Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 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:   New Origin Views Comparison Chart - Is it Accurate/Complete or Not?...
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 16 of 70 (403297)
06-01-2007 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Chiroptera
06-01-2007 6:49 PM


Re: Missing Links
If you actually read the press releases (and that's all they are) it is really a non-issue.
What the articles allege Dr. Schwartz says is that missing links are not needed. He is not questioning the mechanism as much as how it shows in the record.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 6:49 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 7:20 PM jar has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 70 (403299)
06-01-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
06-01-2007 7:13 PM


What an odd claim.
The links didn't work for me the first time around, so I wasn't able to read the articles. Now they do seem to work, and the articles are a bit confusing. The article seems to be about molecular biology and doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not transitional fossil species have been found. In particular, transitional fossils have been found, and lots of them, so any claim otherwise seems a bit...odd.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 7:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 7:34 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 70 (403302)
06-01-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by mpb1
06-01-2007 2:43 PM


this is a job for... CAVEDIVER!
Related to the Big Bang, the phrasing I used is by no means a direct quote. But I think it accurately represents the most current thinking related to the Big Bang. An MIT professor on NOVA described it very similarly (though if it is proven that my description is incorrect, I will change it).
Maybe cavediver will comment on this. He and Son Goku are our resident cosmology experts, and cavediver has criticized the description of Big Bang as an explosion.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 2:43 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 19 of 70 (403303)
06-01-2007 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Chiroptera
06-01-2007 7:20 PM


Re: What an odd claim.
Yup.
I could not see how the writer got the headlines out of the content but that is not unusual. The point is that you always need to read beyond the headline.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 7:20 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 7:56 PM jar has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 20 of 70 (403306)
06-01-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by jar
06-01-2007 7:34 PM


"Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first place."
"...Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first place..."
More on Dr. Jeff Schwartz:
The Thinkers: Pitt anthropologist thinks Darwin's theory needs to evolve on some points
EXCERPT:
"But there is another possibility, Dr. Schwartz said. There isn't a huge number of missing transitional fossils because they were never there in the first place. Instead, new species emerged suddenly due to genetic alterations that created sharp differences with their predecessors."
-
This at least opens the door for the possibility that old-earth / day-age creationism MIGHT possibly be true, although current DNA research seems be arguing against it at the moment...
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 7:34 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 8:13 PM mpb1 has replied
 Message 24 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 8:21 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 21 of 70 (403307)
06-01-2007 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mpb1
06-01-2007 4:23 PM


Re: replies...
But about the fossils, there should be a list somewhere...
Why?
There are lists, but I doubt anyone's compiled a complete list, because there's loads of the things, as the National Academy of Sciences points out.
I keep 'hearing' very low numbers (like under a couple dozen) for the 'real' number of transitional fossils found.
I'm sure you do keep hearing that. This is because creationists tell lies. You won't hear it from any scientist, 'cos it's crazy rubbish that creationist liars made up to dupe people.
Here's a guy who lists three dozen mammal-reptile intermediates. That's just one transition, and he does not claim that the list is complete.
Face it, the National Academy of Sciences know what they're talking about.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 4:23 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 70 (403308)
06-01-2007 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by mpb1
06-01-2007 7:56 PM


Re: "Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first pla
"...Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first place..."
So he's saying that some transitional fossils may not be found. Gould and Eldridge have been saying that with their theory of punctuated equilibrium. Schwartz isn't saying that there are no or few transitional fossils. He's saying that some of the gaps that exist may be real gaps. The fact is we have a lot of transitional fossils that pretty much show the evolutionary history of a lot of lineages. What do you think of the essays to which I linked?
-
This at least opens the door for the possibility that old-earth / day-age creationism MIGHT possibly be true, although current DNA research seems be arguing against it at the moment...
As well as the existence of transitional fossils that flesh out an almost complete lineage for several taxa. Unless you have a cogent rebuttal against the essays to which I linked?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 7:56 PM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 8:24 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 23 of 70 (403309)
06-01-2007 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mpb1
06-01-2007 6:44 PM


Re: Missing Links
This mainstream evolutionary biologists essentially admits there are no 'missing links' and says change happened suddenly...
From your article:
"Dr. Schwartz thinks there are a couple reasons why he and other contrarian evolutionary thinkers have not reached the public consciousness ... Dr. Schwartz said he doesn't know whether his evolutionary ideas will ever become part of the mainstream, but he nevertheless thinks they are good for science."
Please note also that he is only talking about intermediate forms between species: there is nothing in his ideas which says that there shouldn't be, or aren't, transitional forms between higher taxa.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 6:44 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 70 (403310)
06-01-2007 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by mpb1
06-01-2007 7:56 PM


