Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
616 online now:
AZPaul3, Dredge, kjsimons, nwr, Parasomnium, Phat, Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 608 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 894,952 Year: 6,064/6,534 Month: 257/650 Week: 27/278 Day: 27/27 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   where was the transition within fossil record?? [Stalled: randman]
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 5664 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 241 of 304 (254331)
10-23-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by mark24
10-23-2005 8:32 PM


Drake for whale evolution?
Back on 8th. August in the previous whale transitions thread I made this comment:

I can believe that you might be able to produce a formula that provides the answer to the question "How many samples along the whale evolutionary path should we expect to find?". It would unfortunately be like the Drake Equation for working out how many civilisations exist in the Galaxy. We don't know the values to use for so many of the terms that by using different values you can get pretty much any answer from 0 to billions.

randman disagreed but I couldn't really follow his answer and IIRC he was banned before we could follow it up.


I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by mark24, posted 10-23-2005 8:32 PM mark24 has not replied

jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 242 of 304 (254338)
10-23-2005 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by randman
10-23-2005 7:28 PM


Re: More species misconceptions
jar, if the spectrum claim is true, there would ALWAYS BE close ancestors we can interbreed successfully with, which is probably why Yaro claims we can breed suceessfully with chimps.

Of course there is, with every single such species. In fact it's still the same species until the change is so great that breeding is no longer possible.

Your theory, or actually not theories but simply imaginations, have never been more than flights of fantasy.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 7:28 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by randman, posted 10-24-2005 1:15 AM jar has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 3747 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 243 of 304 (254342)
10-23-2005 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by randman
10-23-2005 4:56 PM


Re: Whatever happened to manners?
quote:
It's hard to maintain manners in such blatant misrepresentation and obfuscation by evos. Sorry if I responded too much in kind, but anyone that has read my posts enough to feel they can post an intelligent reply and make the kind of judgements you made would be aware that I did not claim a 6000 year old earth.

I have read your posts, and I concluded that it was a reasonable assuption on the part of the evolutionists here given that you are arguing the creationist angle, and did not state openly that you do not accept a 6000 year old earth - this being the most common creationist stance.

Please note as well that I made no judgements regarding your stance. So far, I have argued only what you have posted, and your comments in that respect do not apply to me.

You are not being misrepresented. You had only to correct them on a single faulty assuption; and there is no obfuscation at work here. If anything, you are the one clouding the discussion at hand by dragging it away from the points raised by mark24 and I which are still being ignored. I also feel that the volume of snide comments has been greater on your part than on others - however, I am annoyed at the rising level of rudeness being displayed by the evolutionists side. I expect all involved here to keep to a high standard of polite behaviour - no exceptions.

quote:
Frankly, this is one of the biggest problems with evos. Educated people that reject ToE understand it often far more than evos themselves, but evos generally have no idea what the basis of their critics are and so continually argue with straw men of their own creation.

You continually accuse evolutionists of ignorance, yet ignore or evade the questions and points put to you by them? So far, the evolutionists you have so derided have posted examples and links to support their points, and you have not. You have accused them of propaganda, when all you have done is spout creationist dogma. You have demonstrated by your statements, especially this one "Whatever the label and whatever propaganda you guys want to spout, there is clearly no spectrum of life, but discrete groups separated one from another. That's why a cat and dog cannot mate for example" that you do not understand earth history or the core of the ToE - and you are not willing to educate yourself, as despite attempted corrections (with support I might add) you still repeat the same incorrect assertations.

You glibly speak of the rarity of fossils here - "All of the elaborate thinking, imagination and twisted logic just cannot get around the fact that if evolution occurred as you guys claim, we would see an abundance of fossils for the process, and we don't. We see a statistically neglible amount of fossils that could possibly, with a lot of imagination and faith in ToE, be considered transitional" without having addressed my points regarding the very same topic in one of my previous posts.

You talk about evidence - "I prefer to go with the evidence, and the evidence to date suggest ToE models are wrong. The notion that the fossil record is not needed to support evolution, as if we would not see the process more documented, is totally unsubstantiated by evos" when you have posting little or nothing to support your myriad statements, and the evolutionists here have posted a wealth of material to support theirs.

You deny evidence when it is posted - you stated that "Life is not a spectrum because only discrete groups can interbreed, or reproduce" when RAZD showed you a series of species where this was not the case.

You dismiss questions put to you as irrelevent rather than trying to answer them - as mark24 asked a series of pertinent questions regarding your ideas of the probability of fossilisation, you stated "The reason being is over geologic time, even though there is no evidence for the answers to these questions for the vast majority of species evos claim since in reality there is no evidence the species ever existed in the first place, but we can look at known facts and do comparisons".

