to Amphibians is totally
nonexistent.The timeline allegedly took millions of years....(30
million)...and yet no one has been able to produce even one fishibian.
5.There are no connecting links between and the altogether different
reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs
in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had
already appeared.
6.There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.
7.There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and
birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since
been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.
8.There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
either fossils of ape or a man or neither.There is no valid Scientific
evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between
men and apes.
I an attempt to explain the complete lack of transitional forms,some
scientists have recently proposed the idea that evolution occurs via sudden
large leaps rather than through gradual small modifications.This
concept,known as punctuated equilibrium,has been advanced by paleontologists
Gould and Eldredge (1977).This concept has also been termed the "hopeful
monster" mechanism by Goldschmidt who proposes that at one time a reptile
laid an egg and a bird hatched from it!
Creationists prefer to believe are the ones who have laid an egg,maintaining
that such ideas are pure speculation,completely devoid of any scientific
evidence.
To summarize,the fossil record reveals a sudden appearance of highly diverse
and complex forms with no evolutionary ancestors,demonstrates fixity in
kinds,and is devoid of the all-important transitional forms.These facts are
however,in complete agreement with the expectations of the Biblical creation
model.The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
--
"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
history."
Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
Bobby D. Bryant
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
Why is that a defect in the theory? The theory doesn't predict that
an example of every organism will be fossilized, let alone found by
us, let alone found by us by now.
Learn something about the material you are attempting to criticize.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
mvil...@gmail.com
Kant wrote:
[snip]
>The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
Without using circular reasoning, please show evidence for the
existence of this creator.
> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
> history."
> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
muldoon
Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
arguing with the believers?
Steven J.
"Kant" <Kan...@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:0O8Ue.84$Ij1....@news.uswest.net...
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
> If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one
> form
> to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to
> find
> as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of
> the
> distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be
> considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
>
continual stream of transmutation (phyletic gradualism). Quite aside from
the wide acceptance of Gould and Eldredge's theory of "punctuated
equilibria" (with short intervals of rapid evolution separated by long
periods of stasis), there are Darwin's original suggestions on the subject:
in the _Origin of Species_ he suggested that lineages spent more time not
evolving than they did evolving. He also argued that fossilization was a
very rare and haphazard process. If you don't get regular samplings of a
lineage, even phyletic gradualism will result in "distinct kinds" rather
than a continuous pattern of change, just as if you take a few dozen stills
at random from a movie, you will see entirely disconnected scenes rather
than a smooth progression of scenes and poses.
Second, there are Cambrian fossils that show mixtures of traits that would
be expected from transitional forms between phyla (or, more properly, from
somewhat modiefied descendants of common ancestral forms to two or more
phyla). _Wiwaxia_ and _Halkeria_ show traits linking them to both annelids
and molluscs; _Anomolocaris_ shows traits linking it to both lobopods and
arthropods. None of these, of course, is a plausible ancestor of these
different phyla. Then, of course, there are the "carpoid" enchinoderms of
the Cambrian, which are plausible transitionals between the echnioderms and
the chordates (our own phylum).
>
> From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and
> distinctly
> set apart from each other as they are today.Instead of finding a record of
> fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large
> gaps.
> This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
> Consider well these immense Gaps:
> 1. The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition
> of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the
> works
> of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.
>
I am uncertain as to what a transitional fossil between "dead matter" and
living cells (these would be prokaryotes, surely, rather than "protozoans,"
which term is used for single-celled eukaryotes) would look like. The
oldest claimed fossils of bacteria are controversial; not every expert is
convinced they are really fossils at all, rather than specks of graphite.
>
> 2.There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
> complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.
>
There is not even such a gap today; there are small colonial organisms with
multiple undifferentiated cells, and larger colonial organisms (like
sponges) with some differentiation of cells, and so forth. Fossils of such
organisms exist also.
>
> 3.The evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates is
> completely missing.This is absolutely incredible since evolutionists
> propose
> 100 million years of developmental time between the two,which would have
> involved billions of transitional forms,Yet,not one has ever been found.
>
Again, there are the "carpoid" enchinoderms. There are a host of primitive
chordates, from the lancelet-like _Pikaia_ to the primitive vertebrates, the
conodont animals.
>
> 4.The evolutionary advance from fishes to Amphibians is totally
> nonexistent.The timeline allegedly took millions of years....(30
> million)...and yet no one has been able to produce even one fishibian.
>
Are you perhaps an evolutionist troll? The fossil record here is less rich
than would be liked, but includes a number of spectacular finds, like
_Ichthyostega_ and _Acanthostega_. Note, by the way, that strictly speaking
this is not a transition from "fish" to "amphibians," but from lobe-finned
fish to early tetrapods (the amphibians are a particular group of
descendants of those early tetrapods, highly evolved in their own
non-amniote ways).
>
> 5.There are no connecting links between and the altogether different
> reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs
> in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had
> already appeared.
>
And _Amphioxus_, the lancelet, a chordate apparently very similar to
_Pikaia_, exists today. If a particular body plan is well-fitted to a
stable ecological niche, it can persist with little change even after far
more derived evolutionary cousins have evolved. Such "living fossils" have
existed throughout the history of life. That _Seymouria_ is known from
after the time more advanced reptiles appeared does not preclude it from
being a transitional; it represents a little-changed descendant of the
ancestors of reptiles.
>
> 6.There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.
>
Here you seem to be in rather severe disagreement with the overwhelming
majority of paleontologists, who regard the transitional series between
"reptile-grade" and "mammal-grade" synapsids as the "crown jewel of
paleontology." The astonishing transformation of the reptilian jaw joint
into the mammalian jaw joint and bones of the inner ear is shown by several
different fossil species; whole slews of species of cynodonts,
ictidosaurians, etc. have been discovered and described.
Of course, a strict cladist would insist that reptiles and synapsids are
separate branches off the amniote trunk; no reptile was ever ancestor to any
mammal (rather, "mammal-grade synapsid amniotes" were) and thus there can no
more be a reptile-mammal transitional than there can be a bird-bat
transitional. But unless you are a strict cladist, the transitional fossils
between the groups exist in abundance.
>
> 7.There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and
> birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since
> been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.
>
_Archaeopteryx_ was a "true bird" with a reptilian tail, reptilian muzzle
and teeth, reptilian claws on its reptilian hands; even its hips were more
reptilian than avian. It's skeleton differs very little from that of small
theropod dinosaurs like _Compsognathus_ . The skin covering of small
theropods from the Jurassic and Triassic is not known, but several
Cretaceous specimens show nonavian theropods with downy coverings (e.g.
_Sinosauropteryx_ and some small dromeosaurs), or even true feathers (e.g.
_Microraptor_).
>
> 8.There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
> ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
> either fossils of ape or a man or neither.There is no valid Scientific
> evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between
> men and apes.
>
Of course, creationists cannot agree among themselves whether certain good
fossil skulls (e.g. ER1470, _Homo heidelbergensis_) are "fully-fomed humans"
or "fully-formed apes." There is no place to put a dividing line between
these two supposedly disparate "kinds" that does not have a fossil hominid
squatting astride it.
>
> I an attempt to explain the complete lack of transitional forms,some
> scientists have recently proposed the idea that evolution occurs via
> sudden
> large leaps rather than through gradual small modifications.This
> concept,known as punctuated equilibrium,has been advanced by
> paleontologists
> Gould and Eldredge (1977).This concept has also been termed the "hopeful
> monster" mechanism by Goldschmidt who proposes that at one time a reptile
> laid an egg and a bird hatched from it!
>
No, this is incorrect. "Punctuated equilibria" is the belief that
*speciation* (not the evolution of drastic new adaptions, but relatively
small modifications of previous species, on the order of the difference
between, e.g. a zebra and donkey, or between a coyote and wolf) arise
rapidly (over thousands rather than millions of years) in isolated
populations. Gould and Eldredge were dealing with the problem of marine
invertebrates whose fossils were found in profusion in layers laid down over
millions of years, in which one species was replaced suddenly by another,
very similar but distinct species (of the same "kind"). They were not
discussing the origin of complex adaptions like eyes or wings (eyes are soft
tissue, and transitional stages in the evolution of bird wings are known).
>
> Creationists prefer to believe are the ones who have laid an
> egg,maintaining
> that such ideas are pure speculation,completely devoid of any scientific
> evidence.
>
One might suppose that creationists are experts in pure speculation devoid
of scientific evidence, but apparently they cannot reliably distinguish
between this and theories built on large quantities of evidence.
>
> To summarize,the fossil record reveals a sudden appearance of highly
> diverse
> and complex forms with no evolutionary ancestors,demonstrates fixity in
> kinds,and is devoid of the all-important transitional forms.These facts
> are
> however,in complete agreement with the expectations of the Biblical
> creation
> model.The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
>
To summarize, you are quite wrong. Furthermore, the principle evidence for
evolution is not the fossil record (though that is probably sufficient to
make the case), but the consistent nested hierarchy of homologies among
living species, the pattern of vestigial and parahomologous organs,
structures, and DNA, and the patterns of biogeography.
>
> --
> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any
> profane history."
> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
>
-- Steven J.
Roger Tang
Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
think scientists approach science with faith.
Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
the same.
--
Roger Tang
Producer, Pork Filled Players, oi...@porkfilled.com
Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue, www.
aatreuve.com
Wakboth
Kant kirjoitti:
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
[Snip erroneous, possibly dishonest, creationist claims]
See the section CC200 and subsections in Talk.Origins Archive:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
This stuff has been dealt with before. Stop besmirching Kant's name
with your ignorance.
-- Wakboth
muldoon
Roger Tang wrote:
> On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
>
> >
> > mvil...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Kant wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
> >>
> >> Without using circular reasoning, please show evidence for the
> >> existence of this creator.
> >>
> >>
> >>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
> >>> history."
> >>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
> >>
> >> Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
> >
> > Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
> > arguing with the believers?
>
> Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
> EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
> think scientists approach science with faith.
>
> Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
> evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
> the same.
I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
"Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact." That you would assert
that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
Craig T
scientists have recently proposed the idea that evolution occurs via
sudden
large leaps rather than through gradual small modifications.This
concept,known as punctuated equilibrium,has been advanced by
paleontologists
Gould and Eldredge (1977)."
Recently??? Is this just a reprint of a creationist rant from the past
or is Kant thinking in geologic time? By the way, Goldschmidt proposed
his Hopeful Monsters slightly less recently- in 1940. PE is no hopeful
monster. It suggests that a new species develops rapidly from another
species, then spends most of its existence as it was first established.
The change is what creationists call microevolution. PE theory has
intermediates between species, they just rapidly disappear as the two
populations become stable.
DougC
Kant wrote:
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
> This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
Now you will want to pose for a photograph with your boot planted on
top of Darwin's corpse. Have you thereby proven that there is a
Creator? Is this evidence for Intelligent Design?
Doug Chandler
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
> arguing with the believers?
ToE is well supported by physics, chemisry and biology (especially
genetics). It has empirical content, it can be tested empirically and it
can be falsified empirically. So whether ToE is right or wrong it is a
science. Whereas Creationism and ID are not.
