Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fossils - Exposing the Evolutionist slight-of-hand
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 90 (1943)
01-11-2002 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Fred Williams
01-11-2002 4:51 PM


And you completely ignore the genetic evidence for common descent that folks like Doolittle assemble. There is evidence of common descent in that record--especially the sea cucumber. Additionally, what is amazing about your entire argument is that you never cite a specific falsification available in the fossil record. You identify nothing that is inconsistent with evolution, but only a lack of fossils in populations that aren't likely to fossilize at the same rates as vertebrates. Of course there is some evidence that you haven't even bothered with:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/cambevol.htm
If you want to say the fossil record is imcomplete no one is arguing with you because that is to be expected. But nothing in your 'article' identifies a key falsification of evolution.
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Fred Williams, posted 01-11-2002 4:51 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by NimLore, posted 11-06-2002 9:48 PM lbhandli has not replied

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 90 (2099)
01-14-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Fred Williams
01-14-2002 1:58 PM


quote:
Larry, I find Morton’s paragraph on what a transition is very revealing as to the problem. If he can’t know for sure what is in a direct line of decent, how can he then know for sure its *near* a line of decent?
Given all of the lines of evidence for common descent, your avoidance of all of the areas where there is solid evidence is amusing. Are the specific lines correct? Maybe not, but what you haven't provided is a falsification. You have provided an argument that our understanding is incomplete, but nothing that contradicts evolution.
quote:
The problem is that there are no clear-cut lineages despite the fact we have unearthed billion upon billions of these organisms, over a million species in all. It would seem there would be some solid evidence somewhere of their ancestors. If there were evidence in this vast cache of data, you would think my evolution biology textbooks would mention them. They don’t.
Actually there are very clear lineages, just for invertebrates as often. I'm not even sure what you are complaining about here given the great deal of fossil and genetic evidence amongst vertebrates. Are you somehow trying to argue that invertebrates came about in an entirely different way? And what about Doolittle's discovery with the Sea Cucumber and a fibrogen like gene?
Cheers,
Larry

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Fred Williams, posted 01-14-2002 1:58 PM Fred Williams 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