Re: "Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first pla
See Message 16.
This at least opens the door for the possibility that old-earth creationism MIGHT possibly be true, although current DNA research seems be arguing against it at the moment...
Nope. The mechanism is still the same. The only difference is how the critters would appear in the fossil record. Old Earth Creationism or any form of ID, Special Creation, Directed Creation is still simply material for creative fiction and of course, the opportunity to get gullible Christians to send more money.
In his scenario the mutations happen just as in all the other scenarios, they simply lie dormant for sometime before being expressed.
But from the press releases you quoted, he shows no mechanism or model for his assertion so other than saying "Sure, anything is possible" there is not much that can be done.
There are other problems such as:
Another problem with gradualism, he argued, is that it suggests that complex structures, such as a vertebrate's eyes or a mammal's mammary glands, had thousands of slightly different precursors in earlier creatures.
Well, in the case of eyes as one example we can look around and see all of the thousands of different precursors. We can see everything from the very simple light sensitivity of plants through to complex compound eyes. We can look at fossil critters like the trilobite eyes where three different types of eyes and serveral different arrangements happened over time. We can look at the modern box jellyfish that has several types of eyes from simple light sensitive spots to camera type eyes.
We can see the same thing when we look around at mammary glands. Again, we can see all the different steps necessary out there in the world today, from where milk simply seeps through patches of skin to full blown breasts.
So the two examples mentioned in the linked article simply don't stand up to even a cursory examination.
The feeling is that I have to wonder if the news articles actually reflect what he believes of if they simply were catering to sensationalism.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 7:56 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 25 of 70 (403311)
06-01-2007 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Chiroptera
06-01-2007 8:13 PM


Re: "Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first pla
Chiroptera, I'll look at your essay links. I'm not against evidence ” if it's available and reliable. To this point, I just haven't seen it, and I HAVE been looking for it, believe me!
I just have to believe that if the TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL EVIDENCE were extremely compelling, it would be all over the Internet. And it isn't!
Whatever they have must be pretty flimsy, or you and I both know the creation/evolution debate would have been over a long time ago. This site wouldn't even exist if transitional fossil evidence was truly compelling.
--------------------------------
jar,
The man is clearly saying that transitional fossils are seriously lacking. And because of that, he is postulating that Darwin was wrong, that the changes are not gradual, and that new species basically 'just appeared.'
He clearly believes evolution is responsible for it. He just doesn't know HOW, and he sure as heck doesn't believe Darwin got it right OR that changes from one species to another were gradual ” because he acknowledges the fossil record DOES NOT SUPPORT IT.
I hope people will read the article for themselves.
The Thinkers: Pitt anthropologist thinks Darwin's theory needs to evolve on some points
-
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.
Edited by mpb1, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 8:13 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 8:34 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 27 by Chiroptera, posted 06-01-2007 8:37 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2007 8:46 PM mpb1 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 26 of 70 (403313)
06-01-2007 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mpb1
06-01-2007 8:24 PM


Re: "Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first pla
The man is clearly saying that transitional fossils are seriously lacking.
LOL.
If so he is simply wrong.
He clearly believes evolution is responsible for it. He just doesn't know HOW, and he sure as heck doesn't believe Darwin got it right OR that changes from one species to another were gradual ” because he acknowledges the fossil record DOES NOT SUPPORT IT.
LOL.
If so he is simply wrong.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 8:24 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 70 (403314)
06-01-2007 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mpb1
06-01-2007 8:24 PM


Well, okay, you can believe what you want -- it's certainly no skin off of my teeth. I'm just not sure why the statements of a person whose work is in a field that has nothing whatsoever to do with paleontology (and even reading the article itself, the conclusions about fossils don't even follow from his work) somehow overrules the work of many, many people who have actually held the fossils in their very own hands.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 8:24 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 70 (403318)
06-01-2007 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mpb1
06-01-2007 8:24 PM


Re: "Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first pla
I just have to believe that if the TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL EVIDENCE were extremely compelling, it would be all over the Internet. And it isn't!
Yes it is. Didn't you see the links?
Whatever they have must be pretty flimsy, or you and I both know the creation/evolution debate would have been over a long time ago.
Don't be silly. That would require stupid ignorant religious fanatics to be swayed by evidence.
Yeah, like that happens.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 8:24 PM mpb1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 9:01 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
mpb1
Member (Idle past 6138 days)
Posts: 66
From: Texas
Joined: 03-24-2007


Message 29 of 70 (403319)
06-01-2007 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
06-01-2007 8:46 PM


Re: "Huge number of missing transitional fossils... were never there in the first pla
Creationists have been screaming about the lack of transitional fossils for years and years and years...
Don't you think evolutionists with solid 'missing links' would have been parading them around for all the world to see?
It defies logic not to believe that, and your links not withstanding, the evidence to support claims of transitional fossils is almost nowhere to be found online.
-
You are spouting company policy because you want Darwinian evolution to be true. I think you care as much about the facts as YECs.
Fifty evolutionary anthropologists like Dr. Schwartz could tell you 'missing links' don't exist, or barely exist if at all, and you wouldn't buy it.
But fifty of them won't stand up and admit the truth because creationists would claim victory. So evolutionists must continue holding the line, no matter what the evidence says.
-
DNA evidence is currently a stronger evidence for transitions from one species to another. I don't like the fact that DNA evidence seems to go against any form of instant creation, but I can't change the evidence.
How 'bout some more honest evolutionists?
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2007 8:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 06-01-2007 9:11 PM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 46 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 6:00 AM mpb1 has not replied
 Message 50 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 12:32 PM mpb1 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 70 (403328)
06-01-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mpb1
06-01-2007 9:01 PM


There is your problem
Creationists have been screaming about the lack of transitional fossils for years and years and years...
Yup. The Christian Cult of Ignorance. And just as in this thread, when the evidence is presented, the Biblical Creationists simply repeat the claim that was just refuted.
I don't like the fact that DNA evidence seems to go against any form of instant creation, but I can't change the evidence.
That is the nub. The Biblical Creationist wants to hold man as something special.,/=
Off topic post hidden -- we are dicussing the charts
Edited by AdminNosy, : off topic post hidden

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by mpb1, posted 06-01-2007 9:01 PM mpb1 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