My guess is that in some context ToE is wrong, but that context has not
yet been found. Just about everyone of our favorite theories will be
empirically falsified when we learn enough facts. Being falsified does
not mean beinng useless. Classical Physics is false but it has great
heuristic value. You can use it for making machines and instruments.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
> To summarize, you are quite wrong. Furthermore, the principle evidence for
> evolution is not the fossil record (though that is probably sufficient to
> make the case), but the consistent nested hierarchy of homologies among
> living species, the pattern of vestigial and parahomologous organs,
> structures, and DNA, and the patterns of biogeography.
The DNA is the giveaway. All living things on this planet are DNA
cousins. This clearly suggests a common origin to living things on this
planet.
Bob Kolker
VoiceOfReason
If you deny that biological evolution is an observed fact, then either
you haven't studied evolution, or you've spent too much time reading
junk from the anti-science crowd.
> That you would assert
> that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
Actually, it indicates his status as scientifically literate.
muldoon
Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
muldoon
And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
stew dean
Kant wrote:
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
ALL fossils are transitional fossils!
> If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form
> to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find
> as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the
> distinct kinds themselves.
Evolution is NOT a continual stream but moves at different speed
according to environmental pressure.
Rest snipped.
Stew Dean
Ian H Spedding
[...]
> I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
> "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."
Are you denying that animals can change form over time which has
allowed us to breed horses that run faster or all the different breeds
of dogs and cats?
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
muldoon
That's micro-evolution.
stew dean
We know more about evolution than we know about gravity in some ways,
we still don't know what causes gravity, only how it works. Evolution
we understand well enough to put it to good practical uses.
If anything in science is a fact then evolution is, it's been proved in
too many different ways for it to not exist. We use it in areas ranging
from medicine to designing jumbo jets (and running the airports they
land in). You can model evolution on you PC if you want and play with
it (not actual biological evolution but the same process with the same
kinds of behavour).
Be careful of the anti-science folks - they tend to make arguments
based upon bad information. For more about how to desipher what is
likely to be true try and get a copy of Carl Sagan's 'A Demon haunted
world'. It really puts the whole world of the esoteric into
perspective.
Stew Dean
Ross Langerak
> transitional fossils.
One of these days, we are all going to be shocked when a creationist
actually checks the archive before posting an argument that has already been
demonstrated to be false. The following page lists examples of transitional
fossils. I particularly like the transition between reptiles and mammals.
It lists 30 transitional fossil species, including at least nine that used
both the reptilian and the mammalian articulation of the jaw: something that
creationists claim can't happen. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Now that the most serious defect in evolutionary theory has been
dispatched,....
[snip]
James Picone
[snip]
>
> Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
>
Evolution and the Big Bang are facts. Not "facts", but facts. There is
no other way to explain the cosmic microwave background and Hubble
redshifts, and the Big Bang model predicted the ratios of light nuclei
in the universe before they were observed, and the predictions matched.
It isn't a religion, incidentally. You obviously don't understand how
science works.
stew dean
muldoon wrote:
> muldoon wrote:
> > Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
The big bang is a best guess. Cosmology is a very tubulant area of
study and is not an absolute area. As far as we know the big bang is a
very good theory that is open to question but has so far stood up well.
> And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
That one is easy. Consciousness is an emergent property of the mind
which is defined by the connections within the brain. No brain, no
mind, no mind, no conscousness.
So no consciousness cannot exist without the connections of the mind as
that is what it is a property of.
To go beyond human consciousness anything that can process connections
based upon input in the right way and was complex enough could be
conscious so there is no reason why we could not, one day, create
something else that was conscious, even beyond our own level or in a
new unique way.
If you find this idea rediculous, ask yourself why you find it such a
bad idea? Is it because it is impossible or is it simply you don't like
the idea that what you are is the product of the interplay of neurons?
Stew Dean
Glenn
"stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126253459....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> muldoon wrote:
> > muldoon wrote:
>
> > > Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
>
> The big bang is a best guess. Cosmology is a very tubulant area of
> study and is not an absolute area. As far as we know the big bang is a
> very good theory that is open to question but has so far stood up well.
Many articles in the popular press describe the bb as being "confimed" and through
"multiple lines of evidence." So you have to ask yourself, with the help of Larry
Moron, is the bb "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold
provisional consent".
What is "absolute area"? What does "very good" mean? What does "stood up well" and
to what do you comare it to?
>
>
> > And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> > and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
>
> That one is easy. Consciousness is an emergent property of the mind
> which is defined by the connections within the brain. No brain, no
> mind, no mind, no conscousness.
>
You really think that inference is a "fact"? Provide your evidence that
consciousness does not exist for an individual before, and after, life (or "no
brain"). You claim it's "easy"?
James Picone
cosmologist or astrophysicist. I may or may not be correct.
Glenn wrote:
> "stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126253459....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>muldoon wrote:
>>
>>>muldoon wrote:
>>
>>>>Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
>>
>>The big bang is a best guess. Cosmology is a very tubulant area of
>>study and is not an absolute area. As far as we know the big bang is a
>>very good theory that is open to question but has so far stood up well.
>
>
> Many articles in the popular press describe the bb as being "confimed" and through
> "multiple lines of evidence." So you have to ask yourself, with the help of Larry
> Moron, is the bb "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold
> provisional consent".
>
> What is "absolute area"? What does "very good" mean? What does "stood up well" and
> to what do you comare it to?
I'm not sure about 'absolute area', Glenn, but I think it means it isn't
as old as biology, and we haven't done as much study in it. Compared to
evolution, the Big Bang is a very recent theory. Of course, compared to
creationism, the Big Bang theory has barely been born. Very good means
that it explains most of the evidence very well. It has predicted the
ratios of various light elements in the universe, it explains Hubble
redshifts and the cosmic microwave background. It does have a few minor
flaws: We can't calculate what happened at the split second in which the
Bang is supposed to have occurred, because quantum mechanics and
relativity don't mix too well. Additionally, the current Big Bang model
requires a period of rapid inflation soon after it occured to explain
the distribution of matter in the galaxy. Thus, it has its problems, but
it explains several seperate phenomena rather well.
The model to compare it to would be the steady-state model, in which the
universe has been in existence forever. This requires matter to be being
created continuously, although at a very slow rate, to stave off the
second law of thermodynamics. Steady-state didn't fare quie as well as
the big bang. Its predictions weren't as good, and it couldn't explain
hubble redshifts or the CMB.
Of course, one of the major problems with the Big Bang is why in all
hell the universe decided to appear as an infintesmal speck. Or, in a
less anthropomorphic way, why did it happen? If you really want, Glenn,
you can insert a god there with no danger of that gap being filled.
>
>>
>>>And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
>>>and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
>>
>>That one is easy. Consciousness is an emergent property of the mind
>>which is defined by the connections within the brain. No brain, no
>>mind, no mind, no conscousness.
>>
>
> You really think that inference is a "fact"? Provide your evidence that
> consciousness does not exist for an individual before, and after, life (or "no
> brain"). You claim it's "easy"?
>
I suspect that by 'That one is easy', he was referring to his answer
being easy, and the one above it being more difficult for him to work out.
Glenn, provide some evidence that conciousness isn't a property of the
brain, and doesn't continue after people die. When people are
unconcious, the brain doesn't work quite as hard, and death leads to a
complete stoppage of brain activity. That's a strong suggestion that
that is where conciousness resides. Not to mention that damage to the
brain affects your conciousness, and your mind in general.
muldoon
Your contented acceptance of your beliefs is quaint.
stew dean
Glenn wrote:
> "stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126253459....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > muldoon wrote:
> > > muldoon wrote:
> >
> > > > Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
> >
> > The big bang is a best guess. Cosmology is a very tubulant area of
> > study and is not an absolute area. As far as we know the big bang is a
> > very good theory that is open to question but has so far stood up well.
>
> Many articles in the popular press describe the bb as being "confimed" and through
> "multiple lines of evidence." So you have to ask yourself, with the help of Larry
> Moron, is the bb "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold
> provisional consent".
Larry Moron. The BB is right according to all we know. But cosmology
is a very turbulant area and we are only beginning to understand the
nature of the big bang. Incidently the big bang got it's name from
Hoyle who named it as a joke - it stuck.
> What is "absolute area"? What does "very good" mean? What does "stood up well" and
> to what do you comare it to?
So many questions. Only maths and religion are absolutes in this
world, and only one of those is real. It is a very good theory in that
it covers a great deal of ground. Until an alternative theory comes up
the big bang is the only show in town but I won't pretend for a second
it's anywhere as solid as evolution. We can model evolution but don't
know what caused the big bang (although there are some good ideas
floating around from the likes of Lee Smolin).
> >
> >
> > > And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> > > and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
> >
> > That one is easy. Consciousness is an emergent property of the mind
> > which is defined by the connections within the brain. No brain, no
> > mind, no mind, no conscousness.
> >
> You really think that inference is a "fact"?
Inference. It's an explaination of conscoiusness. What we currently
know is that consciousness is an emergent property of the way the brain
works. An emergent property is something that is 'more than the sum of
the parts'. In simple terms put three lines together and you get a
triangle - yet take them apart and they become lines again and you have
no triangle. So it is with brain/mind/consciousnes.
> Provide your evidence that
> consciousness does not exist for an individual before, and after, life (or "no
> brain"). You claim it's "easy"?
Yes. I can measure that someone is conscious if they are alive and
here. If they are dead then they have no conscious. Tada! What test
would you do to show consciousness before and after life? To be honest
consciousness is a mental process - and there has never been a single
objective case where someone has been able to think something if they
have no brain!
Does the triangle exist before and after the three lines come together?
No. Why would it be any different for conscousness. We are all more
than the sum of the parts, but take the parts away and that 'more than'
disappears with them.
Unless you can think of a reason why this is not the case I think I can
claim i'm correct on this.
Stew Dean
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
It is a hypothesis well supported by the science of physics and
cosmological obsersvations.
Neither you nor I could call it a fact since we were not there to see it
happen. We postulate the big bang from the observed expansion of the cosmos.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
Consciousness is one of the functions of the brain which is made of
physical atoms. There is no evidence that consciousness is anything
other than that.
Bob Kolker
>
stew dean
Let me quickly explain why these are not beliefs. Simply put the above
objective, if you don't trust my answer you can go and look it up
yourself. If you choose to instead fall back on your own subjective
views then you're outside of the realm of logic.
So no these are not beliefs. I am non religious and whilst there are
somethings I do believe the nature of consciousnes is not a belief but
based up on commonly available knowledge.
You also did not answer my question so I'm not sure why you are so
overly defensive.
Stew Dean
Robert J. Kolker
>
> You really think that inference is a "fact"? Provide your evidence that
> consciousness does not exist for an individual before, and after, life (or "no
> brain"). You claim it's "easy"?
No such evidence exist. No such evidence -can exist-. However the
hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent of brain function is
heavily supported by emprical evidence. Science is not a system of
absolute knowledge. It is a system of testable hypotheses supported (or
refuted) by empircal data. There is no reproducable evidence whatsoever
that consciousness exists in any other way but an effect of brain
functioning.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> We know more about evolution than we know about gravity in some ways,
> we still don't know what causes gravity, only how it works. Evolution
> we understand well enough to put it to good practical uses.
No one knows the ultimate cause of gravitation, but it is well enough
understood to put it to use. For example: aircraft, spacecraft and the
Global Positioning System.
>
> If anything in science is a fact then evolution is, it's been proved in
> too many different ways for it to not exist. We use it in areas ranging
> from medicine to designing jumbo jets (and running the airports they
> land in). You can model evolution on you PC if you want and play with
> it (not actual biological evolution but the same process with the same
> kinds of behavour).
