Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does evidence of transitional forms exist ? (Hominid and other)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 91 of 301 (11355)
06-11-2002 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jet
06-11-2002 5:58 PM


Hi Jet,
Jet writes:

The fact is that the evidence is not "completely consistent with evolutionary theory" but is rather 100% consistant with creation by an Intelligent Creator. If what you claim was true, this club would not exist. The fact that it does exist is proof that the TOE is not a satisfactory explanation for life on this planet.
Rule 1 of the forum guidelines says, "Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics."
Rule 2 states, "Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration."
If you'd like to sermonize, open a thread under Faith and Belief or in the Coffee House or in Free For All.
If you'd like to discuss transitional forms, please post to this thread.
If you don't want to do either one then please don't post.
--Percy
   EvC Forum Administrator
[This message has been edited by Percipient, 06-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 5:58 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 1:44 PM Percy has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 92 of 301 (11385)
06-12-2002 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jeff
02-08-2002 2:48 PM


I think I've said this before, but I just don't get
the problem people have with the idea of tranisitional
forms.
Take three species in the ascent of man ... the middle one
is a transitional between the other two.
Transitionals 'in-between' would, seeing as evolution is such
a gradual process, be almost but not quite identical to their
root species ... they probably wouldn't even be considered
as a separate species to either their ancestor OR their descendent
depending on the level of change that had accumulated.
ALL individuals within a population are unique, but share some
common traits. Two samples are considered separate species
when the differences are considered significant.
Along the way there would be an accumulation of insignificant
(in isolation) changes that would make some fossils look like
unusual examples of the root specie and others look like
unusual examples of the leaf specie.
I don't think that's really looked for is it?
Classification doesn't tend to work that way ... especially with
incomplete remains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jeff, posted 02-08-2002 2:48 PM Jeff has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 1:55 PM Peter has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 301 (11400)
06-12-2002 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
06-11-2002 6:58 PM


Fine, Percy, Let me be very specific. The topic is "Does evidence of transitional forms exist?"
You say yes, and many scientists will back up that claim.
I say no, and many scientists will back up that claim.
Is science now to be determined as being accurate based upon majority opinion? If so, then where do we go from here?
Shalom
Jet
------------------
There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.
Professor Paul Davies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 06-11-2002 6:58 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 06-12-2002 2:34 PM Jet has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 301 (11402)
06-12-2002 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Peter
06-12-2002 8:59 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
Transitionals 'in-between' would, seeing as evolution is such
a gradual process, be almost but not quite identical to their
root species ... they probably wouldn't even be considered
as a separate species to either their ancestor OR their descendent
depending on the level of change that had accumulated.
***Within a few transitions, I would tend to agree. However, until science is able to follow transition after transition until a new and totally different species appears, which I don't see happening, ever, then the necessary evidence of transitionals will continue to miss the mark.***
Shalom
------------------
There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming.
Professor Paul Davies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Peter, posted 06-12-2002 8:59 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Peter, posted 06-16-2002 7:08 PM Jet has replied
 Message 106 by Peter, posted 06-17-2002 8:51 AM Jet has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 95 of 301 (11405)
06-12-2002 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Jet
06-12-2002 1:44 PM


Jet writes:

Fine, Percy, Let me be very specific. The topic is "Does evidence of transitional forms exist?" You say yes, and many scientists will back up that claim.
I say no, and many scientists will back up that claim.
Is science now to be determined as being accurate based upon majority opinion? If so, then where do we go from here?

Science *is* a consensus activity, but that's not the most relevant point here. Scientists who accept evolution far outnumber those who do not, but that also is not the most relevant point here.
In debate, one of the seven major fallacies is appeal to authority. Simply quoting scientists is not debate. It's not what scientists say that is important, but what evidence and argument they bring to the party. Hence, I could say that great scientists like Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr accept evolution, but it would mean nothing unless I could describe the evidence behind their beliefs.
That's why out-of-context quotes by Davies and Jastrow accomplish nothing. Not only are they too short to give an accurate impression of their opinions, but it is meaningless without the evidence and rationale by which they reached their conclusions. Would the evidence that led Paul Davies to his conclusion be persuasive to you? Unless you read The Cosmic Blueprint, which is where your new quote comes from, how will you know? Yet if you search the web for that quote you'll see that it's been replicated at one Creationist site after another with no accompanying explanation of why Davies said this.
Anyway, we are not here to argue about which scientists believe what, though we can't help touching on this quite a bit. We're here to hash through the evidence ourselves.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 1:44 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 7:33 PM Percy has not replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 96 of 301 (11413)
06-12-2002 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Jeff
02-18-2002 1:00 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jeff:
Excuse me redstang281,
But were your words just idle chatter when you requested we post evidence for transitionals so that the YECies could "research and rebut" ?
Can we conclude that the Young Earth Creation model is BUST ? and completely incapable of explaining the evidence presented here ?
...and the YECies are overjoyed that this embarrassing question has rolled off the page ...from their neglect ?
Well Alrighty, then !!
Creationism has conceded defeat. This anti-Intellectual excercise has ended with victory to science !!
next.
[This message has been edited by Jeff, 02-18-2002]

actually i was scared off by your adolescent like chattering... of course im inheritly wrong because im a christian.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Jeff, posted 02-18-2002 1:00 PM Jeff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Jeff, posted 06-12-2002 4:01 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 301 (11415)
06-12-2002 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by KingPenguin
06-12-2002 3:26 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
actually i was scared off by your adolescent like chattering... of course im inheritly wrong because im a christian.

