Where are all the missing links?

quote:

---

Specifically, just the claim that Pakicetus is a whale, imo, if examined and discussed by both critics and evos, and presented to kids, that ToE claims would be considered a joke. A creature with no fully-formed whale features at all, fully land mammal, hooved, etc,...is actually called a whale.

---

Pakicetus is presented as an early stage in the evolution of whales from artiodactyls. Naturally it looks more like an artiodactyl than a mosdern whale. It should be a terrestrial animal, it should have hooves, it shouldn't have fully formed whale features.So it seems that you are't familiar enough with Pakicetus to even know where it fits into the evolution in whales. That hardly palces you in a position to laugh it off.(Yes, I know randman is supeneded from the science forum, but it's still worth mentioning that his entire argument is based on failing to understand where Pakicetus fits into whale evolution)This message has been edited by PaulK, 09-01-2005 02:48 PM

To claim a falsification you must explain how we could reasonably show speciation from the fossil record and explain why we should expect to see examples.Obviously reproductive criteria would be rarely (if ever) applicable to closely-related species - fossils can't tell us whether generally similar specimens could or could not reproduce. So it seems that you would need a different criterion to even hope to make your case.a

Archaeopteryx is - rightly famous - in part because some of the fossis we have are so good. (If you get a chance to see one of the better specimens - take it).But mostly because it is a good example of a transitional fossil. Archaeopteryx isn't a modern bird. Without the feathers it would likely not be classified as a bird at all. (Think about that - if we didn't have these excellent fossils which preserve the feather impressions archaeopteryx would probably be classified as a small dinosaur).Evolution explains why we have fossils like archaeopteryx. Evolution requires that species come about by gradual change (on the human scale - it can be very rapid in geological terms). So birds must have ancestors somewhere that were not themselves birds - and there must have been intermediate stages in their development. So we predict that there must have been creatures like archaeopteryx. Creation doesn't make such predictions - a designer could just have created modern birds without bothering with intermediate forms.Because birds don't fossilise very well we can't expect to find anything like the complete ancestry - archaeopteryx itself is more likely a side-branch than a direct ancestor. But that it exists at all is evidence for evolution over creation. And there are many, many more. k

YOu've got it completely wrong. My argument relies on NOT making assumptions about what the designer would do. Evolution predicts that something like archaeopteryx existed - and you would need to make assumptions about what the designer could or would do for design to make the same prediction.The rest of your stuff is pretty badly confused, too. I suggest that you go back and reconsider. (For a start archaeopteryx can't be called a "missing link" since archaeopteryx ISN'T missing !)

quote:

---

The 'other theory' says the designer made all species as they are - ie: Archie is not an intermediate form. You didn't take account of that is your argument.

---

I didn't "take account" of the fact that the moon is not made of gren cheese either. And for the same reason - it has no relevance to my argument.

quote:

---

If you accept that that theory says he made all species as they are without intermediate forms then say so...i

---

Of course I do - THAT is part of my argument. Since archaeopteryx IS a morphological intermediate, a theory which predicts morpological intermediates does a better job of explaining their existence than one that does not.

quote:

---

In which case Archie fits more easily into Species are Immutable than ToE. If you say otherwise, on what basis?

---

See above. Or my original post on the subject.

quote:

---

Is there any difference between either theory as to how it goes about making predictions or assumptions.

---

YEs. Evolution predicts that somethign like archaeopteryx exists. Your "design" hypothesis needs additional assumptions - which you say can't be made - to make such a prediction. This was already covered in my previous two posts.

quote:

---

You say Archie isn't the missing link - because he is not missing. You didn't say anything about what he links however. Until you do, then the only thing we can say about the missing link - is that it is still missing

---

Archaeopteryx is a link between dinosaurs and birds (or just possibly between another branch of the archosaurs and birds although that seems increaingly unlikely)

quote:

---

Remember, Archie fits Creation theory better until such time as he fits something else better. Thems the rules of the game PK

---

And in my original post I explained why archaeopteryx better fit evolutinary theory. You have yet to manage a reasonable response to that. Unless you can, you lose. Them's the rules of the game IO.

Of course the fundmanetal problem is that you don't know or care to know the facts. Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird - just. Without the feathers it would probably have been classified as a dinosaur. Archaeopteryx does not stand alone. Archaeopteryx s unquestionably morphologically intermediate between dinosaurs and modern birds.

quote:

---

You may chose to decide that God is ludicrous and the evolution is acceptable. That's a phiosophical position. Science says look at the evidence - the hard facts. If you chose to make unfounded assumptions then so can I. Flinging in "Green Cheese" and "Pah! Creationist" comments demonstrate the weakness of your position not the strength of it

---

That you repeatedly misrepresent my statements does not make my case any weaker. On the contrary, it indicates that you are unwilling or unable to seriously engage my points.

quote:

---

The theory which best explains the evidence is the best theory

---

Exactly. And since evoluton expla8ns archaeopteryx - and the many other transitional fossils - better than creationism, evolution is better than creationism.QED.