That is a presumption. Just because an algorithm is -called- genetic
does not mean real genetic systems work the same way.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> Muldoon wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
>>Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
>>
>
>
> Evolution and the Big Bang are facts. Not "facts", but facts. There is
> no other way to explain the cosmic microwave background and Hubble
> redshifts, and the Big Bang model predicted the ratios of light nuclei
> in the universe before they were observed, and the predictions matched.
No other way is currently known.
There was a time when physicists asserted there was no other way than
lumeniforous aether for electromagnetic waves to be transported through
empty space. We know better. There are photons (which are particles)
which can manage to go through space very nicely without aether.
Beware of using the phrase "no other way". That phrase has meaning only
in the context of what is currently known or supposed.
You know, all those little thingies, particles which "must exist" may
turn out to be strings and loops.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Your contented acceptance of your beliefs is quaint.
Quaint and empirically supported. Emprically based science with its
associated engineering art is what makes it possible to post nonsense on
USENET.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
>
> So many questions. Only maths and religion are absolutes in this
> world,
Not so. The consistency of several of the major mathematical theories is
not provable. And religion is dreck. It is the cause of much death,
blood and misery.
Bob Kolker
Richard Smol
Kant wrote:
> To summarize,the fossil record reveals a sudden appearance of highly
> diverse and complex forms with no evolutionary ancestors,demonstrates
> fixity in kinds,and is devoid of the all-important transitional forms.
Except of course that there are transitional forms in abundance in the
fossil record.
> These facts are however,in complete agreement with the expectations of
> the Biblical creation model.The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
*Anything* can be made to fit creation. It's a non-falsifiable
hypothesis,
therefore scientifically useless.
And if evolution is a religion, then it is the *only* religion which
is backed up by massive amounts of scientific evidence.
RS
shane
<snip>
>
> I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
> "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact." That you would assert
> that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
>
IIRC, you made the same "I'm not religious" claim a few months ago and
then started repeating and defending all the tired old pratts against
evolution.
<goes and gets duck book: walk, check; quack, check; looks, check. It
seems we have a duck here>
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
maff
muldoon wrote:
> Roger Tang wrote:
> > On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
> >
> > >
> > > mvil...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Kant wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >>
> > >> existence of this creator.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
> > >>> history."
> > >>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
> > >>
> > >> Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
> > >
> > > Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
> > > arguing with the believers?
> >
> > Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
> > EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
> > think scientists approach science with faith.
> >
> > Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
> > evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
> > the same.
>
> "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact." That you would assert
> that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
So are you going to give up medicines and other fruits of science?
Practical Applications of Evolutionary Biology
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/ad05bd62e37d7bdc
Why People Accept Evolution --> Because it fits thescientific
observations!
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.politics/msg/2f3f8113503320b8
Ben Standeven
Kant wrote:
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
> to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find
> as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the
> considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
> From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and distinctly
> set apart from each other as they are today.Instead of finding a record of
> fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large
> gaps.
> This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
> Consider well these immense Gaps:
> 1. The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition
> of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the works
> of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.
>
> 2.There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
> complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.
>
Single-celled life-forms don't fossilize well.
> 3.The evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates is
> completely missing.This is absolutely incredible since evolutionists propose
> 100 million years of developmental time between the two,which would have
> involved billions of transitional forms,Yet,not one has ever been found.
>
Actually, there are several _extant_ transitional forms between
vertebrates and echinoderms. The hemichordates spring to mind
immediately; there are also chordates which are not vertebrates.
[...I don't know much about amphibian evolution...]
> 5.There are no connecting links between and the altogether different
> reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs
> in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had
> already appeared.
>
Which "altogether different reptiles" did you have in mind? Squamates
and Turtles? Squamates and Archosaurs?
> 6.There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.
>
Except for the so-called mammal-like reptiles, of course; plenty of
those...
> 7.There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and
> birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since
> been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.
>
Unfortunately for Creationists, there are also plenty of transitionals
between "true birds" (aka dinosaurs) and other archosaurs.
> 8.There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
> ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
> either fossils of ape or a man or neither.
Neither? That sounds like a transitional form to me...
[...]
> Creationists prefer to believe are the ones who have laid an egg,maintaining
> that such ideas are pure speculation,completely devoid of any scientific
> evidence.
Creationists lay eggs, but don't believe that eggs exist? Riiight...
Dan Luke
"muldoon" wrote:
>> Are you denying that animals can change form over time which has
>> allowed us to breed horses that run faster or all the different
>> breeds
>> of dogs and cats?
>
> That's micro-evolution.
<groan>
You science-deniers are really going to have to try harder.
"Evolution is a Religion?"
"That's micro-evolution?"
You are boring me to tears with this tired old crap.
If you must post nonsense, at least try to use a little more
imagination.
--
Dan
"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick
Dave
>
> Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste
> time arguing with the believers?
Roger Tang
>
> Roger Tang wrote:
>> On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> mvil...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Kant wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
>>>>
>>>> Without using circular reasoning, please show evidence for the
>>>> existence of this creator.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
>>>>> history."
>>>>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
>>>>
>>>> Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
>>>
>>> Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
>>> arguing with the believers?
>>
>> Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
>> EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
>> think scientists approach science with faith.
>>
>> Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
>> evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
>> the same.
>
> I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
> "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."
What part of verified in the field and the lab do you have a problem with?
John Harshman
...something that he undoubtedly cut and pasted from some creationist
web site, without attribution.
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
No problem then. Since there are many transitional fossils, we're saved.
Next defect?
> If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form
> to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find
> as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the
> distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be
> considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
> From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and distinctly
> set apart from each other as they are today.Instead of finding a record of
> fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large
> gaps.
> This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
> Consider well these immense Gaps:
> 1. The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition
> of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the works
> of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.
You would expect fossils for this? Remember the supposed subject of this
rant. Origin of life research is a whole nother field, and fossils in
the traditional sense obviously play no part in it.
> 2.There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
> complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.
Well, that's not quite true. The intermediates are just hard to
interpret. What are the ediacarans, anyway? If you get away from
fossils, there are plenty of good intermediates in the various colonial
(Volvox, e.g.) and facultatively colonial (Dictyostelium, e.g.)
protists. And I would consider sponges to be pretty good intermediates too.
> 3.The evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates is
> completely missing.This is absolutely incredible since evolutionists propose
> 100 million years of developmental time between the two,which would have
> involved billions of transitional forms,Yet,not one has ever been found.
Hardly true. There are a great many soft-bodied fossils from the
Chengjiang, some of which are clearly vertebrates (by technical
definition -- no actual vertebrae) and others of which are not. Some are
candidates for ancestral deuterostomes, in fact. Look up Haikouichthys,
Myllokunmingia, etc. There is also Pikaia from the Burgess fauna. And of
course the various living invertebrate chordates like Branchiostoma. I
have no idea, by the way, where you (or the site you stole this from)
got that "100 million years of development" figure.
> 4.The evolutionary advance from fishes to Amphibians is totally
> nonexistent.The timeline allegedly took millions of years....(30
> million)...and yet no one has been able to produce even one fishibian.
Silly. This is a fairly good record. Try Panderichthys, Ichthyostega,
Acanthastega, Elginerpeton for a start.
> 5.There are no connecting links between and the altogether different
> reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs
> in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had
> already appeared.
You left out a word, and I'm guessing it's "amphibians". You also
misunderstand the nature of transitional fossils. They don't have to be
actual ancestors. They can be cousins of the ancestors that preserve
intermediate forms, and these can survive long after the derived group
exists too.
> 6.There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.
This is expecially silly, because it's one of the best documented
transitions there is. Probainognathus is my favorite, but there are
others all the way from Dimetrodon through Sinoconodon.
> 7.There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and
> birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since
> been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.
Here, you mistake an arbitrary dividing line for some Platonic truth.
It's a true bird because we define birds (either Aves or Avialae,
whichever you like) as including Archaeopteryx and Neornithes, plus
everything descended from their common ancestor. This is especially
silly in light of all the feathered theropods being found in China, of
which my personal favorite is Microraptor gui.
> 8.There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
> ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
> either fossils of ape or a man or neither.There is no valid Scientific
> evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between
> men and apes.
Once again you mistake an arbitrary dividing line for capital T Truth.
Please put all the hominid fossils into the proper ape, man, and neither
bins for me, because I can't seem to do it. The fun thing to do is to
get different creationists to sort the fossils, because they end up
sorting them in different ways.
> I an attempt to explain the complete lack of transitional forms,some
> scientists have recently proposed the idea that evolution occurs via sudden
> large leaps rather than through gradual small modifications.This
> concept,known as punctuated equilibrium,has been advanced by paleontologists
> Gould and Eldredge (1977).This concept has also been termed the "hopeful
> monster" mechanism by Goldschmidt who proposes that at one time a reptile
> laid an egg and a bird hatched from it!
You misunderstand both PE and Goldschmidt. Congratulations. PE doesn't
involve any sudden transitions, except by a geological definition (i.e.
100,000 years counts), and the transitions in question are not as big as
you seem to think, being between closely related and similar species. I
would discuss Goldschmidt, but who today cares?
> Creationists prefer to believe are the ones who have laid an egg,maintaining
> that such ideas are pure speculation,completely devoid of any scientific
> evidence.
How can they do this if they don't even understand the theories they
ridicule?
> To summarize,the fossil record reveals a sudden appearance of highly diverse
> and complex forms with no evolutionary ancestors,demonstrates fixity in
> kinds,and is devoid of the all-important transitional forms.These facts are
> however,in complete agreement with the expectations of the Biblical creation
> model.The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
To summarize, transitional fossils are plentiful, and what's more, they
are scattered throughout the Phanerozoic, a period of considerably more
than 500 million years, not 600 years. The rocks proclaim that Genesis
is a nice story, and I especially like the talking snake, but not
something you should be teaching in science class.
Steve Schaffner
> I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
> "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact." That you would assert
> that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
It is a fact that life has changed over the course of Earth's history,
and it is a fact that life continues to change. Those facts, along
with lots and lots of details, are what the theory of evolution
explains.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
John Harshman
> "Kant" <Kan...@inhell.com> wrote in message
> news:0O8Ue.84$Ij1....@news.uswest.net...
>
>>The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
>>transitional fossils.
>>If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one
>>form
>>to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to
>>find
>>as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of
>>the
>>distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be
>>considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
>>
>
> First of all, evolutionists do not insist that life has always been in a
> continual stream of transmutation (phyletic gradualism).
I have always found that term to be an annoying strawman.
> Quite aside from
> the wide acceptance of Gould and Eldredge's theory of "punctuated
> equilibria" (with short intervals of rapid evolution separated by long
> periods of stasis), there are Darwin's original suggestions on the subject:
> in the _Origin of Species_ he suggested that lineages spent more time not
> evolving than they did evolving. He also argued that fossilization was a
> very rare and haphazard process. If you don't get regular samplings of a
> lineage, even phyletic gradualism will result in "distinct kinds" rather
> than a continuous pattern of change, just as if you take a few dozen stills
> at random from a movie, you will see entirely disconnected scenes rather
> than a smooth progression of scenes and poses.
