|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
I can release this if you can remove the portions that don't directly address your topic. That would be the parts requesting good-faith debate and to stay on topic. These are moderator responsibilities. Members do not moderate their own threads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Randman,
You seem to be caught in the same repetitive and unproductive cycle as your first visit. You need to find a way out of this rut. Perhaps you can find a buddy who agrees with you to help you make your points. Or maybe you can find some different avenues to approach the issues. Whatever you do, I hope you can figure some way to help this thread out of its present dilemma and allow discussion to move forward. To my eye, it seems as if you're not engaging the points being made to you, but merely doggedly repeating your initial premise that more transitional fossils should be found than actually are. Please note that I'm not saying you are right or wrong, only that by not engaging people's points and by primarily just repeating your initial point that you are preventing discussion from moving forward, something that is specifically frowned upon in the Forum Guidelines. Banning unproductive contributors, or consigning them to special forums, hasn't really worked as a means for improving the quality of discussion, so I'm considering another approach. Threads in which productive discussion is being stymied will be designated as nonsense threads, and those thought primarily responsible would be listed. In the case of this thread I would do this by changing the title to where was the transition within fossil record?? [Nonsense: randman]. This would put members on warning that participation in the thread is not recommended, which would absolve moderators from having to moderate these unproductive discussions. Just a thought, at this point, I'm still considering alternatives. This message has been edited by Admin, 10-19-2005 09:39 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
To Yaro and Parasomnium,
Yaro writes: At another forum I visited, users could earn/lose special badges that would apear in the poster info. box. It would basicaly label an individual as "troll, poster of the month, etc.". This is coming in the longer term, after I've switched over to using a MySQL database.
Parasomnium writes: Don't you think that, by designating it a 'nonsense' thread, you might create the impression that you are taking sides? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to use some other indication that the thread isn't moving much? Another good point. I wasn't happy with "nonsense", either.
Yaro writes: Maybe instead of nonsense [randman: stalling] ABE: or maybe [thread: holding pattern] Yes, these are good ideas. Thanks for the feedback!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Randman,
Discussion in this thread is stalled. It appears to me and everyone else that it is stalled because of your reluctance or inability to address the points being made to you, such as evidence supporting the rarity of fossilization, probability arguments based on the sizes of populations, and cladistics. You can chalk your difficulties up to groupthink or a conspiracy of minds if you like, but discussion in this thread is still stalled, and if you're not going to attend to moderator suggestions (find a buddy; rethink your logic; reconsider your evidence) then you're going to have to find your own way out. Otherwise, sometime soon I'll designate this thread as stalled. This message has been edited by Admin, 10-20-2005 09:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
randman writes: Percy, did you not understand my point on fossil rarity and a more comprehensive analysis. Moderators facilitate discussion, not participate in it, but I obviously agree with everyone else that your points regarding fossil rarity have been answered, yet you continue repeating them in their original form instead of addressing the answers. I can tell that you feel the fault lies with everyone else, which is why I suggested finding another tack (i.e., other ways of making the same points) or find a buddy to participate with who could bring fresh insights and perspectives on how to make these points. But you can't expect something different to happen if you're just going to continue doing the same thing. Of course, I have similar advice for everyone else participating in this thread, which is that Randman has an established history of not being able to move beyond his initial point, and continuing in a dialogue with him while expecting something different to happen probably isn't reasonable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Randman,
One of the things I used to do when I first began moderating the board was suggesting areas of focus, and it worked out pretty well sometimes, so I'll give it a quick try in this thread. The comments that follow are not to you, but to everyone else. Hi all, Here are a few observations/comments I have that might help focus the discussion onto fruitful areas:
randman writes: Imo, it is absurd to argue that the vast majority of transitional forms remained small. Sure, I can go along with the claim that probably the groups that would evolve would be smaller in population, but some would be successful and grow big in numbers. This comment makes it clear that Randman understands the relationship between population size and the rate of evolutionary change, but he seems to be missing the point that change that occurs while populations and geographic extent are small is unlikely to be recorded as fossils. Perhaps a graph showing population size over time of an evolving series of species with the population being very small during periods of change would help make the point, maybe something like this:
