where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]

It's amazing hearing this. Reminds me of someone that's been brainwashed.You admit that for the vast majority of species there is no "spectrum" taking place, and yet incredibly insist that based on a few exceptions, that the spectrum claim is accurate.Just amazing. Has it occurred to you that the vast majority of species are "exceptions" then to the spectrum rule. If most species don't follow the rule or claim put forth by you, how can you continue to claim it is accurate?Never mind.....I doubt you are capable of seeing the point.

jar, if the spectrum claim is true, there would ALWAYS BE close ancestors we can interbreed successfully with, which is probably why Yaro claims we can breed suceessfully with chimps. He recognizes the implications of his claim.My theory here is that if I or a creationist or IDer state humans cannot interbreed successfully (producing fertile offspring) with chimps, he would never accept it, but he will accept if from an evo because he figured that if an evo admits this fact, then this fact can be admitted to while maintaining faith in ToE.In other words, there is a knowledge and fact filter operating withint the mentality of evos.

Is this sort of a revival of racism? just asking.

jar, in the context of this discussion, the claim is that the spectrum analogy by definition means we can interbreed with our nearest relatives, and the reason is that the spectrum claim was given to refute my claims concerning speciation requirements to evolve different features to evolve a land mammal to a whale.Of course, the spectrum claim is wholly fantasistical without any factual merit at all.

Didn't bother with your whole post after the first 2 points since you seemed incapable of realizing that the fact that children are not identical to their parents has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that children of humans can only mate with other humans.You also appear not to realize that if it is illogical to claim an exception to the rule, that the vast majority of species then are exceptions to your claims and rule as far as a spectrum.You admit that most species can only interbreed with members of their own species, but then insist this fact is not true actually since all of life is a spectrum.Since you cannot seem to even take note that you hold to mutually contradictory positions, it appears your thinking has been damaged by brainwashing or something along those lines.

quote:

---

yes, definetly.
ABE: That is, the farther away we are the more different the color.

​

Is this sort of a revival of racism? just asking.

---

Wow! How could you jump to that conclusion?The spectrum was being used an an analogy. The term "color" is obviously being used here for colors of the spectrum in the analogy, not for skin colors of people.At least that seemed very obvious to me. I don't know how you could possibly see racism there.

The context of this discussion is how new features would have to had evolved through numerous various species, according to ToE.You guys do not like the implications of the analysis and so try to obfuscate with fuzzy and erroneous claims that all of life is a spectrum, and thus claim no distinct species exist at all.Clearly, you guys are making wildly false claims, but you are so entrenched in delusion, that you cannot seem to admit that most species can only interbreed within their own species, and that ring species are exceptions to the rule, and that within the context of this discussion, ring species are totally irrevalent because we are talking different forms, and furthermore expanding those forms to include families of species.Are you guys now claiming species can breed across the family level?Are you saying across the family level that a spectrum of interbreeding exists?Why is it you cannot see simple truth? In the context of this discussion, why do you guys deny that many speciation events would need to take place with new species and new families of species arising for land mammals to whale evolution to take place?It seems to me evos have been so brainwashed that it really doesn't matter if a critic of ToE uses the exact same facts as they do, but the facts don't exist if a critic uses them, and they do exist if an evo uses them. That's been my experience with the evo community. Looks like brainwashing to me.

OK. Just a few posts above the conversation concerned humans, but I see what he was referring to now.I guess it's hard for me to take yaro seriously as he put forth the spectrum claim as a means to deny new forms via families of species needing to occur as real and viable concept to explain land mammal to whale evolution.To put forth ring species to deny the fact whole new families if not whole new suborders would need to have arisen smacks of thinking so deluded that it seems damaged by brainwashing and propaganda.

"I bet" eh?So the spectrum does not exist? Best you can do is claim it exists with "I bet" all the while there is no observed spectrum at all.I mean if the spectrum claim is true, we should be able to mate with chimps as Yaro believes.How many of you really believe we can mate with chimps?