>
> Second, there are Cambrian fossils that show mixtures of traits that would
> be expected from transitional forms between phyla (or, more properly, from
> somewhat modiefied descendants of common ancestral forms to two or more
> phyla). _Wiwaxia_ and _Halkeria_
Halkieria, in case anyone is googling.
> show traits linking them to both annelids
> and molluscs; _Anomolocaris_
Anomalocaris.
> shows traits linking it to both lobopods and
> arthropods. None of these, of course, is a plausible ancestor of these
> different phyla. Then, of course, there are the "carpoid" enchinoderms of
> the Cambrian, which are plausible transitionals between the echnioderms and
> the chordates (our own phylum).
Hardly anyone believes this; Jefferies, basically. Of course echinoderms
and chordates are fairly closely related, so the carpoids could be
displaying primitive deuterostome characters. But the unique calcite
skeleton of echinoderms is a pretty good synapomorphy.
[snip]
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
What is it today - is it the yearly day of babblical cretinist idiocy
celebration or what?
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Bob Pease
"Dave" <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126274115.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Most folks cannot justify their belief in Evolution any better than on
trust of authority .
This is why ID is particularly dangerous, as it encourages Mortimersnerdism
as the preferred social norm by diluting the already abysmal coverage of
Basics.
RJ P
Dave
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> of transmutation from one form to the other...
> [...]
No, what needs to be understood is that it is primarily the animals
with very small populations that evolve. The closer a species is to
extinction the more likely it is to evolve rapidly. A small gene pool
is easily influenced. These small populations are unlikely to leave
fossils because fossil formation itself is rare. The dominant
populations are the ones who leave fossils behind. They have the huge
numbers. The domanant populations have large stagnant gene pools and
thus they aren't evolving.
gregwrld
muldoon wrote:
> muldoon wrote:
> > VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > > muldoon wrote:
> > > > Roger Tang wrote:
> > > > > On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
> And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
Why don't you try conducting this little experiment:
Give a friend a hammer. Tell him (or her) to strike you in the head
hard enough to render you dead. Then demonstrate for us the continued
existence of your consciousness. You may use any method you can figure
out to do so.
That would be convincing enough for me...
Elf M. Sternberg
> Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
I consider the astronomical facts to favor big bang theory over
the alternatives.
I consider the biological facts, including the witnessing of
speciation in our lifetime, to favor evolutionary theories over the
alternatives.
Elf
Elf M. Sternberg
> And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
The correct answer to this is "I do not know," and to begin a
research program in that direction. To "believe" either way does not
matter, although an inclination one way better serves the research
program as the alternative is essentially fatalist.
Elf
John Harshman
Why should that be true? Show your work. Not the failure to leave
fossils, but the assertion that small populations are more likely to
evolve and large populations have "stagnant gene pools".
Dana Tweedy
"muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1126253451....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ian H Spedding wrote:
>> muldoon wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
>> > "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."
>>
>> allowed us to breed horses that run faster or all the different breeds
>> of dogs and cats?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ian H Spedding
>
> That's micro-evolution.
So, you do admit evolution is a fact.
Your carping about "micro-evolution" is like saying that a girl is only
"micro-pregnant".
DJT
er...@swva.net
> Roger Tang wrote:
> > On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> existence of this creator.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
> > >>> history."
> > >>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
> > >>
> > >> Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
> > >
> > > arguing with the believers?
> >
> > EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
> > think scientists approach science with faith.
> >
> > Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
> > evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
> > the same.
>
> that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
How do you figure?
Eric Root
CreateThis
> Most folks cannot justify their belief in Evolution any better than on
> trust of authority.
We can validate our authority better.
CT
VBM
> transitional fossils.
> If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one
form
find
> as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of
the
> distinct kinds themselves.
[snip rest since they are based on this assumption]
First, there are a LOT of transitional fossils out there, and lists of them
have been provided over and over again.
Second, it is not correct that we should "certainly" expect to as many
intermediate stage fossils as distinct forms themselves. This has two
problems:
1. First, it shows a clear misunderstanding of the concept of evolutionary
development. In evolution EVERY fossil is a transition between something
that had been and something that will be. There are never expected to be
any creatures that are simply a "transition" between two "real" species.
Every step along the way is complete in and of itself, it does not have a
goal of reaching some other form. As far as it is concerned, it is the "end
product". Thus, you might have a sequence of A to J, where if we found a
fossil D, it could be considered a "transitional" between A and J. But F
could be considered a transitional between D and J, etc. So, every fossil
we ever find is a transitional.
But even with that caveat, we have plenty of fossils that are clearly on the
sequence of change between two other fossils we have. A list can be
provided if you like.
2. Second, this presumption fails to recognize the extreme rarity of
fossils and the effect of puncuated equilibrium. Fossils are extremely
rare, and only very specific types of creatures (which make up a small
percentage of the wide range of life) can even leave fossils. Then when you
add the very specific set of conditions which are required for fossils to
form, and then when you add that we have only looked in a tiny portion of
the areas where they could be, it is amazing that we have what we do. Since
the conditions must be perfect, it only makes sense that when those
conditions ARE perfect, we will have a lot of fossils available at that
"level". The conditions might not be good again to create fossils for a
very long time, and when it is, we will then get a bunch of fossils at a
much later level.
The lack of fossils in between these two exemplar points does not mean that
creatures "in between" did not develop, only that they did not leave
fossils.
Another factor that comes in is PE. The way evolution works is that
population groups tend to change only when selection pressures make it
necessary. If it works, there is nothing to fix. Thus, most creatures will
develop as needed to fit its niche as well as possible. When it has done
this, the rate of change would slow dramatically or nearly stop altogether.
A well-adapted species will not show any changes (at least skeletally) for a
VERY long time. Then something will begin to happen. A weather shift, a
new predator or a new source of food, etc. Now, there is a need to change
and the mechanics of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and flow,
begin to create change. This still happens slow, but in geological terms,
it is very rapid. It may take 5,000 or even 10,000 years to make a
significant change, but this is a very small period, really.
So, how would the fossil record look? Let's say we only have exemplar
fossils every 20,000 years or so. If a species stayed in a form of stasis
for 200,000 years, we would find maybe nearly identical fossils. Then the
changes take place over, say, a 7,000 year period, then the species is
well-adapted again and remains in a new stasis for long period. What are
the odds of having an exemplar fossil being found during that developing
period?
Lastly, we usually only have bone fossils. While skeletons can tell us a
lot (an incredible amount, really), we can not always see what morphological
changes are occuring to soft tissue, skin, feathers, hair, etc.
So, basically, the fossil record is very much in line with what we would
expect from evolutionary development.
AC
You mean that hereditable traits don't change in populations over time?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
muldoon <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> muldoon wrote:
>> > Roger Tang wrote:
>> > > On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > mvil...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >> Kant wrote:
>> > > >> [snip]
>> > > >>> The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Without using circular reasoning, please show evidence for the
>> > > >> existence of this creator.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
>> > > >>> history."
>> > > >>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
>> > > >
>> > > > Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
>> > > > arguing with the believers?
>> > >
>> > > Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
>> > > EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
>> > > think scientists approach science with faith.
>> > >
>> > > Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
>> > > evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
>> > > the same.
>> >
>> > I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
>> > "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."
>>
>> you haven't studied evolution, or you've spent too much time reading
>> junk from the anti-science crowd.
>>
>> > That you would assert
>> > that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
>>
>
> Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
It fits all the current observations. If you have an alternative scientific
theory that explains CMBR, nucleosynthesis and the observed expansion of the
Universe, then by all means provide it.
And what does this have to do with evolution? Why the topic change?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
AC
>> > "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."
>>
>> allowed us to breed horses that run faster or all the different breeds
>> of dogs and cats?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> --
>> Ian H Spedding
>
> That's micro-evolution.
Speciation has been observed as well. Care to continue moving the
goalposts?
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Jack Dominey
<bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
>muldoon wrote:
>> VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> > muldoon wrote:
<snip>
>> > > I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
>> > > "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."
>> >
>> > If you deny that biological evolution is an observed fact, then either
>> > you haven't studied evolution, or you've spent too much time reading
>> > junk from the anti-science crowd.
>> >
>> > > That you would assert
>> > > that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
muldoon, do you have a response above the level of "is not"? I'll
make it easy for you. What are these "various writings" you refer to?
>> > Actually, it indicates his status as scientifically literate.
>>
>> Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
It is a firm scientific conclusion that the visible universe was
originally very hot and dense, and that space itself is expanding and
has been since the "birth" of the universe. (N.b. this has nothing to
do with biological evolution.)
>And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
>and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
Do you have some evidence of consciousness independent of matter?
Heck, do you have a useful definition of consciousness? (N.b. this
also has nothing to do with biological evolution.)
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
Bob Pease
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.com> wrote in message
news:5EiUe.2164$jE2....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
Snippage has changed the context of the above quote.
The people I am referring to do not understand the concept of "Validation"
RJ Pease
CreateThis
>>>Most folks cannot justify their belief in Evolution any better than on
>>>trust of authority.
CT:
>>We can validate our authority better.
Re-Bob:
> Snippage has changed the context of the above quote.
Sorry. I responded to what it meant to me, which isn't changed by the
snippage. And I thought it was an insightful comment that gets closer
to our general problem than most of the (very learned and interesting)
discussion here.
CT
Robert Weldon
news:slrndi3fn5.793....@nobody.here...
You know, we really should put the goalposts on wheels, all this moving
about is really hard on the turf, and the greenskeeper is ready to quit.
> --
> Aaron Clausen
> mightym...@hotmail.com
>
Ray Martinez
out in the OP.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/60d52bcce1d020ef?hl=en&
Bobby Bryant intentionally acts like the total lack of transitionals is
no big deal. IOW, not having the very evidence that the theory predicts
does not harm the truthfulness of its claims. Denying the theory
predicts transitionals AFTER it is discovered none exist tells you
everything about Darwinists you need to know: liars.
In response Bryant parrots what all Darwinists rely on when someone
uses their brain and common sense: asserts that anyone who points out
the obvious (no transitionals) is somehow ignorant. IOW, the response
to falsification is not challenged except to deny and calmly assert you
are stupid. This is an act by Darwinists that they employ as their
only way to combat anyone who dares to complain about the lack of
transitional evidence. The quality and brazeness of the act is equal to
their desire to not recognize the lack transitionals because this
proves the existence of the God of Genesis/sudden creation literally
true. IOW, pure hate of God = what everyone knows atheists are about.
What is obvious is that Bryant and all Darwinists on this board
routinely use this tactic of acting like you are crazy in response to
the most obvious damning evidence against ToE.
IOW, it is the only way to preserve their atheist creation myth: brand
all messengers with evidence against to be stupid or crazy. This is the
exact tactic of Satan and the Pharisees as used against Jesus in the
N.T. = proof of the origin of the tactic and who controls Darwinian
tactics. This tactic proves the falsification of pointing out no
transitionals exist is what it obviously is or they would honestly
refute.
In 1967 atheist Louis Leakey admitted "hundreds of missing links were
missing."
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
"But what has the fossil evidence revealed? Certainly not proof for the
evolutionary concept. To the contrary, the fossil testimony suggests
that the major forms of biological life stand abruptly apart. The
thousands of intermediate links, bridging these huge gaps, are
conspicuously absent.