Despite my requests you continue to make snide and insulting comments, most having to do with evolutionists being ignorant or "brainwashed". You have replied to posts with rudeness and contempt rather than reasoned, enlightened debate.

I have noted that you responded to mark24 "If you want a real discussion, preface your post stating that and begin to deal with specifics of what I posted, showing you understand the points raised and why you disagree."

This is hypocritical of you unless you return to my post regarding fossil rarity and finally address the points I raised. And I will not accept a weak apology such as the one I am responding to; in the light of your recent posts I find it utterly meaningless.

The Rock Hound


"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 4:56 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by randman, posted 10-24-2005 1:04 AM IrishRockhound has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4210 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 244 of 304 (254357)
10-24-2005 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by IrishRockhound
10-23-2005 9:52 PM


Re: Whatever happened to manners?
The vast majority of species, especially in the context here of whale evolution from land mammals, can only and do only breed with other's in thier species.

That's a fact that I have repeatedly brought up, despite your claims I bring up no facts of examples, but irregardless, you and the other evos here refuse to accept this basic fact. My secondary point for any lurkers is that I have no doubt you and other evos would accept this fact if an evo was arguing it for evolution. It has been my experience that evolutionists can disbelieve the same facts when arguing against their critics that they later espouse and apparently do so without any hint of self-contradiction, just as you display.

Sorry to be rude but that sort of thinking stikes me as the sort of distorted illogic that accompanies brainwashing.

Clearly, most mammalian species are not some sort of fuzzy spectrum in terms of reproduction, but in general only reproduce within their own species. It is true, especially among whales, that sometimes across what are labelled different genera, reproduction takes place, but the argument there concerning wholphins and ligers generally is made in support of creationism than in evo arguments, and despite these notable exceptions, the vast majority of species cannot reproduce across genera, and I don't know of any though I could be wrong that can reproduce successfully across the family level.

So whatever your imaginations, the facts of sexual reproduction are the same and so in analysing how many forms it would take to evolve a land mammal to a whale, the issues of some exceptions like ring species is not germane in the slightest in the discussion.

The failure of evos here to see and admit that is telling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by IrishRockhound, posted 10-23-2005 9:52 PM IrishRockhound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by IrishRockhound, posted 10-24-2005 7:01 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4210 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 245 of 304 (254359)
10-24-2005 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by jar
10-23-2005 9:42 PM


Re: More species misconceptions
Uh huh, but somehow calling that event a speciation event is wrong since it violates your spectrum claim, eh?

Somehow, I doubt you guys would be arguing this point if an evo was using the same fact to argue FOR evolution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by jar, posted 10-23-2005 9:42 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Yaro, posted 10-24-2005 8:32 AM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4210 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 246 of 304 (254360)
10-24-2005 1:29 AM


problem with spectrum analogy
I will try one more time to reason with you guys. Claiming that the spectrum analogy is somehow true, and that therefore speciation as I discuss cannot happen is one of the more absurd arguments by evos that I have ever heard since what I am doing is discussion your model of evolution, but nevertheless, I suppose it matters more to evos who is talking than what is being said.

The standard concept within evolutionism is that speciation takes place in a bush-like manner, not a straight line as occurs within a spectrum. So it is possible, to use your analogy, that one "color" could only have a few species at that spectrum level with a few colors down having thousands of species having evolved into the new "color."

Imo, the analogy is totally fallacious in just about every way, but I will use it for a little while just to illustrate the absurdity.

Let's talk whale evolution. Most evos in the field now believe that Basilosaurus could not be a direct ancestor of whales, for reasons we won't get into here. But they still feel comfortable calling Basilosaurus transitional because he was aquatic with some whale-like features although more serpent-like.

How can they claim something is "transitional" to whales when it was not involved in the transition to whales?

The evolutionist claim is that this can be true because evolution does not proceed as a spectrum. If Basilosaurus was, prussian blue, with the next step down being, say, cerulean blue, or something like that, a move down the spectrum, the idea is that other evolutionary strains (sort of like cousins) would also be evolving prussian blue to cerulean blue, say whales.

The idea is that Species A does not just evolve into species B, but maybe several species B, B-1, B-2, B-3, etc,....

So the further the evolution, which is another way to say the further the new features must have evolved, there is an multiplied growth in new species.

The Bs for example could evolve into 20 Cs, and so forth. There would be lots of dead ends, such as probably Basilosuarus or it's descendants dying out, according to evos.

So there is this bush-like effect, not a spectrum effect, and by considering the real claims of evolutionism, that new features gradually arise via evolution, one can see that there would have to be tremendous process of evolution involving thousands of different transitional forms to evolve land mammals to whales.