Let it all out randman. Hate the messenger all you want. Misrepresent what I say if it makes you feel better. You'll excuse me while I turn the other cheek.Now, answer the questions from Message 223: Is it really that hard to just answer the questions?Enjoy.{abe}btw - these are really just "yes" or "no" questions, so it is really really simple to answer them eh?{/abe}This message has been edited by RAZD, 10*23*2005 08:11 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I don't think that's the point or within the scope of the analogy.

Randman, Again, evader boy, that isn't in issue. All of your post evaded the fact that your premises are a fiction. You have laughingly said to others that you were being logical. Clearly you jest. A logical argument requires premises, from which are derived a conclusion. Obviously (to the higher primates), a conclusion is only as good as the premises. Given that ALL of your premises are creationist inventions, rather than facts, then it stands to reason that your conclusions are creationist inventions, too.The issue is the utter, & total, lack of evidential support for your premises. You can whine about it aaaaall day long long. But if your premises are fictional, then so is your conclusion.Bullshit premises = bullshit conclusions. And this is my point. It is YOU who is making the argument that not enough intermediates exist, it's up to you to show it. It's not our job to prove a false negative, but your own. You provide evidence for your own negative conclusion. Are you so ignorant of what a logical argument actually is? Without knowing how unlikely a fossil is, your pissing in the wind, god boy. Maybe because they never existed because they never fossilised, or they haven't been discovered? But given you can't show it either way, you're talking out of your arse. Again, you need to support the premises for your own argument.As per usual, you utterly & completely fail to address the issues that potentially could rescue your delusional fantasy.What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the chance of any given individual fossilising in any given habitat?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;This will potentially give you how many fossils exist within the earth of any given species/morph, if any.You then need to know:What are the probabilities of these strata existing deep within the earth in the modern era?;
What are the probabilities that the fossils are metamorphosed out of existence?;
What are the probabilities that the strata are eroded out of existence?:
What are the probabilities that any given strata will be exposed on the earths surface, rather than beneath the sea?Given that the strata is exposed at the surface on land, is it in a place where people who appreciate the importance of such fossils will bring them to the attention of the relevant experts?You can WHAAAA, WHAAA, WHAAA! as much as you like, I'll even call the WHAAAAAmbulance if you really feel that unable to be rational.However, in order to satisfy logical argumentation, you need to satisfy ALL of your premises with facts, or you fail to logically arrive at your conclusion. Why is this so hard for you? Why can't you face your logical deficiencies head on & comment on them rather than just repeating the same old, oft refuted bullshit?Now, would you please be good enough to answer the following questions you are avoiding like the plague. You won’t catch atheism, I promise. Please answer them point by point. It's difficult to see what you are evading, otherwise.A summary of questions asked/points raised that are still lacking answers:1/ What "comprehensive analysis" (that you demand of everyone else) has been undertaken in order for you to come to this conclusion? (For the 8th time of asking).2/Why does cladistics & stratigraphy match the way it does? As explained, please answer the question, that is, just to be clear, provide a causal link to explain why cladistics & stratigraphy match as well as they do.3/Why do you demand more fossils when you know a species that contained billions of individuals (at any one time) leave no trace? Where have you addressed this? I have checked all of your posts since I raised the issue, & you have never provided an answer.4/Your denial of what evidence is. I repeat the following for the sixth time."A single fossil that is consistent with evolution is evidence of it, because it is a fact predicted by a logically valid scientific theory. There is no arbitrary evidence value line-in-the-sand that must be surpassed before we can accept that evidence. The only standard that logically valid evidence must meet is that it is a logically derived prediction made by a logically valid hypothesis."Agree, disagree, comment?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 10-23-2005 08:44 PM

---

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

I don't know about other mods Randman, but when you start whining about mistreatment don't expect any help. You will not follow the forum guidelines so I don't think you can expect anyone else to either.You are on your own.

Yawn. Not bothering to read it, Mark.If you want a real discussion, preface your post stating that and begin to deal with specifics of what I posted, showing you understand the points raised and why you disagree.Anything else will be ignored.

Why don't you join us in the chatroom.--Percy