P 10e11 |- ---------------- -------------- o 10e10 | \ / \ / p 10e9 | \ / \ / 10e8 | \ / \ / s 10e7 | \ / \ / i 10e6 | \ / \ / z 10e5 | \ / \ / e 10e4 | \ / \ / 10e3 | -- -- 10e2 |_________________________________________________________________ Species A B C D E E F G H I I ===> Time ===> Only species A, E and I would be likely to be recorded in the fossil record, because they existed in large numbers over long periods of time. A diagram like this, just not so primitive, may be helpful. It might also help him understand where he goes wrong in his next point:
You and the rest of the evos are asking us to believe that 95% of the transitional forms remained extremely small in numbers, that they evolved into one form, very small in numbers, and then another, and then another, etc, etc,....without statistically hardly ever reaching larger numbers. Moving on, I think Randman should be asked to substantiate this next point, because it indicates that he may have a misunderstanding of how nature really works. He may be under the impression that some of the answers that have been provided somehow violate physical or probabilistic constraints.
If that is the case, it does not fit with what we know about nature and suggests something else at work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
randman writes: But the evo claim is more like species 1 is seen, and then 2-999 is so small it leaves no fossils, and then species 1000 is seen. I can't really engage in debate as moderator, but I would suggest that you ask yourself whether numbers like these are really what evos claim as representative. Regarding what you say in this post, here are the issues I suggest people raise with you, though I believe they've all been discussed before:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Sorry, I can't enter the debate as moderator. If no one's interested in picking up the points I suggested, then that's the end of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Debate in this thread at your own risk. Moderator presence is not guaranteed.
Randman, until this thread is unstalled, please do not bring any issues from this thread to other threads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Randman may be deeply mistaken or profoundly self-deluded, but I don't believe he is lying. But any opinions on this are beside the point. The Forum Guidelines require respectful treatment of other members.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
mark24 writes: Does the "respectful treatment of others" extend to actually answering questions rather than merely saying you have? I mean, what's the bloody point of all this? Board administration has already classified this thread as stalled and has no plans for any further actions that attempt to coax Randman into productive discussion. We don't believe such is possible with Randman and suggest that those seeking it look elsewhere. In many ways, the dialogue between Creationists and evolutionists is more a psychological study of delusion and denial than a scientific discussion. Creationists will misunderstand or misinterpret whatever is necessary in order to avoid confronting the problems with Creationism, but since every Creationist is a unique individual they all do it in different ways. This causes them to arrive at different answers, and they usually end up all alone in threads defending viewpoints few other Creationists share. Note that I'm not saying there are few Creationists who believe transitional fossils are a significant problem for evolution. What I'm saying is that the labyrinth of misreason and misunderstanding traveled by each Creationist in order to hold this view is fairly unique. While most any decently informed evolutionist could enter this thread and defend the views of any of the other evolutionists, very few Creationists could enter this thread and defend what Randman has been saying, because his illogic is unique to himself. A few years ago, before TrueCreation went completely over the edge, he would engage Creationists who had incorrect notions. He was no more successful than anyone else of disabusing them of their erroneous views, but it was fun to watch! Each Creationist travels in his own privately constructed world of self-delusion from which not even fellow Creationists can extricate them. About the best you can hope to do is point out the errors and leave it at that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Randman,
I think the discussion can get back on track if you're willing to accept some constructive feedback, specifically about:
I think it would be easiest to discuss these in the chat environment. Perhaps they'll be an opportunity when we can both be there at the same time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
randman writes: I am willing to accept feedback, but only if that feedback is tied to the specific issues raised above, and not just thrown out willy-nilly. I think exchanging feedback on these issues might best be accomplished in a chat format. When can you make it to the chat room?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Set a time, whenever, that isn't during business hours eastern time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024