Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 3:58 AM
26 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Definition of Evolution
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 35 of 212 (418603)
08-29-2007 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2007 12:11 AM


Re: The what?
How long have you been posting here NJ? Surely you can do better than this old canard...

NJ writes:

The fossil record is inept in answering these questions because we do not see any clear examples of transitional forms. Indeed, this has long been the problem for evolutionists. But the argument is brought up so much now or days against evolution that it is not as widely admitted as it was in the past.

Of course, all known species are in fact transitional, but here is one example of a recently discovered "transitional fossil" (to use the informal term). It was all over the news two years ago. The best thing about it is that it wasn't found by accident - paleontologists searched geological structures of a certain type and age, thus demonstrating the predictive capacity of the physical evidence used to support the TOE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2007 12:11 AM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2007 5:49 PM RickJB has responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 62 of 212 (418750)
08-30-2007 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Hyroglyphx
08-29-2007 5:49 PM


Re: The what?
NJ writes:

I wonder that if mudskippers were extinct right now, if evolutionists would make the argument that they were really creatures in transition from water to terrestrial, or vice versa.

They possibly would, depending of course on how the mudskipper evolved from its current form. Where's the problem? All species are transitional. Mudskippers provide a clear example of a creature adapted to a life split between the land and the sea, as do pinnipeds (sea-lions etc) and many other species. As time passes these creatures continue to adapt to changing environments.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-29-2007 5:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 63 of 212 (418752)
08-30-2007 4:28 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 12:27 AM


Re: The question is WHY?
Vashgun writes:

a dog is a dog. a horse is a horse.

Is zebra a zebra? A donkey a donkey? Or are they all "horses"?

Is a lion a lion? A tiger a tiger? Or are they all "big cats"?

What "kind" is a Tigon, or a Zorse, or a Mule?

A wolf is a wolf and a dog is a dog. So what "kind" is Wolf-Dog?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 12:27 AM Ihategod has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 9:13 AM RickJB has responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 74 of 212 (418783)
08-30-2007 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Ihategod
08-30-2007 9:13 AM


Re: The question is WHY?
Vashgun writes:

First thing to note here is that quantifying the limits of variation would be difficult.

But if you insist on proposing the existence of "kinds" that is exactly what you must do.

Until that time you're just blowing hot air...

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Ihategod, posted 08-30-2007 9:13 AM Ihategod has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3164 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 89 of 212 (418922)
08-31-2007 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2007 7:42 PM


Re: The what?
And I've read your posts as well. They lack any substance. They are reminiscent of Rick JB's posts which are pithy, at best, and ad hominem at worst.

How is posting a recent example of a transitional fossil in response to an utterly groundless assertion that none exist "ad hominem"? I made no personal attacks - I was merely expressing surprise that you continue to use such arguments given your long involvement here.

I wrote in response to what you posted - nothing more, nothing less. If seeking to directly correct a falsehood is "pithy" to you then so be it.

In any case, this is all OT.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2007 7:42 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019