|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where are all the missing links? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Stop misrepresenting me. I said we had enough evidence to prove common ancestry, and that we didn't NEED 1,2,3,4 to show that. I said that is we have 345, 624, and 975, that is still enough. The problem is Rahvin that different people have a different idea of "enough". In Message 5 I said
NN writes:
9) When arriving at any conclusion different individuals will require different amounts of infomation to feel comfortable with the conclusion. An indiviudal may asign greater or lesser confidence to a given conclusion as the available information changes. Thus it should be clear that one individual may give a 10% confidence level that the connection between land animals and whales is a good conclusion and someone else may give an 80% level. All the available evidence supports the TOE and the hypothesized evolution of whales. Whether that evidence is "enough" or not will depend on the indvidual. It is clear that for some 100 more steps fitting right into the current pattern would not be enough. Remember this particular sequence is fun because one of the more famous anti-evo's voiced something like "where's the fossils?" just before the current rush of transitionals started to be found. I don't remember who it is but you can bet he is not more convinced now than then. I'd suggest giving some thought to whether you have done all you can on this topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
This is the most fundamental problem with your position. Absence of fossils of transitional forms does not equal absence of actual transitional forms. You are treating the issue as if the fossils should be there when in fact that has not been shown to be true. I think this is both correct and incorrect. If there were no fossils of transitional forms at all then it would be a problem that would require explaining. This is based on the degree to which we do find fossils; if none were transitional then that would require some explaining. However, it is correct if it is referring to one particular (or even several or many) lineages. That is because we have good transitional forms putting dots down for use to connect in many other lineages. That is enough to suggest that missing forms are missing fossils but that the transitionals probably existed since there is no reason why the ones with few or no transitional fossils can be any different from other.
For your case to hold solid you would have to show somehow that transitional forms cannot have existed and I don't think the fossil record is the best place to do this. This is because, once again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We had a big long argument about absense of evidence. As I note above if there was a total absense of evidence one would have to wonder. There is a lot of evidence in many lineages which makes if silly, to me, to presume that the absense of fossils in other lineages is a real absense of the transitionals.
Plain and simple. You are not going to convince anyone that transitionals don't exist simply because we can't find them, haven't found them, or that they did not fossilize. I hope you can see that the fossil record is therefore incidental to the TOE in that it confirms it rather than defines it. Again, we DO find them. Just not for every lineage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I'm afraid that several people here are misusing the word vestigial. It does NOT mean useless. From Merriam Webster online:
1 a (1) : a trace, mark, or visible sign left by something (as an ancient city or a condition or practice) vanished or lost (2) : the smallest quantity or trace b : FOOTPRINT 1 2 : a bodily part or organ that is small and degenerate or imperfectly developed in comparison to one more fully developed in an earlier stage of the individual, in a past generation, or in closely related forms Obviously the second definition is the applicable one. An organ is vestigial if it is less functional than a precisely corresponding organism in related animals. The appenidx is a vestigial caecum. See this site:Vestigiality of the human appendix You will demonstrate that you have read and understood this material by talking sensibly about the contents. If you do not AdminNosy will suspend you again for longer (and it seems I am a bit forgetful about restoring you from a suspension so it might be longer than longer).
Another plastic all encompassing meaningless assertion all species are transtional forms between their ancestors and decendents ... wow what a singular statement. Thsi statement has no reference in evolutionary thought from Darwin to Dawkins its a preposterousnothing statement without meaning. Laughable Since each offspring is different from it's parents and it's offspring are different from it just what is your disagreement with the statement? You have yet to supply a defintion of what a transitional would be. You will also do this before asserting your incredulity without reason. Again, if you keep simply making uninformed statments you will be suspended again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I think you might want to dig into the actual meaning of the term. This is something new to me too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
If evolution is continuous, then we know the numbers. They are the same roughly as the species that evolved into it, right? Obviously wrong. You have had posts in reply to you discussing this in a number of ways. You, yourself have, talked of branching. If you continue to exhibit little to no ability to learn you will be suspended for longer periods until you have had time to read and think. Your posts exhibit no evidence of you learning or thinking about any of the discussion. That is becoming frustrating for a number of individuals. It is getting to be near the end of the time that should be wasted with you, IMO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Nobody knows how old the Earth is because there is way too much quality evidence that contradicts. We keep asking people who think as you do to go to the "Dates and Dating " forum and explain their beliefs there and answer the questions put forward there; especially in Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. However, everyone so far gives up; they certainly haven't produced "quality evidence". Having been through this a bunch of times I'm pretty sure that your views are based on your knowing almost nothing about these topics: evolution and dating. You have been fed some junk but don't really have any quality information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
That Uranium might lose/gain time wouldn't impinge in the slightest on the body of science as a whole. And you base this on? In fact, the physics involved would require a huge upheaval in what we understand to be the case. However this is not the thread for that. If you wish to discuss it why don't you try the dates and dating threads (especially the correlations one -- I find it amusing how carefully the YEC'ers look the other way and tip toe by those threads ). You have to be careful about the pronouncements you make when you know very, very little about the fields you are discussing. E.g., there are other dino to bird transitional evidences than just Archie. It is discussed so often because it was for a long time the only example, because some of the specimens are so very well preserved and because it is fits so nicely inbetween as a transitional. It is not just the feathers. Your lack of knowledge of the sciences does not constitute any kind of reason for your thinking that you are right.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
When why on one hand does Dawkins admit design is obvious then assert it is an illusion ? Perhaps it is a problem with your reading? It maybe you didn't even read the book. Why don't you explain what Dawkins has to say about it. I have read the book and the above question of yours seems rather an odd one when one has read the book.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024