IC & the Cambrian Explosion for Ahmad...cont..

PB,Probably. Or maybe they existed all along, but the fossils are missing...

quote:

---

Listen, Mark, the theory had a nice opportunity to be confirmed in molecular biology. It didn't. End of the story.

---

It was, Peter, it takes more than a theist posing as an atheist to change that, & until you address the questions I asked eons ago, I'm not going there. This thread is about fossil evidence, your molecular *snicker* evidence has been trounced more than adequately elsewhere. So, unless you have anything else to add? Talk about turning everything into a nail.The molecular evidence that supports evolution FALSIFIES GUToB. OK? How does that sound?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

PB: It has been addresed and is reiterated in Caporale's quote. Look it up.

---

Nope, have the courtesy of addressing the answers to my questions to me.

quote:

---

There is no fossil evidence of gradual evolution.

---

Hey, if you can't move the goalposts, why not make your own!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-08-2003]

Peter,I've formulated my questions, & put them to you a half dozen times or more. You have serially failed to answer them, so why not take your own advice & look them up? I have given up the hope that you will honestly attempt to back up the claims you make that I address, anyway, a LONG time ago. If you DO address them, then we can continue our discussion, until then, I'm not wasting my time.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Peter B,

quote:

---

Mark: That's right, Peter, Sphenodonts appear at the Tri/Jur boundary, become extinct for 50 million years ago,...

​

PB: Probably they evolved into something different.

​

Mark: ...are re-created at the Ju/K boundary,...

​

PB: probably they evolved back.

​

Mark: ...become extinct for a further 146 million years,

​

PB: Probably they evolved into something different.

​

Mark: ...then, without warning are re-created again when Europeans described them again a few hundred years ago.

​

PB: Probably..... etc

---

Impossible, the transitional fossils are missing .I'd like to see you convince Ahmad of this, he'll require transitional fossils of all those evolutionary events.

quote:

---

PB: The fossil record IS the evidence. There is no other fossil record, is there? All crucial transition forms are missing.

---

Define transitional form that fits currently accepted evolutionary theory (after all, that’s the paradigm under test), & we’ll see.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Peter,

quote:

---

Definitions again. My definition or yours?

---

Well, we’ll have to agree, but since we are looking for fossils predicted by the current evolutionary paradigm, the definition will need to be within that framework, in order to know whether the prediction is borne out or not, rather than the usual parody given by creationists.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear mark,

​

M: Well, we’ll have to agree, but since we are looking for fossils predicted by the current evolutionary paradigm, the definition will need to be within that framework, in order to know whether the prediction is borne out or not, rather than the usual parody given by creationists.

​

PB: If a theory doesn't predict right than the theory isn't right. Right?

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

Er, yes, but the examples that are claimed to be borne out predictions must be in the context of the theory or they are not predictions of that theory, right? So define "transitional form" in the context of the ToE, why so coy? How can you say the theory is wrong because it hasn't predicted right, if you're not prepared to honestly look at in context transitionals? There is nothing wrong with the prediction, only if you are strawmanning such a prediction, as creationists are want to so, like transitional mammals must have had their jaws hanging off for millions of years because of the squamosal, quadrate et al ending up as middle ear components.Mark

Peter?

Peter,Why? I know the predicted intermediates exist, the only way you can deny such a thing is to parody the ToE's definition of "transitional" or "intermediate".Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Peter,A transitional is a form that possesses characters that are part way between two separate taxa.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-14-2003]

Peter,Any taxa, from species to kingdom.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Peter,So, you agree then, transitional fossils bear out predictions made by the ToE?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mark,

​

If you can demonstrate

​

1) TFs between Kingdoms,
2) TFs between Phyla,
3) TFs between Classes,
4) TFs between Orders,
5) TFs between Families,
6) TFs between Genera,
7) TFs between Species

​

it would be very good for evolutionism.

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

Wouldn't it just! But let's stick to what we know. Do you agree that transitionals that meet the prediction of the ToE have been found?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mark,

​

Never seen one that could qualify as a TF

​

best wishes,

---

Then what is wrong with definition: a transitional is a form that possesses characters, or character states that are part way between two separate taxa.? (I added a bit),Do you agree the ToE predicts transitional forms as described? Please be specific in your objection.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mark,

​

What paradigm are we going to subject it to?

---

We've been over this, the ToE predicts transitional forms, so any definition of such must be in the context of the current ToE. No parodies, please, they will be strawmen.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Peter,

quote:

---

Mark, as I said, I will have an objective look,

---

Well, any joy?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.