Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Always talking about micro-evolution?
GreenBlue
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 257 (84431)
02-08-2004 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Skeptick
02-08-2004 12:14 AM


But the last time I spent any time with this, I remember that Darwin stated the lack of transitional forms speaks against evolution.
Yes but he also said that this was most likely due to an imcomplete geological column and the difficulties of fossilisation, if I remember correctly.
But post- Darwinian evolutionists declared that the fossil record will eventually reveal transitional forms (missing links) and prove evolution correct.
And there are many instances where it has. Archaeopteryx, while not an immediate ancestor to modern birds, is clearly a morphological intermediate between birds and certain reptiles
Instead, over the decades, the fossil record has not revealed anything that science can clearly accept (that I know of) as a series of transitional forms.
Depends what you would mean by series, large vertibrae fossils are quite rare so unforatunately the chance of getting a specific series of fossils rather than a random sample is quite low. The series that do exist are usually seperated by millions of years so people *can* just wave them away as variations of a type. But I think some of the early mammal fossils with their reptile traits really is supportive of evolution, nevermind series.
Then, some evolutionists made the amazing proclamation that somehow the lack of fossil evidence is actually better proof of evolution that had the fossil record actually provided examples of transitional forms.
No I don't think so, I think evolutionists admit it would be a lot easier if all these forms had appeared in sucession.
Archaeopteryx is so hotly debated even in scientific circles, that I'm not sure what it is.
It is a creature with amazing reptile characteristics, and feathers. Unique. It is classified as a bird.
In Christian circles, some say Archaeopteryx is a hoax, others say its just an extinct bird and not a missing link.
Probably you mean Creationist circles. I doubt most christians, like most other people, are actually interested in the topic!
It certainly isn't a hoax, that issue has been resolved after analysis of the rock. Hairline mineral fractures run through the feathers and into the bone, so the feathers haven't been imprinted. Also there are 7 archaeopteryx fossils you know, discovered at all times over the last 100 years. It is just an extinct bird though, it is not a *direct* link between reptiles and birds. BUT the important thing is that it is nothing like a modern bird, it is classfied as bird for conveniance. But it shows in the past that there were reptile like creatures with feathers, that sounds a pretty good prospect for evolution
[This message has been edited by GreenBlue, 02-08-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Skeptick, posted 02-08-2004 12:14 AM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Skeptick, posted 02-08-2004 1:07 PM GreenBlue has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024