Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Global Flood Feasible? Discussion Q&A
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 302 of 352 (9741)
05-16-2002 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Joe Meert
05-16-2002 12:38 AM


Here is the quote Joe, including the famous statement, and note that I did summarise his qualification - that there are other things that evolutionsist use: biogeogaphy/homology (I think I remembered it pretty well). But it still stands that this Oxford zoologist thinks the fossil reocrd itself is rather poor at demonstrating evolution:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven.
So just what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy."
Mark Ridley, Who Doubts Evolution?, New Scientist, 25 June 1981, p.831
I believe he was able to say this becasue he knows that the way the fossil record is used is as descibed in my points 1-6 in my previous post. Did you read that? I taught myself this from reading many paleontology research monogrpahs. I never found it written down quite that way but that is how they do it. Any paleontolgogists disagree with my points 1-6? Can you disagree Joe?
And Ridley's 'observed evidence of evolution' is IMO very poor - finches, moths and viruses. I don't want to satrt a micro/macro debate here but there is no observational evidence of macroevoltuionary phenomonon.
This means that evoltuion is primarily based on homology and biogeography, not on ordered seqeuces in the fossil record as I always suspected.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 12:38 AM Joe Meert has not replied

wj
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 352 (9747)
05-16-2002 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by Joe Meert
05-16-2002 12:38 AM


Some more information on the "no real evoltuonist uses the fossil record..." quote which appears in numerous creationist websites.
Mark Ridley, Oxford, "...a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." New Scientist, June, 1981, p.831 from an article titled "Who Doubts Evolution"
from http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossil-record.htm
What I find laughable is that creationists will use Mark Ridley to provide an opinion on the strength (or weakness) of paleontology but then ignore his opinion that homology and biogeography support the theory of evolution. Why such selective belief?
Why not refer to another apparent Mark Ridley quote?
"The theory of evolution is outstandingly the most
important theory in biology."
-- Mark Ridley, _Evolution_, Blackwell Scientific, Boston, 1983.
Perhaps this explains why he wrote a textbook titled "Evolution" (2nd ed. November 1996)?
Don Lindsay discusses the creationists' preferred quote at http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/quote_ridley2.html
Tranquility Base appears to have been wrong in his citation of the quote, in his erroneous use of it as an opinion opposing evolution and in implying that the quoted person does not support the theory of evolution.
And the handwaving exercise by TB is breathtaking! "Almost every family to family gap is completely empty and there are only a handful of famous, very tired looking, examples of transitions."
Isn't any single solitary example of transition across families completely contrary to creationism? Philip (I think) argues elsewhere that the biblical "kinds" are families of animals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 12:38 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 1:44 AM wj has not replied
 Message 305 by Percy, posted 05-16-2002 1:50 AM wj has not replied
 Message 309 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 2:09 AM wj has not replied
 Message 311 by Philip, posted 05-16-2002 2:21 AM wj has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 304 of 352 (9749)
05-16-2002 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by wj
05-16-2002 1:33 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by wj:
[B]Why not refer to another apparent Mark Ridley quote?
"The theory of evolution is outstandingly the most
important theory in biology."
-- Mark Ridley, _Evolution_, Blackwell Scientific, Boston, 1983. [/QUOTE]
JM: As I mentioned, selective quotation has long been one of the 'strong arms' of creationist argument. At the same time, I must say that TB used this quote specifically to argue against paleontologic evidence for evolution. I did not find this quote particularly damning of the fossil record (as I suspected). Just because Ridley does not think it is the most important aspect does not mean it is not an important aspect. The sheer retrodictive power of the fossil record argues for its utility in evolutionary biology.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 05-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by wj, posted 05-16-2002 1:33 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 2:03 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 305 of 352 (9751)
05-16-2002 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by wj
05-16-2002 1:33 AM


I think the Ridley quote may only apply to a very narrow context, and that all he is saying is that it isn't practical to use the fossil record to argue against Special Creation, which is a sub-branch of Creationism that believes that the sudden appearance of each new species in the fossil record is due to special creation by God at that point in geologic history.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by wj, posted 05-16-2002 1:33 AM wj has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 352 (9752)
05-16-2002 1:59 AM


^ Nice try Percy. But no, you read the article. Do you think his qualification is that bioeogrpahy and homology argues only agaist that type of creation?! That would make no sense at all. This statement means what it says - special creation does not mean what you said anyway. This statement goes right along with Gould's 'paleontologiusts tradesecret' quote that you all also wish was never said.
Any comment on my points 1-6? Are you aware that that is how paleontology is done? That is why these statements are made. Have you guys seen the paleontolgoical raw data balloon diagrams like I have?
------------------
You are go for TLI