Why the evos here want to deny that is beyond me?


Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by Modulous, posted 10-24-2005 4:01 AM randman has not replied
 Message 248 by Chiroptera, posted 10-24-2005 7:24 AM randman has not replied
 Message 256 by Admin, posted 10-24-2005 10:23 PM randman has replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1415 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 247 of 304 (254370)
10-24-2005 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by randman
10-24-2005 1:29 AM


Re: problem with spectrum analogy
I will try one more time to reason with you guys. Claiming that the spectrum analogy is somehow true, and that therefore speciation as I discuss cannot happen is one of the more absurd arguments by evos that I have ever heard since what I am doing is discussion your model of evolution, but nevertheless, I suppose it matters more to evos who is talking than what is being said.

Ah, I believe the problem here lies in understanding. The spectrum analogy does hold. There are populations that exist and are reproductively isolated from other populations but that can interbreed. There are populations which can physically interbreed but have different display methods so they miss the signals and so are isolated for a different reason. There are populations that are isolated from one another, cannot interbreed with each other, but which can both breed with another species which neither species is isolated from.

Its not a clear cut line, it has blurry edges. Not black and white, but a spectrum. Clearly black and white cannot mate, but some grays can breed with both black and white. Sometimes dark grey can mate with light gray, but it might be that it is not often successful. This is the spectrum analogy. You have accepted this as true.

Speciation isn't a case of a pakicetus giving birth to an organism that cannot interbreed with other pakicetus. The population changes so that a pakicetus in one period of time might not be able to breed with the populations from an earlier point in time. If the original pakicetus population is still around we have a two species. It didn't happen in one generation, but over many generations. A gradual change from the one state of affairs to the other. A spectrum of change one might analogise.

I'm sure you accept this view of speciation, it is the reasonable view of it.

The standard concept within evolutionism is that speciation takes place in a bush-like manner, not a straight line as occurs within a spectrum.

Agreed, but disagreed. It might be the case that instead of one species becoming two, it becomes 4 at approximately the same time. Their interbreeding capablities with one another can be viewed as a spectrum still. A with B, A with C and so on. It would a confusing picture to try and represent them all at the same time.

Another way of looking at it is to think of it occurring in a straight line several times from the same root.

The evolutionist claim is that this can be true because evolution does not proceed as a spectrum. If Basilosaurus was, prussian blue, with the next step down being, say, cerulean blue, or something like that, a move down the spectrum, the idea is that other evolutionary strains (sort of like cousins) would also be evolving prussian blue to cerulean blue, say whales.

Right. And at each stage, we could compare these species with their parent species and greandparent species in a spectrum like manner...like you did. There are other, parallel spectrums, which have spectrums between them too.

So there is this bush-like effect, not a spectrum effect,

Right, but when we compare a child to its parent we can do so in a spectrum manner. It started off as the same population, and may have become reproductively isolated before gradually losing its ability to breed with its parent population. After some time cross population reproduction is 50% less effective than inter-population breeding. After more time that become 70, then 90, then 100%. You might not classify it as a new species until that is 100% but some biologists may well classify them as seperate at 80% because they no longer even attempt to mate in the wild and the only way to get them to breed is in captivity.

This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 24-October-2005 01:17 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by randman, posted 10-24-2005 1:29 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by NosyNed, posted 10-24-2005 1:29 PM Modulous has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 304 (254387)
10-24-2005 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by randman
10-24-2005 1:29 AM


Re: problem with spectrum analogy
quote:
I will try one more time to reason with you guys.

And then what?


"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by randman, posted 10-24-2005 1:29 AM randman has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 4506 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 249 of 304 (254403)
10-24-2005 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by randman
10-23-2005 9:13 PM


I Would Like A Discussion
randman,

Yawn. Not bothering to read it, Mark.

So how do you know that I haven't dealt with your "specifics", then? Silly boy creationist!

I deal here with points you have raised to me. If your "specifics" are anything other than that, then you will need to make me aware of then in reply to me. Since you can't be bothered to read my posts that are actually replies to you, it would be hypocritical of you to expect me to not only read your replies to me, but others as well.

If you want a real discussion, preface your post stating that and begin to deal with specifics of what I posted, showing you understand the points raised and why you disagree.

I have discussed the specifics of what you posted, I have taken issue with your premises. But I get irrelevant, evasive & illogical responses to them.... So, back to basics... In this post I will comprehensively deal with your argument, & your response to it. I'll break it into three sections for ease of digestion. I will firstly establish what an argument is, second show why your response is logically invalid, & thirdly show what is required of your argument in terms of premises/evidence, & why your position of "not enough fossils" is evidentially vacuous.