This has baffled evolutionary apologists. Charles Darwin confessed that
this absence of transitional fossils is "the most serious objection
which can be urged against the theory" (p. 313). Stephen J. Gould, a
militant humanist, acknowledged:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt" (p. 24).
When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California), in
February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
links missing."
The question is - where did they go?
The answer usually given is this - evolution simply operates too
slowly for the links to be apparent. Professor Robert Jastrow claims:
"It is in the nature of biological evolution that it always proceeds
slowly" (p. 86).
Of course, this makes no logical sense at all. If evolution has
occurred at a very slow rate, the fossil record ought to reveal
virtually every subtle change, as one type of organism evolves into
another - much like examining the individual frames of a movie film.
The links are just not there!" END LINK QUOTE
In 1997 atheist Richard Milton says in his book "Shattering the Myths
of Darwinism" at least 10 different times there is not ONE transitional
fossil in existence.
>From Darwins day to Leakey in 1967 to atheist Milton in 1997 = no
transitional evidence. Yet Bryant yawns = the Fundies of science
evading falsification because Genesis is not an option.
Naturalism is atheist religion: only atheists assert God is beyond the
realm of scientific investigation. Then every fact they produce is
offered against the existence of God = liars. IOW, we are neutral about
the Divine but then at the same time our evidence proves He does not
exist. Their evidence does not exist but is philosophy packaged as
such.
If there was ONE scrap of evidence they would refrain from ad hom
"refutations."
Bryant/Darwinists assert brazen lies in response: "we never predicted
tranistional fossils."
What Bryant and all Darwinists prove by these responses is the part of
the Bible in Romans 1 that says those who have no God awareness
(atheists/Darwinists) and who reject the way of faith to account to God
(2nd attribute) suppress evidence of intelligent design. The verses go
on to say the reason they do this is because God has stricken their
ability to see Him in creation as a penalty for flipping Him off and
inventing evil lies that He had nothing to do with what He created.
IOW, the evil responses of Bryant prove the Biblical penalty - either
way the Bible is proven true.
ROMANS 1:25
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
>From the same link:
"And so, a number of years ago, the "systemic mutation," or
"hopeful monster" theory was born. In 1940, Professor Richard B.
Goldschmidt of the University of California postulated the possibility
of quick, gigantic mutations, which, he claimed, could produce
"hopeful monsters." Goldschmidt speculated, for example, that
"the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg" (p. 395)."
Look at what Darwinists will do to evade the Creator at all costs:
propose hocus pocus - I thought they were rational scientists, honest,
open to evidence for God ?
Proposals like Goldschmidt's prove that Darwinists will invent fraud
rather than embrace the obvious: Genesis sudden creation is true and
what all the evidence suopports.
Yes, Romans is true: The belief that created things originate from
other created things (macroevolution) is a penalty from God for denying
Him Creator credit.
Ray Martinez
Ernest Major
<Kan...@inhell.com> writes
>Consider well these immense Gaps:
Filled with intermediate organisms, contrary to the claims of the OP.
Loki or Lucifer?
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 05/09/2005
VBM
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126290248.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The evasions by Darwinists is appalling and confirms the facts layed
> out in the OP.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/60d52bcce1d020ef?hl=en&
>
> Bobby Bryant intentionally acts like the total lack of transitionals is
> no big deal. IOW, not having the very evidence that the theory predicts
> does not harm the truthfulness of its claims. Denying the theory
> predicts transitionals AFTER it is discovered none exist tells you
> everything about Darwinists you need to know: liars.
> In response Bryant parrots what all Darwinists rely on when someone
> uses their brain and common sense: asserts that anyone who points out
> the obvious (no transitionals) is somehow ignorant.
But there ARE transitionals, and plenty of them. Why do you keep lying
about that?
Ken Shackleton
News flash.....any living [or now dead] creature that has [had]
descendants is an intermediate by definition. Most fossils are probably
an intermediate.
John Harshman
> The evasions by Darwinists is appalling and confirms the facts layed
> out in the OP.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/60d52bcce1d020ef?hl=en&
>
> Bobby Bryant intentionally acts like the total lack of transitionals is
> no big deal. IOW, not having the very evidence that the theory predicts
> does not harm the truthfulness of its claims. Denying the theory
> predicts transitionals AFTER it is discovered none exist tells you
> everything about Darwinists you need to know: liars.
I presume he was talking about the naive expectation that every single
intermediate will be preserved, not any supposed total lack of
transitionals.
> In response Bryant parrots what all Darwinists rely on when someone
> uses their brain and common sense: asserts that anyone who points out
> the obvious (no transitionals) is somehow ignorant.
Well, Yahya is ignorant, you know. There are lots of transitional
fossils. He even mentions a few of them, like Archaeopteryx, only to
reject them for bogus reasons.
[snip]
> What is obvious is that Bryant and all Darwinists on this board
> routinely use this tactic of acting like you are crazy in response to
> the most obvious damning evidence against ToE.
No, the reason you observe them acting like this to you is that you,
specifically, *are* crazy.
[snip further gibberish]
Ray Martinez
News flash.....any living [or now dead] creature that has [had]
descendants is an intermediate by definition. Most fossils are probably
an intermediate.
RAY:
Asserting contrary to the evidence faithfully preserving the starting
atheistic assumptions = ToE.
Look at the crazy redefintions a person must resort to in order to
evade the observable evidence.
Ray Martinez
John Harshman
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
[...and so forth, blah blah blah]
So where does this cut-and-paste come from? I can't find it. It's not
that I don't get any hits. I get too many. Any sentence I search on
turns up in a host of creationist web pages, usually without any
attribution. These people apparently feel free to plagiarize each other
as much as they like.
A few quotes are attributed to one "Scott M. Huges, Ph.D." without any
further details. No hits for him, except for the quotes already found.
Nor any hits for Scott M. Hughes.
Does anybody know more?
VBM
> KEN:
>
> News flash.....any living [or now dead] creature that has [had]
> descendants is an intermediate by definition. Most fossils are probably
>
> an intermediate.
>
> RAY:
>
> Asserting contrary to the evidence faithfully preserving the starting
> atheistic assumptions = ToE.
That sentence makes no sense. Please correct.
> Look at the crazy redefintions a person must resort to in order to
> evade the observable evidence.
What redefinition? How would you define a transitional. Exactly. And why.
Ray Martinez
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/96814360ad08c555
You evaded this from the post above:
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
"But what has the fossil evidence revealed? Certainly not proof for the
evolutionary concept. To the contrary, the fossil testimony suggests
that the major forms of biological life stand abruptly apart. The
thousands of intermediate links, bridging these huge gaps, are
conspicuously absent.
This has baffled evolutionary apologists. Charles Darwin confessed that
this absence of transitional fossils is "the most serious objection
which can be urged against the theory" (p. 313). Stephen J. Gould, a
militant humanist, acknowledged:
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
groups are characteristically abrupt" (p. 24).
When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California), in
February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
links missing."
The question is - where did they go?
The answer usually given is this - evolution simply operates too
slowly for the links to be apparent. Professor Robert Jastrow claims:
"It is in the nature of biological evolution that it always proceeds
slowly" (p. 86).
Of course, this makes no logical sense at all. If evolution has
occurred at a very slow rate, the fossil record ought to reveal
virtually every subtle change, as one type of organism evolves into
another - much like examining the individual frames of a movie film.
The links are just not there!" END LINK QUOTE
In 1997 atheist Richard Milton says in his book "Shattering the Myths
of Darwinism" at least 10 different times there is not ONE transitional
fossil in existence.
>From Darwins day to Leakey in 1967 to atheist Milton in 1997 = no
transitional evidence. Yet Bryant yawns = the Fundies of science
evading falsification because Genesis is not an option. END PREVIOUS
MESSAGE QUOTE
Ray Martinez:
>From Darwin to Leakey to Gould/Eldrege to Milton = admitting no
transitionals exist and certainly not enough commensurate to justify
the extraordinary claims of macroevolution.
Based on these facts alone = ToE = atheism philosophy desparately
attempting to "objectify" itself under the color of science.
RM
Matt Silberstein
<e...@drizzle.com> in <87r7byi...@drizzle.com> wrote:
Sorry, but I don't know of anything at all that can exist
independently of matter/energy. Consciousness does not hold any kid of
privileged position here and there is no need for any kind of research
program. If some evidence is presented that is suggestive of that
independence, then research might be warranted, but not until then. In
fact, I can't even think of a way to start to research this.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
Matt Silberstein
<glenns...@SPAMqwest.net> in
<glennsheldon-TedUe.8$Et1...@news.uswest.net> wrote:
>
>"stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1126253459....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> muldoon wrote:
>> > muldoon wrote:
>>
>> > > Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
>>
>> The big bang is a best guess. Cosmology is a very tubulant area of
>> study and is not an absolute area. As far as we know the big bang is a
>> very good theory that is open to question but has so far stood up well.
>
>Many articles in the popular press describe the bb as being "confimed" and through
>"multiple lines of evidence." So you have to ask yourself, with the help of Larry
>Moron, is the bb "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold
>provisional consent".
Yep. There are certainly details about the very early bits that are
not yet confirmed, but from, say, 1 second on we are pretty clear.
>What is "absolute area"? What does "very good" mean? What does "stood up well" and
>to what do you comare it to?
All are substitutes for lengthy papers with details and error bars and
all that.
>>
>> > And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
>> > and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
>>
>> That one is easy. Consciousness is an emergent property of the mind
>> which is defined by the connections within the brain. No brain, no
>> mind, no mind, no conscousness.
>>
>You really think that inference is a "fact"? Provide your evidence that
>consciousness does not exist for an individual before, and after, life (or "no
>brain"). You claim it's "easy"?
We have no evidence of anything that is not instantiated in a physical
substrate. We have no evidence for anything like consciousness that is
not literally embodied. Such could, I suppose, exist outside a body,
but it is up to the person making the claim to provide some evidence.
That we identify and name qualities, such as life and consciousness,
does not mean they are separable from underlying physicality.
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Kant wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
>>>transitional fossils.
>>
>>[...and so forth, blah blah blah]
>>
>>So where does this cut-and-paste come from? I can't find it. It's not
>>that I don't get any hits. I get too many. Any sentence I search on
>>turns up in a host of creationist web pages, usually without any
>>attribution. These people apparently feel free to plagiarize each other
>>as much as they like.
>>
>>A few quotes are attributed to one "Scott M. Huges, Ph.D." without any
>>further details. No hits for him, except for the quotes already found.
>>Nor any hits for Scott M. Hughes.
>>
>>Does anybody know more?
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/96814360ad08c555
Thanks for the irrelevant non-reply.
> You evaded this from the post above:
>
> http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
>
> "But what has the fossil evidence revealed? Certainly not proof for the
> evolutionary concept. To the contrary, the fossil testimony suggests
> that the major forms of biological life stand abruptly apart. The
> thousands of intermediate links, bridging these huge gaps, are
> conspicuously absent.
Look at my reply to the original poster. This is nonsense, and requires
massive ignorance or dishonesty (or, as a courtesy to you, insanity) to
defend.
> This has baffled evolutionary apologists. Charles Darwin confessed that
>
> this absence of transitional fossils is "the most serious objection
> which can be urged against the theory" (p. 313).
This was at a time (almost 150 years ago) when there were few
transitional fossils known. We have plenty of them now.
> Stephen J. Gould, a
> militant humanist, acknowledged:
>
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
> little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
> groups are characteristically abrupt" (p. 24).