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 307 of 352 (9753)
05-16-2002 1:59 AM


**********************************************
BRAKES ON! THE STRING IS STRAYING BADLY OFF TOPIC!
**********************************************
Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 05-16-2002]

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 308 of 352 (9754)
05-16-2002 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by Joe Meert
05-16-2002 1:44 AM


Moving this to the appropriate thread. Tranquility Base writes:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]I could point you to ICR web pages (and I will when I've got time). For now let me just say that, a priori, and qualitatively, the idea is possible if you accept that somehow decay rates have evolved. In detail, we'll see. But do you guys really think you have a real detailed explanaiton how each layer of the geological column got there? You most certainly have not! On the sea-floor spreading we actually sort of agree, it's just a timescale issue. With vast radiogenic heating it is a priori reasonable to expect accelrated spreading, reversals and continental drift.[/QUOTE]
JM: No it's not just a time scale issue! It is a depth of the ocean issue! Please supply evidence for rapid drift (and how the oceans obtained their present-day depth profile), how accelerated decay caused rapid reversals (and how the older reversals and younger reversal record occurred). Why the period of rapid reversals contains two of the longest non-reversing intervals in earth history and the mechanism for rapid drift without varying mantle conditions to absurd degrees.
quote:
The correlated stripes - I'm saying you get correlations between the stripes and the radioisotope proportins and the magenetic data because we agree with you that the stripes oozed out as magma one at a time and 'froze' the magnetic and radio data. It works for both of us - for you it is over 500 million years or so, for us it is over the flood year and following decade(s).
JM: This is nonsense. The correlations are based on both oceanic and land sections. Your assertions that stripes oozed out is naive. Magma is what was erupted and acquired a magnetism directed along the field at the time. It's a passive recorder. It does not work for you at all because you've no mechanism for rapid reversal, you've not explained how rapid reversal occurs and you've not shown why it correlates so well to land-based sequences. Why not try answering the questions I've posed in the "Help for the TC model thread"? So far, you are parroting material you've read on a biased religious site with no attempt at critical review. This is poor science from a 'Phded' physicist!
Cheers
Joe Meert
[/b][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 1:44 AM Joe Meert has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 352 (9755)
05-16-2002 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by wj
05-16-2002 1:33 AM


wj: I specifically mentioned that homology/biogeogrphy was claimed to support evolution - read it again, I didn't miss that or misrepresent Ridley. If you find homology, bioeogrpahy and Galapogos convincing, that's fine with me. I certainly do not.
But if that's the case the case for evolution isn't anywhere near as strong. The general public thinks all of those dotted lines have transitonal forms along there. They do. And there are most definitely not such systematic examples of transitonal forms. I'm afraid it's the evoltuonsits doing the hand waving with the dotted lines which morph into continuous lines in the notorious flow diagrams of evolution.
Any of us who have ever read research level paleontology monographs know that my 'hand waving' about no family to family transitions is true. These texts on vertebrate and invertebrate paleontology have almost nothing to say about transitions! I'm serious. Each species comes (and may go) abruptly just as Gould et al says. There is no lead up in transitonal forms - that is a fairytale. Gould was right about that.
------------------
You are go for TLI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by wj, posted 05-16-2002 1:33 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 2:21 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 310 of 352 (9758)
05-16-2002 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 309 by Tranquility Base
05-16-2002 2:09 AM


quote:
Any of us who have ever read research level paleontology monographs know that my 'hand waving' about no family to family transitions is true. These texts on vertebrate and invertebrate paleontology have almost nothing to say about transitions! I'm serious. Each species comes (and may go) abruptly just as Gould et al says. There is no lead up in transitonal forms - that is a fairytale. Gould was right about that.
JM: This is false and I am surprised that a 'Phded' physcist would make such a remark. You are providing misleading information with respect to Gould. Gould notes clearly that there are many transitional forms. You should be ashamed of yourself for repeating this nonsense in support of your argument. I like discussion, but when discussion turns to misrepresentation, it's no longer scientifically worthwhile.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 309 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 2:09 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 2:35 AM Joe Meert has replied

Philip
Member (Idle past 4723 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 311 of 352 (9759)
05-16-2002 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by wj
05-16-2002 1:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
...that homology and biogeography support the theory of evolution. Why such selective belief?