So ... you lack the courage of your convictions ?
I was serving your request, kind sir, by starting this thread. This was to facilitate YOUR interest in discussing evidence. Why change your mind now ?
Please go back to the first post and explain those hominid fossils using YECism. The merits of creationism will be determined by its ability to explain the evidence better than the ToE.
I thought it would be interesting.
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by KingPenguin, posted 06-12-2002 3:26 PM KingPenguin has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 301 (11429)
06-12-2002 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jet
06-11-2002 5:58 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[B]
***The fact is that the evidence is not "completely consistent with evolutionary theory" but is rather 100% consistant with creation by an Intelligent Creator.[/QUOTE]
All of the evidence is also consistent with the idea that the Universe was created 15 seconds ago, with all of our memories of past events intact.
What can you DO with the idea of the Intelligent Designer, other than be comforted by it? Can you make any testable predictions? No. Is it a falsifiable theory? No.
Is it a nice philosoph but not particularly useful if you want to figure out how nature works? YES.
quote:
If what you claim was true, this club would not exist. The fact that it does exist is proof that the TOE is not a satisfactory explanation for life on this planet.***
Actually, the fact that this club exists is evidence of the lack of good science education and critical thinking skills in the United States educational system, and also evidence that people would much rather feel comforted than think well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jet, posted 06-11-2002 5:58 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Jet, posted 06-17-2002 9:58 AM nator has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 99 of 301 (11660)
06-16-2002 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Jet
06-12-2002 1:55 PM


What actually makes two similar species different,
and how can we tell this from skeletal remains alone
(fossilised or otherwise).
What I am sugesting is that the numbers of remains required
to perform statistical analysis of anomalies doesn't exist.
What does exists are sufficient remains to identify trends
of change ... pointing to evolution.
In special creation terms, there is no reason why we should expect
to find (apparent) sequences in the fossil record or skeletal
remains. In fact we should expect the NO such sequence.
Taking hominid remains alone, and since the masses and survivablities (mentioned in TC's flood 'model') are roughly
the same, there is no reason from a literalist biblical view
that accounts for the apparent time sequence of the remains.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Jet, posted 06-12-2002 1:55 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 8:18 PM Peter has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 301 (11662)
06-16-2002 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
06-12-2002 2:34 PM


Originally posted by Percipient:
That's why out-of-context quotes by Davies and Jastrow accomplish nothing.
--Percy
***This quote of yours, taken out of context, is not unlike any other out of context quote. It forces the reader to examine the fuller text of the individual being quoted. I have not seen, within this forums' setting, a single example of an individuals quote that was not taken out of context. Even your fourm guidelines are prohibitive to such an exercise as full quotation, but rather suggest providing a reference link to further enlighten any individual who may care to check it out more intensely.
That Davies or Jastrow actually said what was attributed to them in not in question. Neither is their actual position in regards to the TOE. Nothing within the limited quotes provided should be received as being ample evidence of their positional beliefs and I doubt any intelligent individual would consider them as such. The quotes do, however, give a clear indication that they recognize that the TOE is unable to answer every question and that sometimes, just maybe, theology is better suited to answer some questions than is science, even within the realm of a naturalistic understanding of the universe.***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 06-12-2002 2:34 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by edge, posted 06-16-2002 7:47 PM Jet has replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 101 of 301 (11664)
06-16-2002 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Jet
06-16-2002 7:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
...The quotes do, however, give a clear indication that they recognize that the TOE is unable to answer every question and that sometimes, just maybe, theology is better suited to answer some questions than is science, even within the realm of a naturalistic understanding of the universe.***
I know of no evolutionists who disagree with this. Evolution is not intended to answer every question as some YECs seem to think it should. Are you saying then that science might be a better suited to answer some questions ... just maybe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 7:33 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 8:27 PM edge has not replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 301 (11665)
06-16-2002 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Peter
06-16-2002 7:08 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
[B]What actually makes two similar species different,
and how can we tell this from skeletal remains alone
(fossilised or otherwise).
What I am sugesting is that the numbers of remains required
to perform statistical analysis of anomalies doesn't exist.
***I agree, they do not exist.***Jet
What does exists are sufficient remains to identify trends
of change ... pointing to evolution.
***And this is speculative, not hard science.***Jet
In special creation terms, there is no reason why we should expect
to find (apparent) sequences in the fossil record or skeletal
remains. In fact we should expect the NO such sequence.
***Key word here is "apparent". This is also a speculative statement. When referring to speciation, or micro-evolution as Evos prefer to call it, which is a misnomer in my opinion, there is no reason to discount creation in favor of evolution. In fact, speciation is better explained by Intelligent Design than it is by psuedo-science, aka the TOE.***Jet
Taking hominid remains alone, and since the masses and survivablities (mentioned in TC's flood 'model') are roughly
the same, there is no reason from a literalist biblical view
that accounts for the apparent time sequence of the remains.
***Not having examined TCs' flood model, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. However, the fact remains that what many Evos are fond of claiming is a fully substantiated reality, (I cannot begin to number the amount of times I have seen Evos reply that the TOE is a "proven" fact, while in the same breath, making the claim that the TOE in not about "proofs" but, rather, is about where the evidence points), is in reality nothing more than a speculative guess of what actually occurred in the distant past. This is just another one of the many reasons that I contend that the TOE is not scientific, but in reality, is nothing short of neo-psuedo-science, even under the most liberal of definitions of the term "science".***Jet
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Peter, posted 06-16-2002 7:08 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Peter, posted 06-17-2002 8:45 AM Jet has replied

