|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Jet,
Jet writes: Rule 1 of the forum guidelines says, "Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics." Rule 2 states, "Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration." If you'd like to sermonize, open a thread under Faith and Belief or in the Coffee House or in Free For All. If you'd like to discuss transitional forms, please post to this thread. If you don't want to do either one then please don't post. --PercyEvC Forum Administrator [This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I think I've said this before, but I just don't get
the problem people have with the idea of tranisitional forms. Take three species in the ascent of man ... the middle oneis a transitional between the other two. Transitionals 'in-between' would, seeing as evolution is sucha gradual process, be almost but not quite identical to their root species ... they probably wouldn't even be considered as a separate species to either their ancestor OR their descendent depending on the level of change that had accumulated. ALL individuals within a population are unique, but share somecommon traits. Two samples are considered separate species when the differences are considered significant. Along the way there would be an accumulation of insignificant(in isolation) changes that would make some fossils look like unusual examples of the root specie and others look like unusual examples of the leaf specie. I don't think that's really looked for is it? Classification doesn't tend to work that way ... especially withincomplete remains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
Fine, Percy, Let me be very specific. The topic is "Does evidence of transitional forms exist?"
You say yes, and many scientists will back up that claim. I say no, and many scientists will back up that claim. Is science now to be determined as being accurate based upon majority opinion? If so, then where do we go from here?
Jet ------------------There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming. Professor Paul Davies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
Transitionals 'in-between' would, seeing as evolution is sucha gradual process, be almost but not quite identical to their root species ... they probably wouldn't even be considered as a separate species to either their ancestor OR their descendent depending on the level of change that had accumulated. ***Within a few transitions, I would tend to agree. However, until science is able to follow transition after transition until a new and totally different species appears, which I don't see happening, ever, then the necessary evidence of transitionals will continue to miss the mark.***
------------------There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming. Professor Paul Davies
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jet writes: Science *is* a consensus activity, but that's not the most relevant point here. Scientists who accept evolution far outnumber those who do not, but that also is not the most relevant point here. In debate, one of the seven major fallacies is appeal to authority. Simply quoting scientists is not debate. It's not what scientists say that is important, but what evidence and argument they bring to the party. Hence, I could say that great scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr accept evolution, but it would mean nothing unless I could describe the evidence behind their beliefs. That's why out-of-context quotes by Davies and Jastrow accomplish nothing. Not only are they too short to give an accurate impression of their opinions, but it is meaningless without the evidence and rationale by which they reached their conclusions. Would the evidence that led Paul Davies to his conclusion be persuasive to you? Unless you read The Cosmic Blueprint, which is where your new quote comes from, how will you know? Yet if you search the web for that quote you'll see that it's been replicated at one Creationist site after another with no accompanying explanation of why Davies said this. Anyway, we are not here to argue about which scientists believe what, though we can't help touching on this quite a bit. We're here to hash through the evidence ourselves. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7913 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: actually i was scared off by your adolescent like chattering... of course im inheritly wrong because im a christian. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
quote: So ... you lack the courage of your convictions ? I was serving your request, kind sir, by starting this thread. This was to facilitate YOUR interest in discussing evidence. Why change your mind now ? Please go back to the first post and explain those hominid fossils using YECism. The merits of creationism will be determined by its ability to explain the evidence better than the ToE. I thought it would be interesting. jeff ------------------"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[B] ***The fact is that the evidence is not "completely consistent with evolutionary theory" but is rather 100% consistant with creation by an Intelligent Creator.[/QUOTE] All of the evidence is also consistent with the idea that the Universe was created 15 seconds ago, with all of our memories of past events intact. What can you DO with the idea of the Intelligent Designer, other than be comforted by it? Can you make any testable predictions? No. Is it a falsifiable theory? No. Is it a nice philosoph but not particularly useful if you want to figure out how nature works? YES.
