Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolutionary chain
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 61 of 204 (257978)
11-08-2005 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Christian
11-08-2005 6:02 PM


The meaning of the posted fossilization percentages?
Could you now tell us what those percentages are supposed to mean?
I think that there is some rather strange reading of them going on. You might note that the family level is the lowest given and that it is a % of currently living groups. Consider that when you tell us how you interpret this result.
Also, why would you post this when it isn't relevent once you've been given several "chains"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Christian, posted 11-08-2005 6:02 PM Christian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Christian, posted 11-14-2005 5:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6255 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 62 of 204 (259699)
11-14-2005 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by NosyNed
11-08-2005 8:56 PM


Re: The meaning of the posted fossilization percentages?
I think that there is some rather strange reading of them going on. You might note that the family level is the lowest given and that it is a % of currently living groups. Consider that when you tell us how you interpret this result.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Also, why would you post this when it isn't relevent once you've been given several "chains"?
Sorry, my time is so limited (I feel I'm saying this over and over). I have not had the chance to read all of the posts on this thread. I would like to take a look at those "chains" and see if they are what I was asking for. First I'll have to find them. I don't see how this is irrelevant, though. I think someone said something about the fossil record being incomplete and that that was why the kind of chain I am requesting cannot be offered. I was trying to argue that the fossil record isn't really as incomplete as people think it is.
Could you now tell us what those percentages are supposed to mean?
I would answer this question but I'd rather spend my time looking for those "chains" I've been given

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 11-08-2005 8:56 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6255 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 63 of 204 (259700)
11-14-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by mark24
11-04-2005 3:58 AM


Birds are less easily fossilized than other things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by mark24, posted 11-04-2005 3:58 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6255 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 64 of 204 (259703)
11-14-2005 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mick
11-04-2005 9:10 PM


You have obviously already gotten a number of replies to this. I haven't read them yet. (I feel so behind in this whole thing). Anyway thank you for this chain. What I'm most curious about is the similarities and differences between Dalanistes and Rodhocetus. From the picture I can see that Dalanistes has legs and Rodhocetus does not. Also Dalanistes has a smallish neck and Rodhocetus doesn't. And maybe you could give me the evidence for why it is believed that Rodhocetus is decended from Dalanistes. There seem to be a few "missing links" here, right at the crucial point of transition from land to water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mick, posted 11-04-2005 9:10 PM mick has not replied

  
Christian
Member (Idle past 6255 days)
Posts: 157
Joined: 10-16-2005


Message 65 of 204 (259708)
11-14-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by mick
11-06-2005 8:55 PM


Ok, this one's a bit more clear and I can see that Rodhocetus DOES have something like legs. They still seem much different than Dalaniste's legs, especially the back legs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mick, posted 11-06-2005 8:55 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2005 7:52 AM Christian has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 66 of 204 (259715)
11-14-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mick
11-04-2005 9:10 PM


Have to laugh at that progression...
Sorry but that digression is amusing, but being we covered it on the whale threads, maybe it's not appropiate here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by mick, posted 11-04-2005 9:10 PM mick has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 67 of 204 (259718)
11-14-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Christian
11-08-2005 6:02 PM


they can't do it, Christian
Christian, they can't supply any chains because they have never found any. It's that simple. They can, using their imagination, arrange depictions of creatures to try to show how one could morph into another, but they could probably line up living species and do the same, as far as illustration. The whole thing breaks down, particularly with the whale evo story.
They have no answers for the lack of transitions being showed in the fossil record. The best they have is to claim "fossil rarity" but this is a vague, undefined concept, and is inconsistent with the numbers you have posted showing fossilization is not so rare for families of species as a whole.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Christian, posted 11-08-2005 6:02 PM Christian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 6:54 PM randman has replied
 Message 72 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 12:42 AM randman has replied

  
wiseman45
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 204 (259739)
11-14-2005 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
11-14-2005 5:51 PM


Evolution has some holes, but there are a lot more in the whole "Noah's Flood" thing
Okay, Randman, maybe I interpreted what you're saying wrong, but you seem to be pretty confident that evolution has some fatal flaws. It has some holes, I'll more than admit, but speaking of flaws, if you take the whole Noah's flood story (that is, IF you do, otherwise this is just a thought, not a criticism) then that means that all humans are the product of incest in Noah's family, (meanwhile, incest causes several genetic "problems" that I might discuss later) and we soon spread all over the place, totally forgot what happened, and yada yada yada.
If we hadn't forgotten, if had been passed down and there was evidence (I.E. like someone actually found and dug up the Ark to put on display and could prove that it was Noah's ark) then evolution would be blown right out the window. Get it? Creationists seem to spend their time finding whatever they can to downplay evolution, but you ignore the fact that all that supports creationism is a book, and the idea that miracles happen. And speculation, okay, I'll give that to the ID people.
Now, creationists can go ahead and say that everything that exists is a result of a miracle. There is NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. In my opinion. You just can't make it so that has scientific standing, (and that goes for you ID people, too) whatsoever, until you find the ark. You can't support it against a scientific theory that has over 150 years of research and testing behind it. You just can't do it. In a scientific forum. Just to make a point, you see.
Wiseman45
This message has been edited by wiseman45, 11-14-2005 06:57 PM
This message has been edited by wiseman45, 11-14-2005 07:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 5:51 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 10:27 PM wiseman45 has not replied
 Message 71 by NosyNed, posted 11-14-2005 11:48 PM wiseman45 has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 69 of 204 (259747)
11-14-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by wiseman45
11-14-2005 6:54 PM


