On Transitional Species (SUMMATION MESSAGES ONLY)

No, it is your own lack of respect for the truth that lets you do that. Perhaps what you meant is that the press reports give you an excuse to just make up whatever word salad of creationist nonsense happens to froth out of your fingers onto the keyboard and then pretend it has some scientific support.TTFN,WK

Okay, we're past 300 messages. I'd be happy to leave this open if someone wants to try to move Robert away from unsupported assertions and toward engaging the debate. It takes two to tango, you get no sound when only one hand is willing to clap, and I recognize the difficulty of this task as I've failed in the attempt myself. I'll leave this thread open one more day.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You should tell all of those biology teachers that dissecting dead frogs is not biology.

quote:

---

Evolutionary biology is in fact geological musings that make biological assertions.

---

Your ignorance of genetics is astounding.

Moving Robert away from his misconceptions seems to be a Fool's Errand. I think Robert has made our point for us. The post above will be my last in this thread barring new arguments from Robert, although I find the chances of this occuring to be quite low.

Okay, thread's now closed for discussion and open for summations. All participants get to post at most one more message. Please make it a summation or conclusion, not a reply to a specific message.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I think one does summation here.
My part here ended in the subject of how important to evolutionary conclusions was the fossil record. Whereupon I stressed this meant that a biological conclusion was greatly founded on geological conclusions. So I insisted this nullify's the biological claim of evolutionary ideas as biological in research and so prestige.
Everyone saw indedd this as a flaw of evolution and so tried to tell me the fossil/geology was a minor or less matter in the case made for evolution.
Not what I ever saw or read.
They beat a drum about fossils, fossils, fossils, and how it proves evolution was true and how conclusions of the story of biological evolution are discovered.
Darwin himself insisted that without the geological presumptions of great time passing there was no reason to read his books.
AMEN.
his ideas don'r work without the geology and so i say they are not actually biological ideas in the main.
A flaw in the whole structure of evolution has been its non biological foundations. Its been a wrong line of reasoning that hid the lack of biological substance.

-Edited by Salz, : Discussion seems to be closed, ill open a new topic with my question.

These fossils show a mixture of characters, some known as the "original" descent from an ancestor to some as "derived ", appeared in all subsequent lineages. In the absence of biology, they form the technical transition.Edited by Admin, : Update signature.

---

I'm a signature spammer, yes I am!

What this thread have shown is that most creationnists don't seem to even understand what transitionnal fossiles are supposed to be or where they fit in the current evolutionnary theory. Most notably, Robert displays his usual disregard for evidence, logic and sometime I'm not even sure we're actually speaking the same language making watching a debate with him particuliarly mind-numbing (he can't even get what biology is about).

This was another thread rapidly derailed into a tiring attempt to explain basic biology to yet another Creationist who feels able to judge modern biology without ever bothering to learn about the subject.It is difficult to see how progress can be made when one party not only knows nearly nothing about that which they argue, but is apparently almost entirely unaware of it.

I was debating with myself for a while about whether I'd spent enough time with this thread to allow me to post a summation, but then I figured that it wouldn't hurt anybody.Here's how I see it:The arguments brought by Robert Byers are simply about words: biological organisms can leave geological evidence. We can learn considerably more about biology by studying this geological evidence than Robert seems to believe.The only reason to insist that biology and geology must be neatly partitioned into their separate spheres of influence is simply one of semantics: that's how humans define the terms, so that's how it must be.Consider this argument: Books are not humans, yet they can tell us a lot about humans. Should we reject all of our knowledge about humans that is derived from the written word simply because the written word is not human?Books certainly also aren't God, so shouldn't Robert also exclude books as evidence of God?No, no: paper and print is perfectly legitimate as evidence about things that are not paper and print. However, biologists are forbidden from using anything that is not alive as evidence about things that are alive.What a waste of the thread: I like talking about transitional fossils.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Our Robert's paper on marsupialsSums it up.

The theory of evolution predicts that one should see a mixture of characteristics in fossils in a temporal sequence. All geology supplies is the temporal information. Geology allows us to date the fossils. The rest is biology.If a temporal series of hominid fossils with increasingly human features is not evidence of evolution, then what is? We have seen creationist after creationist claim that missing links disprove evolution. Now that it has been made clear that these links are not missing they are no longer counted as evidence. Dishonest much?