Jet
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 301 (11666)
06-16-2002 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by edge
06-16-2002 7:47 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by edge:
[B] I know of no evolutionists who disagree with this. Evolution is not intended to answer every question as some YECs seem to think it should. Are you saying then that science might be a better suited to answer some questions ... just maybe?
***Well, let me preface this reply by stating that I am NOT, repeat NOT a YEC. Having said that, and in response to you inquiry as to whether "science might be a better suited to answer some questions", my answer would be yes, with qualification. IMHO, when science is buttressed by theology, assuming that the theology is based solely upon the Holy Word of God, it is better suited to answer many of the difficult questions that we face when attempting to find the answers to the mysteries of the universe.***
Shalom
Jet
------------------
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?
Prof. George Greenstei

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by edge, posted 06-16-2002 7:47 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by nator, posted 06-16-2002 11:09 PM Jet has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 104 of 301 (11677)
06-16-2002 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Jet
06-16-2002 8:27 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jet:
[b]
quote:
Originally posted by edge:
I know of no evolutionists who disagree with this. Evolution is not intended to answer every question as some YECs seem to think it should. Are you saying then that science might be a better suited to answer some questions ... just maybe?
***Well, let me preface this reply by stating that I am NOT, repeat NOT a YEC. Having said that, and in response to you inquiry as to whether "science might be a better suited to answer some questions", my answer would be yes, with qualification. IMHO, when science is buttressed by theology, assuming that the theology is based solely upon the Holy Word of God, it is better suited to answer many of the difficult questions that we face when attempting to find the answers to the mysteries of the universe.***
Shalom
Jet

So, Jet, what help from "The holy word of God" do the people at NASA use to get all of those space shuttle missions going, or any of the other projects they have going on?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 8:27 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Jet, posted 06-17-2002 10:30 AM nator has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 105 of 301 (11691)
06-17-2002 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Jet
06-16-2002 8:18 PM


So, correct me if I'm wrong here, you don't object to
the ToE, but to claims that it is scientific and undeniable
fact.
If the above is about right (please tell me if not) concerning
your view, I would like to say, for myself ::
I have never veiwed the ToE as undeniable fact, but as well supported
theory. The clue is in the name 'Theory of Evolution'
In what way is speculation an unscientific starting point for
scientific enquiry ?
Surely ALL scientific enquiry starts with someone having an
idea about some observed phenomena ... what makes the subject
scientific or not, surely, is the way that the enquiry is
approached.
You have stated that you are NOT a YEC, so could you elaborate
some of your views .. it would help debate issues. For example,
perhaps you do not hold the Bible as inerrant, or perhaps you
do but allow that it can be interpreted in different ways, or
perhaps you beleive in intelligent design, or ... etc.
Position statements should always be included early in research
work, so I think it would also benefit discussions on topics
such a this.
BTW - TC was suggesting that, from a literal Biblical interpretation
and a YEC world view, that the fossil record is due
to Flood sediments, and that the seqeunces were laid down in
ashort space of time by hydrodynamic sorting, and individual
survivability factors.
My opinion (ok so it's only an opinion, but it is grounded in logic
and reason) is that like species would have insignificant differential
masses for sorting to affect their position in such Flood sediments,
and that they would have broadly similar survivability
characteristics.
Without knowing your preferred world view this may or may not
be relevent to your objections to ToE.
Also ... when I used the word 'apparent' I was using the
'observable' branch of meanings

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Jet, posted 06-16-2002 8:18 PM Jet has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Jet, posted 12-06-2002 9:44 AM Peter 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