Show one complete lineage in evolution

With all respect Loudmouth truly. You do as, I see it, and as many supporters of evolution also do retreat when scruntity of origin subjects credibility as science is done. Biology, cosmology, , geology etc that deal with origins should stand and stand very well on thier own merits as to thier claim to be engaged in science.
Yet when I cross-examine this carefully you retreat to the subjects of Forensic and archeology to defend yourself.
I am able to question these subjects too but you should not be uttering thier name. WHY should these subjects be needed to save your position??ROB

Your right. There is no evidence to support macro change of creatures. And there should be great lines of lineage all over the place at this point in paleontology research.
All they can offer is impoverished and obscure "examples" where they have made interpretation that one thing evolved into another.
In fact I would say by defination fossil evidence can only demonstrate so much and connections is not one of them. even if they were there.
Bits and pieces here and there is not the point on the matter of examples. The point is macro evidence should be the rule and not the exception. And I question the exceptions. In fact if you read the discussions here PE was a response to explain away this poverty.
Regards Rob

quote:

---

With all respect Loudmouth truly. You do as, I see it, and as many supporters of evolution also do retreat when scruntity of origin subjects credibility as science is done. Biology, cosmology, , geology etc that deal with origins should stand and stand very well on thier own merits as to thier claim to be engaged in science.

---

I was trying to show that methodologies you accept within theories that you accept are no different than the methodologies applied in the study of evolution. I was using analogy, not retreating. The methodologies applied in the study of evolution are as accepted within science as those methdologies used in fields you already accept (such as forensics). However, whenever strong evidence for evolution is presented you retreat to the false assertion "science can't test the past", which is utter bullsh!t. I have shown time and again that Science (big S) can look at past events, and that those who study evolution use Science. It is you who is retreating. Or maybe you can prove me wrong by answering this question:Why is there such a strong correlation between cladistics and stratigraphy?Or, if evolution is false then why do we find transitional fossils where they are predicted to be?

Why should there be "great lines of lineage all over the place" -- are you saying that "macro"evolution occurred more often than "micro"evolution? By what reasoning would you make this claim other than to be incredulous or deceitful?Funny that neither you nor john answer my post about the therapsids which addresses a series of transitional fossils that cover the change from reptile to mammal, a change in CLASS, 4 levels above species in the standard structure taxonomy ....
(See http://www.msu.edu/~nixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html for more on taxonomy)See: http://EvC Forum: Show one complete lineage in evolution for the post in question.It will be interesting to see which creationist dance you choose to get around it.You also have not answered the question about where the genetic difference is between "macro"evolution and "micro"evolution ... some marker that would say all type A are canines, all type B are felines, etc. ... but which just doesn't appear to exist in any organism studied to date (all differences are indistinguishable from "micro" changes)?See http://EvC Forum: "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?Without a mechanism to differentiate "macro"evolution from "micro"evolution at the genetic level there is no valid reason to make such a distinction anywhere else.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Robert, I have tried to pin you down on this by agreeing premises vis-a-vis the scientific method, hereDo you agree, if not, why not?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I just got back and found my responce to you didn't make it thru a few days ago for some reason.I misunderstood I guess what your point about forensics was about. As you said your using something I accept as science tio prove the others are science also. OKI have forgotten this stuff about cladistics and stratigraphy. HelpTransitional fossils being where they are predicted to be is a self fullfilling line of reasoning. All that is found are the cousins of each other on different parts of a landscape that was fossilized suddenly.
rob

The therapsids thing requries one to analysis a series of fossils that is beyond me.
All it shows are therapsids period. Anything living today?Your point about a line between macro and micro seems important but its not for us to prove anything. We simple demonstrate that change in creatures at a "micro" level does not prove it ever tokk or could take place at a macro level.
Rob

I agree however others have also given thier ideas of what the scientific method is. And they use different words. And as Rush Limbaugh says words matter.
AnywaysYour most important line was "...hypotheseis is inductively derived from an observation"
Amen.and bingo.
This is where you guys make your mistake. Your original hypothesis is itself not inductively derived from an observation but rather an interpretation laden thing itself.
Rob

Robert, Of course it's inductively derived, it can't be deductively derived in the first instance, now can it? The "interpretation" is the hypothesis itself, so yes, it is an interpretation laden thing, that's the point! Why is that a bad thing?Mark

Just in case you have any doubt about this: something being beyond you doesn't make it refuted as perfectly good evidence.Also: this example is given in a very clear form. If that is "beyond you" then the reason you don't accept evolution (and perhaps other sciences) is that you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand it. That is also not a refutation of the ideas. In fact if something is "beyond" your capacities it would, perhaps, behoove you to refrain from voicing any opinion at all.And, lastly, there is a great deal more material. Some of it is 'beyond' almost all of us here. If you can't handle this simple stuff then you had better take your water wings to the shallow end.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 08-21-2004 04:21 PM

Predictable ... that is the two step followed by the dosado ...The Two Step: (1) claim there are no examples of "macro"evolution, then when presented by evidence (2) claim it "requires one to analysis a series of fossils" (ignoring that it has already been done by several independent people, none of which have claimed that the series does not show what it shows). This is also a typical god-of-the-gaps type creationist response.If you truly are unable to properly analyze them yourself, then the best you can claim is that you personally are not sure about the evidence for "macro"evolution and can no longer claim that there is none. Any other claim is hypocritical, for all you are doing is refusing to educate yourself on the topic.All mammals are descendants of therapsids, so in one sense there are many examples living today: the way you chew your food and the way you hear is evidence that you are part of the therapsid "kind" of organism.The Dosado: turn your back on the evidence so that later you can say you didn't see it.You are the one claiming that there is a fundamental difference between "micro"evolution and "macro"evolution, so it is very much something you have to prove: what is the genetic difference between them?For evolutionists there is no difference between "micro" and "macro" and the lack of difference in the genetic code between the types of changes for species differentiation (~= your "micro") and the types of changes at all higher levels of differentiation (~= your "macro") is solid evidence for evolution at all levels being the same basic process. In other words "macro" = "micro" at the genetic level and evidence for "micro" = evidence for "macro" ... the evidence for one is, at the genetic level, is at the gentic level, evidence for the other.Again, you need to refute this argument and show that there is a genetic difference, or your continued claims that there is no evidence for "macro"evolution is hypocritical if not malicious in intent.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

If you truly are unable to properly analyze them yourself, then the best you can claim is that you personally are not sure about the evidence for "macro"evolution and can no longer claim that there is none.

---

Excellent, RAZD. I have been trying for a while now to figure out a way of stating this very point.

Not at all. It's indicative of a simple biological fact - men can father have more children than women can mother.

that's the harem scare'em explaination. another is high male mortality from battles with winner take all.but I am interested in the question of whether the different group gender behavior would show up as different "adam" and "eve" ages for the respective populations.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Perhaps I use the words wrong. My point is that you are trying to show by your example how science is working in the area of contention.
And your example starts with a hypothesis that is itself just premise upon premise or interpretation upon interpretation.
Rob