Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,870 Year: 4,127/9,624 Month: 998/974 Week: 325/286 Day: 46/40 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution?
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 9 of 88 (69911)
11-29-2003 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Sonic
11-28-2003 8:20 PM


My opinion is that the fossil record does not indicate evolution because I dont think that their is enough intermediate or transitional fossils to be evidence of "TOE"
Every fossil is a transitional, if you look at it correctly. Every species is a transitional between what itwas and what it will be. Every individual - even you - is a transition between their parents and their offspring.
It's like going from New York to L.A. and expecting a "transitional city" - a city located in Missouri that has both the Empire State Bulding and the Golden Gate Bridge. What you're looking for doesn't exist, but doesn't have to exist for you to go from New York to L.A.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 8:20 PM Sonic has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 11-29-2003 8:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 50 of 88 (70108)
11-30-2003 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Buzsaw
11-29-2003 11:18 PM


I wasn't aware that micro ever became macro?? Anyhow, I'm sure Crashy, to whom I was responding understands what I mean.
It's hard to understand what you meant, exactly, as I'm not sure why you would draw a distinction between a "macro"-transitional fossil and a "micro"-transitional fossil. Fossils are both.
It doesn't make sense. St. Louis is macro-transitional between New York and L.A, but it's micro-transitional between Indianapolis and Jefferson City. It's both.
Fossils are both. Whether or not it's a macro- or micro-transitional fossil depends on what two things you're looking at it as a transitional of. Like, the way that the distance of a midpoint of a line to either end depends entirely on the distance between the two ends.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Buzsaw, posted 11-29-2003 11:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2003 12:16 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1495 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 88 (71339)
12-06-2003 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Buzsaw
12-01-2003 12:16 AM


My point was not to distinguish between them, but that there needs be more of a balance in the fossil record with a greater quantity of Macro fossils than exists.
And what I'm telling you is, there's as many macro-transitional fossils as micro-transitional fossils, because they're the same fossils. Each fossil is a macro-transitional fossil and a micro-transitional fossil, because those distinctions are as meaningless as the distinction between micro-driving-on-the-highway (where you only go one city over) and macro-driving-on-the-highway (where you cross the country.) The only difference is of degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Buzsaw, posted 12-01-2003 12:16 AM Buzsaw 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