One man's "precious little" is another man's "plenty". I say we have
fewer than we would like, but enough to sink your notions a hundred
times over.
> When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
> lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California), in
>
> February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
> responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
> links missing."
True. In fact every new intermediate fossil creates two new missing
links. If you're waiting for a videotape of one species morphing into
another, don't hold your breath. But we do get those intermediates.
> The question is - where did they go?
>
> The answer usually given is this - evolution simply operates too
> slowly for the links to be apparent. Professor Robert Jastrow claims:
> "It is in the nature of biological evolution that it always proceeds
> slowly" (p. 86).
>
> Of course, this makes no logical sense at all. If evolution has
> occurred at a very slow rate, the fossil record ought to reveal
> virtually every subtle change, as one type of organism evolves into
> another - much like examining the individual frames of a movie film.
> The links are just not there!" END LINK QUOTE
What link quote? Where did it begin? Yes, it makes no logical sense.
What he should have said is that evolution happens at varying rates, and
that periods of change are apparently rare compared with periods of no
change. If you blink at the wrong time, you miss it. And unfortunately
we are blinking more of the time than we are looking; such is the poor
quality of the fossil record.
However, this applies mostly to the transitions between closely related
species. For major transitions, we have a pretty good sampling of
intermediate forms bridging the gap, and getting better every year.
> In 1997 atheist Richard Milton says in his book "Shattering the Myths
> of Darwinism" at least 10 different times there is not ONE transitional
> fossil in existence.
Milton is a loon. He's wrong. So are you. Both.
>>From Darwins day to Leakey in 1967 to atheist Milton in 1997 = no
> transitional evidence. Yet Bryant yawns = the Fundies of science
> evading falsification because Genesis is not an option. END PREVIOUS
> MESSAGE QUOTE
>
> Ray Martinez:
>
>>From Darwin to Leakey to Gould/Eldrege to Milton = admitting no
> transitionals exist and certainly not enough commensurate to justify
> the extraordinary claims of macroevolution.
I'm afraid you are clueless here. The first four guys admit no such
thing, as should be obvious to you -- Leakey found many fossils that he
himself trumpeted as transitional -- and Milton is a creationist loon.
So much for quote mining.
> Based on these facts alone = ToE = atheism philosophy desparately
> attempting to "objectify" itself under the color of science.
Ray = clueless loon = wrong about nearly everything. See my first post
in this thread (or, if your threading differs from mine, my other direct
response to the original poster) for details.
Dana Tweedy
> The evasions by Darwinists is appalling and confirms the facts layed
> out in the OP.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/60d52bcce1d020ef?hl=en&
>
> Bobby Bryant intentionally acts like the total lack of transitionals is
> no big deal.
Even if there were a total lack of transitional fossils, it would be no big
deal. However there is not a lack of transitional fossils.
> IOW, not having the very evidence that the theory predicts
> does not harm the truthfulness of its claims.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In any case, the original
assertion, that there is a lack of transitional forms, is false.
> Denying the theory
> predicts transitionals AFTER it is discovered none exist tells you
> everything about Darwinists you need to know: liars.
The theory of evolution does not predict that any fossils will be found.
That the fossil record does show transitional forms is just more evidence
the theory is correct.
>
> In response Bryant parrots what all Darwinists rely on when someone
> uses their brain and common sense:
Ray apparently is not well aquainted with either the brain, or common sense.
> asserts that anyone who points out
> the obvious (no transitionals) is somehow ignorant.
They are ignorant, if they are not aware of the transitionals that do exist.
> IOW, the response
> to falsification is not challenged except to deny and calmly assert you
> are stupid.
Especally when the "falsification" is itself false. There are plenty of
transitional forms, so claiming there are not is not rational.
> This is an act by Darwinists that they employ as their
> only way to combat anyone who dares to complain about the lack of
> transitional evidence.
Anyone who "dares" complain about the "lack of transitional evidence",
should be aware that transitional fossils are not lacking. Look at the
fossil record, and you will see the claims made by those who claim lack of
transitionals is false.
> The quality and brazeness of the act is equal to
> their desire to not recognize the lack transitionals because this
> proves the existence of the God of Genesis/sudden creation literally
> true. IOW, pure hate of God = what everyone knows atheists are about.
A lack of transitional fossils, even if such a thing were true, would not
'prove' the existance of God, or the accuracy of Genesis. Atheists do not
hate God, as they don't believe such a thing exists.
>
> What is obvious is that Bryant and all Darwinists on this board
> routinely use this tactic of acting like you are crazy in response to
> the most obvious damning evidence against ToE.
"Crazy is as crazy does". When you deny the existance of the many
transitional fossils that exist in the record, it's not a sign of a balanced
mind.
>
> IOW, it is the only way to preserve their atheist creation myth: brand
> all messengers with evidence against to be stupid or crazy.
Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if there
were no transitional forms, (something that is simply not true), there would
still be plenty of other physical evidnence of evolution. Denying the
existance of the many transitional fossils is not evidence of anything.
> This is the
> exact tactic of Satan and the Pharisees as used against Jesus in the
> N.T
Perhaps Ray could point out chapter and verse of where Satan and the
Pharasees ( a great name for a rock band, by the way) ever used lack of
transitional fossils against Jesus. Maybe that verse is somewhere near
his papers that support his claim about JPL scientists proposing the "vapor
canopy".
>. = proof of the origin of the tactic and who controls Darwinian
> tactics.
Bald assertions and insults are not "proof" of anything, Ray.
> This tactic proves the falsification of pointing out no
> transitionals exist is what it obviously is or they would honestly
> refute.
However many transitional fossils do exist. A lack of transitional forms
is not a refutation of evolution in of itself, and even if it were, there
are plenty of transitional forms represented in the fossil record. Your
claim fails twice.
>
> In 1967 atheist Louis Leakey admitted "hundreds of missing links were
> missing."
First of all, why do you assume Louis Leakey was atheist. Second, you are
misquoting Leakey. What he was sayinig was that there wasn't one single
"missing link" but there were many "links" in the human family. Some of
which had been found by Leakey's time, and many more have been found since
1967.
>
> http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
>
> "But what has the fossil evidence revealed? Certainly not proof for the
> evolutionary concept. To the contrary, the fossil testimony suggests
> that the major forms of biological life stand abruptly apart. The
> thousands of intermediate links, bridging these huge gaps, are
> conspicuously absent.
False claim from an apologist site. So what?
>
> This has baffled evolutionary apologists. Charles Darwin confessed that
> this absence of transitional fossils is "the most serious objection
> which can be urged against the theory" (p. 313). Stephen J. Gould, a
> militant humanist, acknowledged:
>
>
> "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
> little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
> groups are characteristically abrupt" (p. 24).
Darwin and Gould quote mined. So what?
>
> When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
> lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California), in
> February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
> responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
> links missing."
Again, see what Leakey was saying. There is not a single "missing link".
The fossil history of humans is much more complex than that. Since the
time Leakey was quoted, there have been many more hominid fossils
discovered.
>
> The question is - where did they go?
They didnt "go" anywhere. They are still in the rocks, waiting to be
discovered, or have been discovered. Some may have been lost, or never were
represented in the fossil record.
>
> The answer usually given is this - evolution simply operates too
> slowly for the links to be apparent.
No, that's not correct. It's the imperfect nature of the fossil record
that's why we don't have a fossil of every creature that lived. We only
have a very small percentage of all living things have fossilized, and only
a tiny percentage of all living things were preserved as fossils.
Professor Robert Jastrow claims:
> "It is in the nature of biological evolution that it always proceeds
> slowly" (p. 86).
Another mined quote. So?
>
> Of course, this makes no logical sense at all. If evolution has
> occurred at a very slow rate, the fossil record ought to reveal
> virtually every subtle change, as one type of organism evolves into
> another - much like examining the individual frames of a movie film.
> The links are just not there!" END LINK QUOTE
Another false claim from an apologist site. Fossilization is simply too
erratic a process to expect a perfect record.
>
>
> In 1997 atheist Richard Milton says in his book "Shattering the Myths
> of Darwinism" at least 10 different times there is not ONE transitional
> fossil in existence.
Then Milton was wrong.
>
>>From Darwins day to Leakey in 1967 to atheist Milton in 1997 = no
> transitional evidence. Yet Bryant yawns = the Fundies of science
> evading falsification because Genesis is not an option.
Leakey didn't say there were no transitional forms, and Milton's claim, (if
you are quoting him correctly) was wrong.
>
> Naturalism is atheist religion:
No, naturalism is a necessary condition for scientific investigation. It
does not claim that God, or gods do not exist.
> only atheists assert God is beyond the
> realm of scientific investigation.
Quite false. All scientists worthy of the name accept the fact that science
cannot study the supernatural. This includes literally thousands of
devoutly religous scientists. This assertion by Ray is false on it's face.
> Then every fact they produce is
> offered against the existence of God = liars.
Physical evidence cannot prove, or disprove God. Ray is speaking falsely
when he makes the above claim.
> IOW, we are neutral about
> the Divine but then at the same time our evidence proves He does not
> exist. Their evidence does not exist but is philosophy packaged as
> such.
Science doesn't claim that God does not exist. Science cannot "prove" that
God does not exist, and does not try.
>
> If there was ONE scrap of evidence they would refrain from ad hom
> "refutations."
What is Ray's excuse for employing ad hominem, then?
Ok, Ray, here's your chance to shine... Why is Ambulocetus natans not a
transitional fossil?
>
> Bryant/Darwinists assert brazen lies in response: "we never predicted
> tranistional fossils."
Evolution does not predict that transitional fossils must be found . That
we do have transitional forms is just more evidence on the side of
evolution.
>
> What Bryant and all Darwinists prove by these responses is the part of
> the Bible in Romans 1 that says those who have no God awareness
> (atheists/Darwinists) and who reject the way of faith to account to God
> (2nd attribute) suppress evidence of intelligent design.
Actually, Ray, Creationists are those who have no awareness of God, and
those who reject the way of faith. They are the modern Pharasees, who
prize the word above the spirit. The "evidence" of intelligent design
could not be supressed, if there were any.
> The verses go
> on to say the reason they do this is because God has stricken their
> ability to see Him in creation as a penalty for flipping Him off and
> inventing evil lies that He had nothing to do with what He created.
Ray has been shown how this interpetation is false. He keeps repeating this
falsehood, despite the fact he must by now be aware of how false it is.
One can only wonder why Ray keeps returning to this, like a dog returning to
it's own vomit.
>
> IOW, the evil responses of Bryant prove the Biblical penalty - either
> way the Bible is proven true.
The Bible does not say there is a penalty for people using their intellect.
Ray has been shown why this claim is false, and has not been able to dispute
that.
>
> ROMANS 1:25
>
> "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
> creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."
Which sounds a great deal like Creationists. They serve the Bible more
than the one who wrote it.
>
>>From the same link:
Same link as what?
>
> "And so, a number of years ago, the "systemic mutation," or
> "hopeful monster" theory was born. In 1940, Professor Richard B.
> Goldschmidt of the University of California postulated the possibility
> of quick, gigantic mutations, which, he claimed, could produce
> "hopeful monsters." Goldschmidt speculated, for example, that
> "the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg" (p. 395)."
Goldschmit's ideas have not been current for over 60 years. What's the
point?
