evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

I was just supporting my conclusions with those of people who you might respect. How is it that equally qualified scientists can come to different conclusions when studying the same evidence?

Why is it if I quote someone I'm quote mining? Does that mean that the quote is any less valid?

I don't know PS, when he says "...time as horses" does he mean modern Equus where he says "horses"?

In which case, your explanation doesn't touch the issue.

If there were actual evidence that they were horse precursors, your argument would be valid. I have seen many of these charts, they are not backed up by actual fossil evidence.

And on page 26, Raup writes

Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent

xevolutionist, do you still agree with Raup? Raup was asking a very simple question, "can natural selection cause the changes we see in the fossil record". The answer is NO, speciation causes the changes we see in the fossil record, which explains why very few transitions between species are seen.

Which misquote did you have in mind? Are you saying that Darwin never bemoaned the fact that no transitional forms were found in his lifetime? Or postulated that if his theory were true, there would be an abundance of them? Or are you saying that no evolutionists will admit to the fact that there are none.

quote:

---

If there were actual evidence that they were horse precursors, your argument would be valid. I have seen many of these charts, they are not backed up by actual fossil evidence.

---

What would a real horse ancestor look like, if these aren't it?

quote:

---

I was just supporting my conclusions with those of people who you might respect. How is it that equally qualified scientists can come to different conclusions when studying the same evidence?

---

So you read the paper, understand the content of the quote and it's place in the discourse?

Right?

You haven't just cut and paste it straight from some nutty creationist site?

I was just supporting my conclusions with those of people who you might respect.

Use evidence instead of others' conclusions, especially conclusions taken out of context.

How is it that equally qualified scientists can come to different conclusions when studying the same evidence?

Wait a moment - a few pages ago you were arguing that all scientists blindly support without question any evidence that supports evolutionary theory. Now you state that scientists have different views. Which is it?

Your argument seems to be this:
Scientists agree, which makes their conclusions suspect.
Scientists disagree, which makes their conclusions suspect.

In other words, you find all scientific conclusions suspect.

Why is it if I quote someone I'm quote mining?

The quote is taken out of context to imply something the writer did not intend. See loudmouth's explanation of your first quote for an example of why what you did was "quote-mining" and not "quoting".

Does that mean that the quote is any less valid?

Yes. It is taken out of context to mislead.

Quotes should not be used as evidence in a scientific debate anyway, except perhaps to define historical context.

quote:

---

Which misquote did you have in mind? Are you saying that Darwin never bemoaned the fact that no transitional forms were found in his lifetime?

---

He bemoaned that we there weren't more. Archaeopteryx, the transition between reptile and bird, was found in Darwin's lifetime.

New sub species have appeared, not new species. If you evolutionists redefine terms every time there is a new development that exposes your past errors, it's hard for anyone to keep up. No wonder there is little agreement in evolutionist circles, other than it must have happened.

A real horse ancestor would be a horse, of course. Evolution didn't take place or there would be real, not speculative, evidence.

Archaeopteryx has been shown to be a true bird, and a true bird fossil has been found predating arch. by 50 million years.

New sub species have appeared, not new species.

How would you tell the difference between two populations that are subspecies of the same species, and two populations that are different species?

If you evolutionists redefine terms every time there is a new development that exposes your past errors, it's hard for anyone to keep up.

Get caught up with this: species essentialism died in the 1800's. "Species" means "reproductive community."

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-25-2005 16:00 AM

Archaeopteryx has been shown to be a true bird

"True bird"? Please. It doesn't even have a beak!

If there were actual evidence that they were horse precursors, your argument would be valid.

What would you expect a horse precursor to look like?

I have seen many of these charts, they are not backed up by actual fossil evidence.

This seems to be your MO. You demand fossil evidence and then ignore or dismiss it when presented to you.

You demand to see an "intermediate" fossil. When presented to you, you call it a "subspecies", then again demand to see an "intermediate."