This meets your standard for continuing the discussion, so I will brook no excuses. I am dealing specifically with your points & showing why they don't meet the logically required standard in order to meet an evidentially supported argument.

WHAT AN ARGUMENT IS

Google any site, & they'll tell you the same thing. An argument is a three stage affair where you infer a conclusion from premises.

For example:

Premises: Amy is dead of a gunshot wound (the bullet is in the wound). A gun was found on the floor with Eric's fingerprints on it. The gun was found in the same room as Amy. A bullet of the same calibre, that matches the ballistics of the gun was found in Amy. Eric's semen was found in Amy.

Inference & conclusion: Eric raped & shot Amy.

See? It's easy! We use this form of argumentation & hypothesis forming on a daily basis without even realising it. But the conclusion is only as good as the premises. Consider.

Premises: Amy is missing. There is no gun in evidence.

Inference & conclusion: Eric raped & shot Amy.

Clearly the premises do not allow us to infer the same conclusion as in the original argument. The premises are vacuous, so, therefore, so is the conclusion.

Clearly, evidence is the premise of a scientific argument/hypothesis. We rack up the facts/evidence, & infer our conclusion. So, if we want to add premises to our argument to support it more fully, then we need data that is consistent with/or inferences can be made that lead to the same conclusion. So evidence of a theory/hypothesis/argument is evidence that is consistent with it. Note evidence isn't proof, it is supporting data.

All of this is extremely basic logic & isn't (or shouldn't be) contentious.

THE SPECIFICS OF WHY YOUR RESPONSE IS LOGICALLY INVALID

mark writes:

"What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the chance of any given individual fossilising in any given habitat?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;"

randman writes:

The reason being is over geologic time, even though there is no evidence for the ansers to these questions for the vast majority of species evos claim since in reality there is no evidence the species ever existed in the first place, but we can look at known facts and do comparisons.

I am pointing out that your argument lacks evidentially supported premises, & your response fails to address this, so your reply consists of the logical flaw: red herring. You completely fail to address the issue of your vacuous premises & attempt to divert criticism away from this. The existence of intermediates is neither here nor there to my criticism.

So, despite your "reply", the fact remains that you have attempted to make an evidentially supported argument from premises that you cannot hope to know, therefore your conclusion is as vacuous as your premises. The criticism remains unanswered.

THE SPECIFICS OF WHY YOUR "NOT ENOUGH FOSSILS" ARGUMENT LACKS VERACITY

So, drawing on our knowledge of what it takes to make a logically valid, evidentially sound argument, you need premises that are factual, or ultimately your conclusion is bunk, from an evidence point of view.

As described in a previous post, the ananswered questions that you are assuming as your premises (whether you realise it, or not) are along the lines of:

What is the geographical range of a potential transitional population?;
What is the population size of a potential transitional population?;
What percentage of a population, if any, live in habitats that are conducive to fossilisation?;
What is the chance of any given individual fossilising in any given habitat?;
What is the range in time of a potential transitional population?;

This will potentially give you how many fossils exist within the earth of any given species/morph, if any.

You then need to know:

What are the probabilities of these strata existing deep within the earth in the modern era?;
What are the probabilities that the fossils are metamorphosed out of existence?;
What are the probabilities that the strata are eroded out of existence?;
What are the probabilities that any given strata will be exposed on the earths surface, rather than beneath the sea?;
Given that the strata is exposed at the surface on land, is it in a place where people who appreciate the importance of such fossils will bring them to the attention of the relevant experts?

Now, these are the premises you require evidentially derived figures for, in order to plug into your equation & reach your conclusion & show evo models are lacking. As far as I can see, you are in possession of none of them. So, given your conclusion is based on an utter lack of factual information, your conclusion can only be as good as your premises, ie. totally vacuous.

Your argument is analogous to person A telling person B they don't have enough fireworks for the show, without knowing how many fireworks person B had to begin with. How many they have just bought. How long the show is due to last, & what is the rate of firework expenditure when the show is on. In fact, your ignorance of your conclusion is far, far worse, you have many more variables you lack knowledge of.

Mark

This message has been edited by mark24, 10-24-2005 05:11 PM


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 9:13 PM randman has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 5807 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 250 of 304 (254407)
10-24-2005 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by randman
10-24-2005 1:15 AM


Re: More species misconceptions
The taxanomic system (Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species) are a human imposed classification system ranging from general to specific which evaluates a creatures position in the spectrum (:P).

The criteria, overall, does not capture all the intricacies in variation, reproduction, divergence, etc. but rather provides a rough outline of a creatures relatedness.