>
> Look at what Darwinists will do to evade the Creator at all costs:
> propose hocus pocus
Actually, it's the Creationists who propose "hocus pocus". Even
Goldschmit's ideas proposed natural mechanisms for his claims.
- I thought they were rational scientists, honest,
> open to evidence for God ?
What is the evidence for God?
>
> Proposals like Goldschmidt's prove that Darwinists will invent fraud
> rather than embrace the obvious: Genesis sudden creation is true and
> what all the evidence suopports.
Goldschmidt's ideas may have been a bit "out there" but were not fraud.
There is no evidence of sudden creation, and much evidence that Genesis is
not scientifically accurate. The evidence does not support the Genesis
creation stories.
>
> Yes, Romans is true:
But Ray's interpetations are blantantly false.
> The belief that created things originate from
> other created things (macroevolution) is a penalty from God for denying
> Him Creator credit.
There is no such penalty. Ray once again repeats a falsehood, rather than
face the facts.
DJT
shane
Apparently Ray's parents are not transitional between Ray and his
grand-parents. Which makes Ray's comment about re-definitions apply
fully to himself.
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
Bob
wrote:
>
>
>I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
>"Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact." That you would assert
>that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
>
i'm a chemist. does that make me a 'believer' in atomic theory, apart
from the evidence? there is as much evidence for evolution as there is
for the existence of atoms
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field
Ross Langerak
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1126290248.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> out in the OP.
The evasion by creationists is appalling. There are transitional fossils.
See
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
[snip]
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
Mistake corrected:
> Based on these long-debunked lies alone = ToE = atheism philosophy
desparately
> attempting to "objectify" itself under the color of science.
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
VoiceOfReason
muldoon wrote:
> muldoon wrote:
> > VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > > muldoon wrote:
> > > > > On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > mvil...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > >> Kant wrote:
> > > > > >> [snip]
> > > > > >>> The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Without using circular reasoning, please show evidence for the
> > > > > >> existence of this creator.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
> > > > > >>> history."
> > > > > >>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
> > > > > > arguing with the believers?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
> > > > > EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
> > > > > think scientists approach science with faith.
> > > > >
> > > > > Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
> > > > > evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
> > > > > the same.
> > > >
> > > > "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."
> > >
> > > you haven't studied evolution, or you've spent too much time reading
> > > junk from the anti-science crowd.
> > >
> > > > that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
> > >
> >
It is not an *observed* fact as biological evolution is. It is
inferred from the evidence as we understand it.
> And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
Consciousness is a function of the human brain, as can be demonstrated
when we fall asleep, or when a human brain is damaged. I know of no
scientific method to determine if consciousness can exist independently
of matter. That is probably not in the realm of science.
Some religious denominations believe that the soul is consciousness and
consciousness is the soul. I do not share that interpretation.
mvil...@gmail.com
muldoon wrote:
[snip]
>
> Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
The Big Bang Theory is currently the best one supported by evidence.
Do you have an alternate theory? Please describe it...and a way to
falsify it, plus supporting evidence for your theory. I wish you the
best...you will become very rich and famous if you actually do provide
a valid theory alternative to the big bang that is well supported by
evidence and can be test by the scientific method...good luck...
James Picone
[snip]
>
> Your contented acceptance of your beliefs is quaint.
>
Oh, the irony.
er...@swva.net
> The evasions by Darwinists
Typical Satanist rant. Your side keeps evading the obvious evidence
for transitionals.
> is appalling and confirms the facts layed
> out in the OP.
Confirms that the OP was a bunch of horsepucky. Why are you
creationists always hiking up your diapers and spewing all over the
internet the blatant falsehood that transitionals don't exist?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/60d52bcce1d020ef?hl=en&
>
> Bobby Bryant intentionally acts like the total lack of transitionals is
> no big deal.
He intentionally points out the truth, which is that there is no lack
of transitionals. The fact that you pretend otherwise is proof that
you do Satan's work by bad-mouthing evolutionists.
> IOW, not having the very evidence that the theory predicts
> does not harm the truthfulness of its claims.
Why should we listen to the insane babbling of people whose whole lives
are built around their hatred of smart people?
> Denying the theory
> predicts transitionals AFTER it is discovered none exist tells you
> everything about Darwinists you need to know: liars.
This is an imaginary case, so you are the liar. Ray, do you know
anyone who would loan you money more than once?
>
> In response Bryant parrots what all Darwinists rely on when someone
> uses their brain and common sense:
Congradulate them on not being a creationist?
> asserts that anyone who points out
> the obvious (no transitionals) is somehow ignorant.
Bzzt! People who think there aren't transitionals are only ignorant if
after you explain that there _are_ transitionals, they change their
minds and quit saying there anren't transitionals. People like you,
who keeping playing like there are no transitionals, are not ignorant;
the correct term is "evil" or "crazy."
> IOW, the response
> to falsification is not challenged except to deny and calmly assert you
> are stupid.
That's nicer than saying "evil" or "crazy."
> This is an act by Darwinists that they employ as their
> only way to combat anyone who dares to complain about the lack of
> transitional evidence.
Since there isn't a lack of transitionals, how do _you_ think they
should act towards people who are either ignorant, stupid, evil, or
crazy?
> The quality and brazeness of the act is equal to
> their desire to not recognize the lack transitionals
What conceivable motivation _could_ scientist have for throwing their
brains out the window and pretending there are no transitionals?
> because this
> proves the existence of the God of Genesis/sudden creation literally
> true.
Scientists don't care about that one way or the other. They are not
theologians.
IOW, pure hate of God = what everyone knows atheists are about.
No, because if an atheist _did_ hate God, it be like someone hating a
fictional character, someone they didn't think actually exists. The
real haters of God are creationists and Satanists. So, once again, you
are either stupid, evil or crazy. (You quit being ignorant thefirst
time someone explained to you that you are wrong.)
>
> What is obvious is that Bryant and all Darwinists on this board
> routinely use this tactic of acting like you are crazy in response to
> the most obvious damning evidence against ToE.
No, they are acting like you are crazy because you are acting crazy.
>
> IOW, it is the only way to preserve their atheist creation myth:
There you go, acting like calling something a myth is some sort of
indictment.
> brand
> all messengers with evidence against to be stupid or crazy.
Only when it isn't evidence against. You and your ilk have only
parroted weird baloney that isn't evidence.
> This is the
> exact tactic of Satan and the Pharisees as used against Jesus in the
> N.T.
The tactic of Satan and Pharisees against scientists who are just
trying to figure out how the world works. Actually, the scientists are
not the targets of Satan; the targets of of Satan are the creationists
such as yourself. Your hatred of science and smart people, compounded
with your inability to think rationally in general, makes a perfect
lure for him to get you in his clutches. All your whining and
snivelling against "Darwinists" and "atheists" is you declaring your
love of the hook in your mouth. It's not a pretty sight.
> = proof of the origin of the tactic and who controls Darwinian
> tactics. This tactic proves the falsification of pointing out no
> transitionals exist is what it obviously is or they would honestly
> refute.
They do honestly refute, but you are too damaged to tell.
(snip)
Eric Root
Rolf
stew dean <stew...@gmail.com> skrev i
meldingsnyheter:1126253041.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Kant wrote:
> > The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> > transitional fossils.
>
>
> > If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one
form
> > to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to
find
> > as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of
the
> > distinct kinds themselves.
Not a continual stream of transmutation - only punc-eq evolution if and
when favored by conditions.
Neither is fossilisation a regular and common occurence - it is most random
and accidental - so we have make do with whatever fossils we may find, and
be happy with that.
And BTW, all species & creatures living today, tomorrow and until the end of
the world are transitionals, every single one of them! Better take a good
look while you can, very few will be left for future palaeontologists. Be
warned though, that many most likely will end up as discontinued branches on
the bush of life.
Rolf
>
> Evolution is NOT a continual stream but moves at different speed
> according to environmental pressure.
>
> Rest snipped.
>
> Stew Dean
>
Richard Clayton
<snip>
So what would you expect a hypothetical transitional form to look like?
I have asked this question of you several times and you have always run
away from it.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"During wars laws are silent." -- Cicero
Richard Smol
Ray Martinez wrote:
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
> So what would you expect a hypothetical transitional form to look like?
>
> I have asked this question of you several times and you have always run
>
> away from it.
>
>
> What causes a person to think such items exist in the first place ?
Answer the question, Ray.
RS
Ray Martinez
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
> So what would you expect a hypothetical transitional form to look like?
> I have asked this question of you several times and you have always run
> away from it.
> RAY MARTINEZ:
> What causes a person to think such items exist in the first place ?
RICHARD SMOL:
Answer the question, Ray.
RAY MARTINEZ:
I did in the link below of which I have re-pasted a small excerpt.
Apparently you don't like the answer = proof I am right as is
self-evident.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/10b619351d888421
"Darwinists do not know which fossils are human and which are ape,
therefore they conclude via the misuse of logic they must be
transitional - and they call this science.
Physical evidence is the most corruptible because it requires a
storyteller.
Literary/textual evidence is infinetly less corruptible because anyone
who can read can decide for themself. "
RM
Richard Smol
Ray Martinez wrote:
> > RICHARD CLAYTON:
> > So what would you expect a hypothetical transitional form to look like?
> > I have asked this question of you several times and you have always run
> > away from it.
>
> > RAY MARTINEZ:
> > What causes a person to think such items exist in the first place ?
>
> RICHARD SMOL:
>
> Answer the question, Ray.
>
> RAY MARTINEZ:
>
> I did in the link below of which I have re-pasted a small excerpt.
<- snip evasion ->
No, Ray. Just answer the question, will ya.
RS
David Jensen
You appear to have proven that you are incapable of understanding
scientific evidence and are incapable of being honest. You have not
proven, by even the most generous use of the term, that you are right,
or even understand the question.
Rick Merrill
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
We only see an estimated 3% of the possible fossils: there are going to
be a lot missing!
> If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form
> to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find
> as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the
> distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be
> considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
Transitional, if they even exist, would be short lived, not unlike some
religious "transitional" we know.
> From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and distinctly
> set apart from each other as they are today.
Really? Who says so?
> Instead of finding a record of
> fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large
> gaps.
That may well go with large jumps.
> This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
Who says?
> Consider well these immense Gaps:
[I liked this one:]
> 4.The evolutionary advance from fishes to Amphibians is totally
> nonexistent.The timeline allegedly took millions of years....(30
> million)...and yet no one has been able to produce even one fishibian.
And the existing, living amphibians aren't enough for U because???
> 5.There are no connecting links between and the altogether different
> reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs
> in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had
> already appeared.
>
> 6.There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.
>
> 7.There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and
> birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since
> been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.
>
> 8.There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
> ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
> either fossils of ape or a man or neither.There is no valid Scientific
> evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between
> men and apes.
>
> I an attempt to explain the complete lack of transitional forms,some
> scientists have recently proposed the idea that evolution occurs via sudden
> large leaps rather than through gradual small modifications.This
> concept,known as punctuated equilibrium,has been advanced by paleontologists
> Gould and Eldredge (1977).This concept has also been termed the "hopeful
> monster" mechanism by Goldschmidt who proposes that at one time a reptile
> laid an egg and a bird hatched from it!
Ain't sarcasm wonderful?
