Show one complete lineage in evolution

The constant bringing up of forensic and archelogy as evidence that origin studies are science makes the very opposite point.
Why when we discuss such great fields as biology,geology,cosmology, your recourse to show they deal in science is to bring up off-broadway studies. Archelogy may use the scientific method here and there but it is essentialy about pikaxes and dynamite. Its not very scientific. Forensics is also been dealt with as only employing some science. Its workers are not scientists.Loudmouth you again say the interpretation of data qualifies as employing the scientific method. It doesn't. Your rules.
The method is a package deal. Otherwise it has not occured.
As in getting ones licence being 16 or good eyesite or a citizen or mentally competant on thier own do not qualify one for a license. Only all together. a package deal.

You did good research but you misunderstood what Darwin said and so have misunderstood why PE was a correction of an error. Darwin would never of used the word rapid.
PE is not a restatement. This is absurd. (my strongest negative point I've ever used on evcforum)
Mr Gould was a guest on the simpsons for a new idea not repeating evolution 101.I take your point about starlings and raise you one. (though I'm not sur of your point) English sparrows also came in the 1800's and covered North america. In thier case I have read they actually adapted to the different climates. The ones in the north got bigger and different shades. Natural selection? Anyway it happened fast and probably had nothing to do with genes and selection at all.Your P.S analagy is correct. the scientific method is a package deal and only in that deal does it occur.
regards Rob

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

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

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

Nosyned your example is not something a creationist or anyone can deal with pro or con.
I can not and should not have to analysis fossils to prove or disprove thier lineage.
The therapsids "example" are just fossils of a creatures that no longer exist. Then also while they have differences they still are therapsids. Therapsids with differences. This is clearly not a lineage but only speciation however varied. And so for one to disprove its merits one must accept a premise rejected in the first place and then study it like a professionaql.
In short no one on the evolution side has presented a single complete lineage yet. You just present fossils of a kind with differences. You do not present kind into kind. And this is recognized by the evolution community as when in great or small mueseums etc they always show horse feet change.
Show us a lineage and we will be in trouble. If you can't then admit it while not giving up that it still occured.
Rob

You make my point. This forumn is about showing a lineage and you just announce that all mammals are descendent from the therapsids. Well then show the evidence in fossil form for it. It should be the most common kind of fossils found. Indeed in the literature evolutionists always retreat back to how difficult and rare it would be to find fossils of this because of such and such a reason. They never sayu "behold".I understand what you saying about genetics but this is off thread (I think)The denetic thing is recent and primitive in its infancy and dealing with proposed connections only speculative. Creationists always say we are on one blue print and similaries in form can produce logically similiarities in DNA. Yet not evidence od lineage.
Rob

I think you misuderstand my line of reasoning
nevertheles I am fine abnd so in agreement with your idea of the scientific method as I understand what your saying
Rob

You said"Therefore I am argueing for a non-random ordering of fossils by thier fit into a cladagram"So your PROOF that non-randomness has occured is they fir into a cladagram!
The cladagram is dependent on the fossils being non-random it follows logically.
Thats the rub . They're being "non-random" is an interpretation and not a fact. They are just frozen in place representing a day or momment in time. Co-existing communities not species in progression.Again the error in your line of thinking is that you require the reader to accept as a presumption, as a great premise that ther is a daughter/parent thing goning on here.
Then you say look at thier progression.
To us creationists you should present a lineage that does not requier our accepting a premise of fossil relationship to start with.
Rob

Too much to respond to. I like a clean conttention.I have finely answered the therapsid progression thing.
They are not creatures in progression but just different species living in different communities over some are frozen in time by the event.The different jaw types is not evidence of anthing but simple speciation. For example of the two kinds of tree sloths one has an extra verabrate (I know its some important bone). Now if a fossilization event took place and both kinds are found later in time you guys would insist this showed one kind evolving into another WHEN in fact they co-existed and the difference had nothing to do with ancestry.
Rob

I understand your point. but yes we can. You guys have not shown transitions of kind only speciation within kind. Then i explain the speciation as only the result of a large area fossilized with different communities. However if you showed kind into kind it would be harder.The reptile/mammal separation is a human interpretation and possibly not important in the natural world. The platapus for example.
Also the similiar parst does not mean that a creature is one thing or another anyway. remember we are dealing with creatures that are not around and still error in what they were like is possible
Rob

Lots of questions but this should suffice.
Whether reptiles and mammals can be the same kind is not the discussion. Your classifications are not the way it is in the real world. For example the platypus. It is not in between a progression but it is rather just a kind of animal. It has (as defined by man) reptilian and mammal features but this is not evidence of ancestry. Saying it is is only an interpretation. The human classification system came first and then the creatures of the world must fit in. The playtapus isn't odd man out but a revealation the classification system is wrong. A misunderstanding. The aberation in the orbit is just not yet realized to disprove the orbit. There is in fact a greater orbit idea. The playtapus is like your examples a kind of animal. Not in between. thats just speculation based on 19th century premises.
Also again this thread started with asking supporters of evolution to show the lineages. There should be endless abundance and between clear kinds of creatures. Not jaws and feet. Thats pathaticlly poor.
Great numbers of great examples of great intermediaries will only and should only be persuasive to the public. You haven't done it and we say because it can't be done. And Darwin and evolutionists ever since have themselves had to deal with this equation. It stares you in the face.
Rob