I have grown tired of Randman's repeated statement - that he has made his points regarding the whale transitionals, and they have not been addressed. He also seems to think he has addressed the points of others and supported his own.
I have taken it upon myself to review his participation in this thread, and lay the matter to rest.
He entered the debate at
this post. First unsupported assertations:
"We see all sorts of species or basic types of creatures, particularly in whales, with numerous fossils for them, but we just don't see the transitionals."
"The fact is a comprehensive and logical view of the fossil data is that either species did not evolve, or that some other mechanism is involved to explain evolution than is presented by evos."
Relevent responses:
-> nwr with an explanation of how whales could have evolved
-> Modulous with a point about fossil rarity and why it is irrelevent to the ToE
Post 53
Unsupported assertations:
"The problem is that within the lines of theorized evolution, say of whale evolution, we would expect to see most of the significant new features occuring in fairly large and well-established groups, according to your scenario, but we don't."
Relevent responses:
-> nwr explaining that the ToE does not in fact predict such a thing.
Post 58
Randman explains his position:
"I would suggest that the predictive aspect of ToE needs more precision with respect to the fossil record, specifically that if you are going to claim ToE predicts such and such, then there should be predictions of specific quantities of fossils of species relative to specific traits."
Relevent responses:
-> robinrohan pointing out that fossilisation is hit-and-miss
-> Modulous pointing out that the ToE does not predict this
-> Modulous suggesting that he do such an analysis, if he believes it's that important
-> BuckeyeChris pointing out that random mutation plus natural selection (i.e. the core of the ToE) says nothing about fossilisation
-> NosyNed pointing out that Randman was apparently basing his comments on personal incredulity
Post 61
Randman makes assumptions about what is scientifically possible:
"Over time, millions and millions of years, the differences in the hit or miss affair would average out some, right? What we know is that a whole bunch of features would have to had evolved if ToE is true. We can do anatomical comparisons to whales with their nearest land mammals, and quantize the number of differences that exist and new features that would have to develop, right?"
Unsupported assertations:
"You guys claim ToE has made an accurate prediction relavent to the fossil record. Imo, that is a false claim. Looking at the fossil record comprehensively, it appears to me to be very, very strong evidence against evolution."
"But irregardless, since evos to date have refused to actually tackle the rigorous process I outline above to make a comprehensive prediction within a range, the best we can say is evos are ignoring the fossil record as a whole, and claims it is supportive of evolution have not been rigourously supported by a comprehensive study of the data which includes estimates of the number of fossilized forms we should expect to find."
Relevent responses:
None
Post 68
Randman presents his opinion regarding Darwin and evolutionists:
"Darwin in fact did predict the fossil record should show ToE, and went on to say it was a means of falsifying ToE. So from a layman's perspective, it appears to me that since the fossil record now negatively falsifies ToE that evos claim it was never important in the first place."
Relevent responses:
-> Modulous saying that Darwin did not predict this, and supplied quotes from Darwin as support
Post 69
NosyNed asks why the ToE is expected to predict fossil frequency; Randman responds:
"I already did that. Read the following paragraphs in the post. If one is to make a claim about the fossil evidence, then it must be considered in toto with a comprehensive analysis, not just picking out piecemeal some species that can be a "token transitional" while ignoring the fossil record as a whole."
It has already been pointed out at this stage that the ToE does not predict fossil frequency, only that IF fossils are found they will fit the pattern of common descent.
Relevent responses:
None
Post 71
Randman makes the claim that such a study would be evidence in support of the ToE, and the onus is on evolutionists to do it.
"Furthermore, the claim that the fossil record supports ToE is an evo claim so evos should have to back up their claim with such studies, but to date, I have never seen any comprehensive studies along these lines."
Again, it has been pointed out that the ToE makes no predictions about fossilisation, in which case such a study would not support it.
Relevent responses:
-> Modulous points out that no evolutionist has made any claim about fossilisation predicted by the ToE - it merely states that fossils found will fit the ToE, and to date none have been found that do not. He also points out that the data needed to make the predictions suggested by Randman is not available, nor would the study be significant.
Post 72
Randman suggests that the discussion be confined to whale evolution
Relevent responses:
-> Modulous agrees
Post 76
Unsupported assertations:
"The fossil record should be considered in toto, and a comprehensive view of the fossil record does not show macro-evolution occurring."
"The evo explanation is that it can be considered consistent with ToE due to massive fossil rarity..."
Relevent responses:
-> Modulous pointing out that the record shows that life changed over the course of earth history (i.e. evolution), and the ToE ONLY predicts that fossils will be consistent with it.
Post 83
Unsupported assertations:
"Every fossil uncovered, when considered in toto, is totally inconsistent with the ToE."