> Creationists prefer to believe are the ones who have laid an egg,maintaining
> that such ideas are pure speculation,completely devoid of any scientific
> evidence.
> To summarize,the fossil record reveals a sudden appearance of highly diverse
> and complex forms with no evolutionary ancestors,demonstrates fixity in
> kinds,and is devoid of the all-important transitional forms.These facts are
> however,in complete agreement with the expectations of the Biblical creation
> model.The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
>
>
Steven J.
"Richard Smol" <jaz...@dds.nl> wrote in message
news:1126386460.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ray's answer is this: there can be no such thing as a "transitional
fossil" -- i.e. some fossil that objectively "looks like" an intermediate
step in the evolution of one "kind" to another. A fossil is evidence for
whatever you wish it to be evidence for, but does not speak for itself and
cannot, of itself, confirm or refute any hypothesis. Of course, there is
some tension between this position and the insistence that the fossil record
is some sort of embarassment to evolutionary theorists; the latter position
implies that the evolutionists have some clear idea of what "missing links"
ought to look like, but can't find them, while the former implies that any
fossil, with sufficient will, can be treated as a "found" link, or dismissed
as one if examined with creationist assumptions.
This sort of antitheoretical epistomological nihilism seems to be catching
on with creationists. Tony Pagano, of course, is renowned in this newsgroup
for his attitude that evidence is no reason to accept a theory. Zoe Althrop
goes, perhaps, even further with her "what you see is what you get" attitude
towards fossil and other evidence. You don't *need* to explain, e.g. the
consistent nested hierarchy of life or fossils that straddle boundaries
between kinds. Evidence is just what you call the random facts you stuff
(like so many square pegs in round holes) into the theory you're trying to
support. True, again, they'll abandon (temporarily) this position if they
think some evidence *objectively* contradicts evolutionary expectations, but
when the evidence does not do so, it's back to "evidence is purely in the
eye of the beholder, and does objectively support any position."
>
> RS
>
-- Steven J.
Steven J.
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:JBhUe.3761$LZ6...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Steven J. wrote:
>
-- [snip of earlier text with spelling corrections]
>
>> shows traits linking it to both lobopods and
>> arthropods. None of these, of course, is a plausible ancestor of these
>> different phyla. Then, of course, there are the "carpoid" enchinoderms
>> of
>> the Cambrian, which are plausible transitionals between the echnioderms
>> and
>> the chordates (our own phylum).
>
> Hardly anyone believes this; Jefferies, basically. Of course echinoderms
> and chordates are fairly closely related, so the carpoids could be
> displaying primitive deuterostome characters. But the unique calcite
> skeleton of echinoderms is a pretty good synapomorphy.
>
Thank you for the correction. One gets (okay, *I* get) tempted to be sloppy
here by the desire to say something more than "boy, are you stupid and wrong
about anything," and the problem that Kant and other posters like him can
toss out misconceptions far faster and more easily than they can be dealt
with.
>
> [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
stew dean
Steven J. wrote:
<snip>
> This sort of antitheoretical epistomological nihilism seems to be catching
> on with creationists.
<snip again>
What a great sentence! The rest of the post is good to - nice summary
of some of the harder nuts to crack of this group.
Stew Dean
er...@swva.net
> "Richard Smol" <jaz...@dds.nl> wrote in message
> news:1126386460.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
(snip)
> > No, Ray. Just answer the question, will ya.
> ?
> Ray's answer is this: there can be no such thing as a "transitional
> fossil" -- i.e. some fossil that objectively "looks like" an intermediate
> step in the evolution of one "kind" to another. A fossil is evidence for
> whatever you wish it to be evidence for, but does not speak for itself and
> cannot, of itself, confirm or refute any hypothesis. Of course, there is
> some tension between this position and the insistence that the fossil record
> is some sort of embarassment to evolutionary theorists; the latter position
> implies that the evolutionists have some clear idea of what "missing links"
> ought to look like, but can't find them, while the former implies that any
> fossil, with sufficient will, can be treated as a "found" link, or dismissed
> as one if examined with creationist assumptions.
>
> This sort of antitheoretical epistomological nihilism seems to be catching
> on with creationists. Tony Pagano, of course, is renowned in this newsgroup
> for his attitude that evidence is no reason to accept a theory.
Hmm, that actually _is_ true of religion. Maybe creationists think if
they succeed in redifining a pro-science outlook as being "just another
religion," they will somehow cast a spell over reality so that
evidence no longer counts for science, either. I say this, because
they generally at least _act_ like they think evidence counts
_sometimes_, otherwise they'd take their car to a faith healer when it
breaks.
> Zoe Althrop
> goes, perhaps, even further with her "what you see is what you get" attitude
> towards fossil and other evidence. You don't *need* to explain, e.g. the
> consistent nested hierarchy of life or fossils that straddle boundaries
> between kinds. Evidence is just what you call the random facts you stuff
> (like so many square pegs in round holes) into the theory you're trying to
> support. True, again, they'll abandon (temporarily) this position if they
> think some evidence *objectively* contradicts evolutionary expectations, but
> when the evidence does not do so, it's back to "evidence is purely in the
> eye of the beholder, and does objectively support any position."
> >
> > RS
> >
> -- Steven J.
Thanks for your post. It was educational as well as entertaining.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
> John Harshman wrote:
> > Kant wrote:
> >
> > > The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> > > transitional fossils.
> >
> > [...and so forth, blah blah blah]
> >
> > So where does this cut-and-paste come from? I can't find it. It's not
> > that I don't get any hits. I get too many. Any sentence I search on
> > turns up in a host of creationist web pages, usually without any
> > attribution. These people apparently feel free to plagiarize each other
> > as much as they like.
> >
> > A few quotes are attributed to one "Scott M. Huges, Ph.D." without any
> > further details. No hits for him, except for the quotes already found.
> > Nor any hits for Scott M. Hughes.
> >
> > Does anybody know more?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/96814360ad08c555
>
> You evaded this from the post above:
>
(snip)
He evaded nothing. That stuff you quoted was not in the OP.
By the way, that stuff you quoted was a bunch of baloney. Anytime you
see a piece of writing that labels everybody by their religious beliefs
or lack thereof, you can safely discard it as crap. I mean, really:
"atheist Joe Blow says this, militant humanist Joh Doe says that" =
moron at the keyboard.
Eric Root
Richard Clayton
That's still not an answer, Ray. What would you expect a transitional
form to look like?
Richard Clayton
> RICHARD CLAYTON:
>
>
> I have asked this question of you several times and you have always run
>
> away from it.
>
>
> What causes a person to think such items exist in the first place ?
How can you tell whether or not they exist if you cannot qualify what
they are? Hypothetically speaking, what would you expect a transitional
to look like?
> Whatever the reason, once it is accepted, then they will/must exist.
>
> IOW, the necessity of an anti-Genesis worldview MUST insist they
> exist.
>
> In reality, as I expounded in our debate, these unearthed items are the
> epitome of subjectivity, need the most interpretation, and are
> corruptible to be as one needs them to be because they are not
> falsifiable. Also, they lack clear objective value as the ordinary
> person must take someones word on what they are, as this is anathema to
> everything Darwinian science claims: public knowledge.
Yet when I presented several examples of transitional forms, you simply
declared they didn't exist rather than explain WHY any given example
couldn't qualify as transitional. You just evaded as you continue to do
below...
> Lets compare:
>
> What needs less interpreting:
>
> EXHIBIT A
>
> Genesis 2:7
>
> "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed
> into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
>
> OR:
>
> EXHIBIT B
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg
>
>
> Exhibit B requires a biased person to supply a story, a story that
> preexists, a story that contains a premise that predetermines the
> conclusion.
>
> The physical objects themself are meaningless without the storytellers
> bias.
>
> Darwinists do not know which fossils are human and which are ape,
> therefore they conclude via the misuse of logic they must be
> transitional - and they call this science.
>
> Physical evidence is the most corruptible because it requires a
> storyteller.
>
> Literary/textual evidence is infinetly less corruptible because anyone
> who can read can decide for themself.
>
> Only atheists and kooks would be dumb enough to believe what Darwinists
> assert about Exhibit B.
>
> In this context, while recounting the scientific establishments
> willingness to accept the Dubois find of a tooth and scraps to be the
> decisive evidence for the most extraordinary claim of all time (human
> evolution), that is literally a few scraps of whatever found by inmates
> in prison forced to dig for Dubois.....in the context of the Romans 1
> penalty declaration that has God turning you into a senseless fool as a
> penalty for denying Him Creator credit:
>
> Dr. Scott: "the penalty must be true.... no one could be this dumb
> naturally." [oral teaching, February 2001]
>
> Transitionals only exist if you assert them as such, and of course, if
> you need them to exist.
>
> Ray Martinez
Richard Clayton
It makes sense, though, when you look at it from a religious
fundamentalist viewpoint. And the logic is internally consistent:
Evidence may or may not have meaning, so the only way to determine what
evidence is meaningful and what is random noise is to compare it against
a supernatural source of revealed truth-- which the creationists just
happen to have on hand. Of course, presuming ANY source to be /a priori/
inerrant and unquestionable opens up a whole other can of worms. For
example, how does one examine the supernatural claims of a holy text,
except through methodological naturalism?
Some creationist organizations, including Answers in Genesis, are
fairly up-front about their belief that their source of revealed
knowledge trumps any and all contradictory evidence, no matter how
persuasive. The intelligent design movement is significantly less honest.
stew dean
Richard Clayton wrote:
> stew dean wrote:
> > Steven J. wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>This sort of antitheoretical epistomological nihilism seems to be catching
> >>on with creationists.
> >
> > <snip again>
> >
> > What a great sentence! The rest of the post is good to - nice summary
> > of some of the harder nuts to crack of this group.
>
> It makes sense, though, when you look at it from a religious
> fundamentalist viewpoint. And the logic is internally consistent:
> Evidence may or may not have meaning, so the only way to determine what
> evidence is meaningful and what is random noise is to compare it against
> a supernatural source of revealed truth-- which the creationists just
> happen to have on hand. Of course, presuming ANY source to be /a priori/
> inerrant and unquestionable opens up a whole other can of worms. For
> example, how does one examine the supernatural claims of a holy text,
> except through methodological naturalism?
I look at it in a much simpler way. I view things as objective or
subjective. If something can be measured/seen externaly to someone's
world view then it's objective, it can be independently reproduced
regardless of what world view someone has.
If it has no objective qualities, like a someone who said they saw a
ghost or the majority of the bible, then it is subjective and is good
for philosophy and hypothesis at best.
> Some creationist organizations, including Answers in Genesis, are
> fairly up-front about their belief that their source of revealed
> knowledge trumps any and all contradictory evidence, no matter how
> persuasive. The intelligent design movement is significantly less honest.
>From my view is they are building a house on imaginary foundations. The
intelligent design movement is about working out some way to
objectively show eviedence for some kind of creator, only so far they
have found an objective way to do this.
For me to accept something I do need some kind of objective evidence,
something that if I totally don't trust it I can ignore the person and
just explore the facts regardless of what they say. That, in my view,
is about the only way to really find what's going on. As soon as
someone uses political means instead of logical means to get a point
accross, as it is with ID and creationism, I know that what they are
say has little or no substance, no matter how powerful they claim to
be. A good idea works - a bad idea won't work even if you throw a
million dollars at it, you'll just make some people think that it
works.
Stew Dean