Because ‘homology and biogeography’ only supports an apriori mutant-life bias/motif(s), strong delusion for the macro-mutationalist. (This is not ‘good’ science)
quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Isn't any single solitary example of transition across families completely contrary to creationism? Philip (I think) argues elsewhere that the biblical "kinds" are families of animals.
--I argued (methinks) that the biblical ‘kinds’ are IC’s (not families in the evo-definition), and that any transition across ‘kinds’ via the ‘mutant’ mechanism(s) is impossible.
--Curious, why are there no more viable beneficial ‘mutants’, in higher life forms to be demonstrated (birds, cattle, beasts, man)?
--Humanity, too, has fortuitously reached its end in ‘beneficially mutating’, right? Any of you see otherwise? (Like Barry Setterfield’s supposed fortuitous 20th century stabilization of the speed of light)
--Sorry, but special (ID) creation seems more credible in the geological layers under a global ‘Flood’ YEC bias/model.
--Time constrains me presently.
--Moose, thank you for your references to both sides, and your gentle insights.
--TC’s diagram is provoking by both sides I see.
--I have noted all your responses, Joe’s vs. Tranquility’s (I’ll leave you two at it.)
--‘Till I’ve accrued more geological understanding and other ‘workable’ ‘evidences’ for the Flood,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by wj, posted 05-16-2002 1:33 AM wj has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 312 of 352 (9763)
05-16-2002 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Joe Meert
05-16-2002 2:21 AM


I'm sorry you think I'm sprouting a falsehood. What I said is based on reading four research level monographs which document the raw data of the vertebrate and invertebrate fossil records.
I stand by what I said:
"There is a systematic lack of transtional forms between families".
Tranquility Base, CvE BBS, May 16th 2002
I can tell from the number of times these books have been borrowed that almost no-one has ever seen this data! How many of you have ever looked at these type of books? They have balloon diagram after balloon diagram. It becomes abundantly clear what paleontologists mean about 'abrupt appearence'.
Of course Gould agrees there are transitional forms but he would also agree that there is a systematic lack of them, hence punctuated equilibrium.
------------------
You are go for TLI

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 2:21 AM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 3:18 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 313 of 352 (9768)
05-16-2002 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 312 by Tranquility Base
05-16-2002 2:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I'm sorry you think I'm sprouting a falsehood. What I said is based on reading four research level monographs which document the raw data of the vertebrate and invertebrate fossil records.
I can tell from the number of times these books have been borrowed that almost no-one has ever seen this data! How many of you have ever looked at these type of books? They have balloon diagram after balloon diagram. It becomes abundantly clear what paleontologists mean about 'abrupt appearence'.
Of course Gould agrees there are transitional forms but he would also agree that there is a systematic lack of them, hence punctuated equilibrium.

JM: Well gee, it's what I do. The fossil record is not at odds with evolution despite your misinterpretation of Gould and some library books.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 2:35 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 314 of 352 (9771)
05-16-2002 3:23 AM


But you're not prepared to discuss the nature of the distribution of families in the fossil record?
------------------
You are go for TLI

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Joe Meert, posted 05-16-2002 3:36 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 315 of 352 (9775)
05-16-2002 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by Tranquility Base
05-16-2002 3:23 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]But you're not prepared to discuss the nature of the distribution of families in the fossil record? [/QUOTE]
JM: No, I am quite prepared. I am just curious as to the diversion. Why move on to this subject when we have numerous unsupported flood statements from you? Tell you what. If, and when, you provide published data in support of your reversals, stratigraphy, rapid drift model, I will be happy to discuss your misinterpretation of paleontology. Let's stick with a subject at a time. You are practicing the "Gish Gallop" whereby you present a whole lot of usupported assertions in the hopes that the details will be glossed over.
Cheers
Joe Meert
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by Tranquility Base, posted 05-16-2002 3:23 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 316 of 352 (9778)
05-16-2002 3:50 AM


Hold on Joe. One of these issues is an issue I can only hand wave in (the rapid drift stuff) whereas the paelontology one I have a good handle on. How about this deal: I'll go read Snelling et al's rapid drift theory so we can talk tommorrow and you comment on my paleontology points?
Anyway, what diversion? This is a flood thread and I originally commented on TC's fossil distribution diagram and mentioned how the ones I's seen showed me how paleontology has IMO misinterpreted flood deposits as gradual evoltuion through geological time. Sounds relevant to me.
------------------
You are go for TLI
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 05-16-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Percy, posted 05-16-2002 11:01 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024