quote: Actually, the fact that this club exists is evidence of the lack of good science education and critical thinking skills in the United States educational system, and also evidence that people would much rather feel comforted than think well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
What actually makes two similar species different,
and how can we tell this from skeletal remains alone (fossilised or otherwise). What I am sugesting is that the numbers of remains requiredto perform statistical analysis of anomalies doesn't exist. What does exists are sufficient remains to identify trendsof change ... pointing to evolution. In special creation terms, there is no reason why we should expectto find (apparent) sequences in the fossil record or skeletal remains. In fact we should expect the NO such sequence. Taking hominid remains alone, and since the masses and survivablities (mentioned in TC's flood 'model') are roughlythe same, there is no reason from a literalist biblical view that accounts for the apparent time sequence of the remains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
Originally posted by Percipient:
That's why out-of-context quotes by Davies and Jastrow accomplish nothing. --Percy ***This quote of yours, taken out of context, is not unlike any other out of context quote. It forces the reader to examine the fuller text of the individual being quoted. I have not seen, within this forums' setting, a single example of an individuals quote that was not taken out of context. Even your fourm guidelines are prohibitive to such an exercise as full quotation, but rather suggest providing a reference link to further enlighten any individual who may care to check it out more intensely. That Davies or Jastrow actually said what was attributed to them in not in question. Neither is their actual position in regards to the TOE. Nothing within the limited quotes provided should be received as being ample evidence of their positional beliefs and I doubt any intelligent individual would consider them as such. The quotes do, however, give a clear indication that they recognize that the TOE is unable to answer every question and that sometimes, just maybe, theology is better suited to answer some questions than is science, even within the realm of a naturalistic understanding of the universe.***
Jet ------------------As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? Prof. George Greenstei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1736 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I know of no evolutionists who disagree with this. Evolution is not intended to answer every question as some YECs seem to think it should. Are you saying then that science might be a better suited to answer some questions ... just maybe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B]What actually makes two similar species different, and how can we tell this from skeletal remains alone (fossilised or otherwise). What I am sugesting is that the numbers of remains requiredto perform statistical analysis of anomalies doesn't exist. ***I agree, they do not exist.***Jet What does exists are sufficient remains to identify trendsof change ... pointing to evolution. ***And this is speculative, not hard science.***Jet In special creation terms, there is no reason why we should expectto find (apparent) sequences in the fossil record or skeletal remains. In fact we should expect the NO such sequence. ***Key word here is "apparent". This is also a speculative statement. When referring to speciation, or micro-evolution as Evos prefer to call it, which is a misnomer in my opinion, there is no reason to discount creation in favor of evolution. In fact, speciation is better explained by Intelligent Design than it is by psuedo-science, aka the TOE.***Jet Taking hominid remains alone, and since the masses and survivablities (mentioned in TC's flood 'model') are roughlythe same, there is no reason from a literalist biblical view that accounts for the apparent time sequence of the remains. ***Not having examined TCs' flood model, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. However, the fact remains that what many Evos are fond of claiming is a fully substantiated reality, (I cannot begin to number the amount of times I have seen Evos reply that the TOE is a "proven" fact, while in the same breath, making the claim that the TOE in not about "proofs" but, rather, is about where the evidence points), is in reality nothing more than a speculative guess of what actually occurred in the distant past. This is just another one of the many reasons that I contend that the TOE is not scientific, but in reality, is nothing short of neo-psuedo-science, even under the most liberal of definitions of the term "science".***Jet
Jet ------------------As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? Prof. George Greenstei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jet Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by edge:
[B] I know of no evolutionists who disagree with this. Evolution is not intended to answer every question as some YECs seem to think it should. Are you saying then that science might be a better suited to answer some questions ... just maybe? ***Well, let me preface this reply by stating that I am NOT, repeat NOT a YEC. Having said that, and in response to you inquiry as to whether "science might be a better suited to answer some questions", my answer would be yes, with qualification. IMHO, when science is buttressed by theology, assuming that the theology is based solely upon the Holy Word of God, it is better suited to answer many of the difficult questions that we face when attempting to find the answers to the mysteries of the universe.***
Jet ------------------As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? Prof. George Greenstei
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b] quote: So, Jet, what help from "The holy word of God" do the people at NASA use to get all of those space shuttle missions going, or any of the other projects they have going on?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
So, correct me if I'm wrong here, you don't object to
the ToE, but to claims that it is scientific and undeniable fact. If the above is about right (please tell me if not) concerningyour view, I would like to say, for myself :: I have never veiwed the ToE as undeniable fact, but as well supportedtheory. The clue is in the name 'Theory of Evolution' In what way is speculation an unscientific starting point forscientific enquiry ? Surely ALL scientific enquiry starts with someone having anidea about some observed phenomena ... what makes the subject scientific or not, surely, is the way that the enquiry is approached. You have stated that you are NOT a YEC, so could you elaboratesome of your views .. it would help debate issues. For example, perhaps you do not hold the Bible as inerrant, or perhaps you do but allow that it can be interpreted in different ways, or perhaps you beleive in intelligent design, or ... etc. Position statements should always be included early in researchwork, so I think it would also benefit discussions on topics such a this. BTW - TC was suggesting that, from a literal Biblical interpretationand a YEC world view, that the fossil record is due to Flood sediments, and that the seqeunces were laid down in ashort space of time by hydrodynamic sorting, and individual survivability factors. My opinion (ok so it's only an opinion, but it is grounded in logicand reason) is that like species would have insignificant differential masses for sorting to affect their position in such Flood sediments, and that they would have broadly similar survivability characteristics. Without knowing your preferred world view this may or may notbe relevent to your objections to ToE. Also ... when I used the word 'apparent' I was using the'observable' branch of meanings
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024