Re: Evolution has some holes, but there are a lot more in the whole "Noah's Flood" thing
Thanks for admitting that there are some holes in ToE. Nevertheless, it's a common error to think that if creationism can be disproved or discredited, that somehow ToE is validated. Trying to discredit the Bible or God or creationism does not validate ToE.
This message has been edited by randman, 11-14-2005 10:31 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 6:54 PM wiseman45 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Nighttrain, posted 11-14-2005 10:52 PM randman has not replied
 Message 82 by nator, posted 11-15-2005 10:22 AM randman has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 70 of 204 (259749)
11-14-2005 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
11-14-2005 10:27 PM


Re: Evolution has some holes, but there are a lot more in the whole "Noah's Flood" thing
Seeing as fossils are only recovered by erosion, or excavation as part of man`s activities including scientific surveys,I would have thought it obvious that vast areas remain to be explored. Don`t see any digging going on by creationist expeditions to recover 'their' transitionals. Y`know, like the trail of pre-platypi from Ararat to Australia,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 10:27 PM randman has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 71 of 204 (259774)
11-14-2005 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by wiseman45
11-14-2005 6:54 PM


Blowing Evo out the window
f we hadn't forgotten, if had been passed down and there was evidence (I.E. like someone actually found and dug up the Ark to put on display and could prove that it was Noah's ark) then evolution would be blown right out the window.
No, not completely. If the entire ark story was somehow proven we would have a problem with the dating of things. We would still have a series of forms of life that changed over time. The time frame would be that of the hyper evolutionists as in AIG and ICR. We would still have evolution. The problem would then be to come up with a mechanism that can allow for such hugely rapid change of such a large nature in such a short period of time. The change is still there.
RM thinks that "holes" in the fossil record are "flaws" in the theory. The distinction has already been explained to him. You are not going to get him to understand a thing. He is far to blinded for that. (That appears to be the most likely explanation and the most generous one).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by wiseman45, posted 11-14-2005 6:54 PM wiseman45 has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 72 of 204 (259785)
11-15-2005 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
11-14-2005 5:51 PM


Re: they can't do it, Christian
Nice straw man.
No one is claiming a perfect unbroaken chain. Even though you have had this explained to you countless times in countless other threads, you somehow still fail to get it.
Further, you never have given an example of what you would accept as a transitional form. People show them to you, you say "thats not what Im looking for", then you never tell them what you ARE looking for.
Seems to me you can't and won't be pleased. You are determined to maintain your flawd, non-scientific, beliefs at any cost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 11-14-2005 5:51 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 12:51 AM Yaro has replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 73 of 204 (259786)
11-15-2005 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Yaro
11-15-2005 12:42 AM


Re: they can't do it, Christian
I'm not asking for an unbroken chain but for some sort of honesty from evolutionists. You have, at best, something like a handful of links in a chain that spans 4000 or more links. There is no rational reason why 99.99% of the links are not shown, and yet you still dishonestly suggest that what I asked for is every single link.
I just think when something like 90% of the evidence that should be there is non-existent that it is reasonable to question the model. You to this date refuse to deal with that fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 12:42 AM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by nwr, posted 11-15-2005 12:57 AM randman has not replied
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 11-15-2005 1:04 AM randman has not replied
 Message 76 by Yaro, posted 11-15-2005 1:33 AM randman has replied
 Message 83 by nator, posted 11-15-2005 10:29 AM randman has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 74 of 204 (259789)
11-15-2005 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by randman
11-15-2005 12:51 AM


Re: they can't do it, Christian
There is no rational reason why 99.99% of the links are not shown,
Do you have a cat, randman?
If you do, can you locate the skeleton, fossilized or not, of your cat's great grandmother?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 12:51 AM randman has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 75 of 204 (259791)
11-15-2005 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by randman
11-15-2005 12:51 AM


connect the dots
I'm not asking for an unbroken chain but for some sort of honesty from evolutionists.
some sort of honesty?
i have a better game.
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-15-2005 01:06 AM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 12:51 AM randman 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