Randman asks "You claim we should not expect to see more transitions due to fossil rarity, but offer no real studies to explain why such a rare event produces "common fossils" such as whale fossils which commonly appear in marine sediment layers."
Relevent responses:
-> Modulous points out that without knowing the original number of animals, such studies are impossible, and the ToE does not predict the volume of transitionals.
-> mark24 asks for support of his assertation.
Post 85
Randman discusses a vague methodology with robinrohan for such a study, and repeats himself:
"But here's the thing, such a quantitative comprehensive analysis should have been conducted and should be conducted before evos make claims of the fossil record being congruent with ToE."
This is after it has been pointed out that the ToE makes no such predictions and such a study would not be supporting of it.
Relevent responses:
None
Post 89
Unsupported assertations:
"Basilosaurus seems to have thousands of fossilized remains as it was fairly common in Mississippi and Lousiana, but whole specimens are much more rare."
Randman repeats himself:
"The point of claiming fossil rarity for evos is to claim it is very rare for a species to leave any fossils at all, and thus they claim the fact we don't see fossils for the vast majority of species, even the vast majority that must have evolved in the land mammal to whale evolution, is consistent with the ToE."
It has been pointed out that the ToE and evolutionists make no claims regarding fossil rarity - only that fossils found will be consistant.
Relevent responses:
-> Thor pointing out that finding many Basilosaurus fossils simply means that Basilosaurus lived in areas where fossilisation was relatively easy.
-> Modulous repeats himself; not all transitional fossils are seen, those that are, are consistant with the ToE - and asks for support for assertations.
Post 90
Randman responds to mark24:
"I've already answered in detail, and you completely ignore it and offer not one comment on the points I raised.
Sorry, but if you want a conversation, I suggest you read my posts detailing exactly the type of comprehensive analysis which would need to be done to consider if the numbers and type of fossils do or do not support ToE."
Relevent responses:
-> mark24 pointing out that he had in fact offered many comments which were not addressed, specifically to do with the correlation of the fossil record to cladograms.
Post 102
Randman responds to schrafinator regarding Gould and Etheridge's work (punctuated equilibrium, I assume).
Unsupported assertations:
"They used facts that creationists had used for decades but which evos steadfastly denied were true because creationists used these facts as evidence against ToE. Gould and Etheridge were able to use these same facts to support the evo paradigm, and only then were they admitted by the evo community at large, which is very, very telling imo."
Relevent responses:
-> Paulk asks for support for assertation
Post 104
Randman responds to Admin.
Unsupported assertations:
"I repeat myself because not once has the issue I raised been addressed."
"It's the same point, over and over again, yep, but only because there is abject refusal by evos to tackle it in any meaningful manner."
"I spent lots of time addressing many of those issues, but honestly, why should the evos not have to address the issues I have raised here?"
"Is it not reasonable to expect evolution proponents to back up their claims on "fossil rarity", which is given as an explanation for why the vast majority of species that supposedly lived leave absolutely no trace whatsoever. If fossilization is so rare, then why do many species leave so many fossils in so many different parts of the world?"
Again, at this point is has been repeated many times that neither the ToE nor evolutionists are making any claims on fossil rarity.
Relevent responses:
-> mark24 repeats himself; the ToE does not make claims about fossil rarity. He also explains the reasoning behind the rarity of fossils and asks for support for assertation.
Post 108
Unsupported assertations:
"The answer evos give is fossil rarity, but then again, as you can see by some references to fossil rarity for individual members, that has not been addressed, as you claim that it has."
mark24 wrote a long and detailed post on fossil rarity, which was ignored.
"For example, just because fossilization is rare for individual members, as many have pointed out here, does not mean fossilization is rare for species as a whole. You and the other evos continually ignore this, over and over again."
"We are not talking about whether fossilization is rare for individuals, but for species as a whole, and no evo here has ever given any scientific evidence to back up their claim for fossil rarity for species as a whole."
Again... the same point - ToE and evolutionists make no claim regarding fossil rarity.
Relevent responses:
-> Modulous pointing out that this claim of fossil rarity has been answered again and again and...
-> At this point I entered the discussion, and explained how it is impossible to do the studies he is suggesting because there is no population data to base it on.
------------------------------------------
I'm going to stop here, as from this point on I am involved.
I believe this answers the question - Randman does not support his statements, ignores responses, ignores requests for supporting evidence, and misrepresents evolutionists and the ToE. He is wilfully ignorant of earth history, the ToE, and fossilisation, and convinced that his view on them is the only correct one.
As to his manners, I leave that to you to decide.
As of this post I am leaving the discussion, as I do not believe any more productive debate can occur here. I recommend that all involved post their final statements, and allow the admins to close the topic.
The Rock Hound
"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."
™ Version 4.2