Therefore, there is no true, 100% applicable delimiter for what you call a "speciation event". Further, the notion that there is ONE solidly definable event where one species BECOMES another is idiotic.

This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-24-2005 08:33 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by randman, posted 10-24-2005 1:15 AM randman has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1415 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 251 of 304 (254458)
10-24-2005 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by randman
10-21-2005 5:22 PM


Assumptions
My ball-park figures are based on the numbers of species per a range of similarities and differences with current whales, and with land mammals such as horses. For example, we believe at least 28 horse-like creatures, that could be called transitional (although still "horses" or horse-like) existed in the past, leading to although not all directly to one horse today.

Now, that is a small range of differences yet a 28-1 ratio between existing forms and the prior forms leading up to it within that small range of evolving traits.

I believe this assumption is invalid. We see 8 transitionals from Basil to modern whales. You are suggesting that whales, an ocean going creature, should have left as many fossils as one of the most represented land mammals.

Your assumption is that all mammals should have a similar quantity of succesful speciations (succesful meaning speciations that had enough numbers in the population and lasted long enough to leave fossils). I challenge this assumption. To prevent needless bickering about not responding later on, I will take silence on the matter to mean you concede on this point.

You then make an error that should be pointed out. You claim 28 transitionals for horses, I believe that is a correct number, but if we compare it to from Basil to Modern we make a mistake. Basil to Modern whale evolution took place over a period of about 35 million years. In the equivalent time span we have only about 15 horse transitionals. That is only seven more found transitionals in horses, than in whales. Quite signifant.

If you can demonstrate to me that this 15:8 ratio is consistent when we consider all other mammals' history between 40 and 5 mya then I will be more impressed. Rather than selecting one potential outlier, let us look at the average number of fossils found for all mammals during this time.

This kind of information would be useful to resolving this, I feel.

So far, these figures are point us to the following possible conclusions, or combinations thereof:

1. The horses had twice as many species as whales throughout its history.

2. The horses had twice as many members of its species than whale.

3. The horses are twice as likely to fossilize as whales

4. the horse fossils are twice as likely to be found as whales.

5. the horse fossils are twice as likely to survive as whales

6. Natural History is hopelessly wrong and is erroneously relying on a scientific theory.

Without any supporting evidence for you cannot differentiate from these six conclusions. Given the weight of evidence for Natural History (cladistics/stratigraphy which you agreed had a comprehensive study to back it up) we can tentatively reject (6) for now. Supporting evidence please?

Once again, to avoid any later recriminations, I will point out that not providing further evidence will be taken as a concession that you do not have any.

This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 24-October-2005 05:03 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by randman, posted 10-21-2005 5:22 PM randman has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8971
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 252 of 304 (254478)
10-24-2005 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Modulous
10-24-2005 4:01 AM


Re: problem with spectrum analogy
Modulous, I think you need to make it much, much simpler for randman.

He thinks there is a conflict between the bush analogy and the spectrum analogy. Anyone that thick will need to have it made very much simpler. You assume too much in:

Right, but when we compare a child to its parent we can do so in a spectrum manner. It started off as the same population, and may have become reproductively isolated before gradually losing its ability to breed with its parent population. After some time cross population reproduction is 50% less effective than inter-population breeding. After more time that become 70, then 90, then 100%. You might not classify it as a new species until that is 100% but some biologists may well classify them as seperate at 80% because they no longer even attempt to mate in the wild and the only way to get them to breed is in captivity.

He'll need very specific help in seeing how the sprectrum behavior can produce a bush. I can't think of a way of taking the explanation down to the 3rd grade level of English but maybe you can.

And your first paragraphs are repeats of material that randman has been given before. He hasn't figured any of it out yet so it's going to have to be made simpler yet.

I'm not at all sure it is worth the effort. It seems pretty darn clear and simple now. Do you really think he is capable of understanding?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Modulous, posted 10-24-2005 4:01 AM Modulous has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 3747 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 253 of 304 (254540)
10-24-2005 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by randman
10-24-2005 1:04 AM


Respond to the points raised
quote:
The vast majority of species, especially in the context here of whale evolution from land mammals, can only and do only breed with other's in thier species.

So what? The fact that there are even a few examples show your previous statement is incorrect, and you repeating it is useless.

quote:
That's a fact that I have repeatedly brought up, despite your claims I bring up no facts of examples, but irregardless, you and the other evos here refuse to accept this basic fact. My secondary point for any lurkers is that I have no doubt you and other evos would accept this fact if an evo was arguing it for evolution.

More snide comments, and not entirely coherent either...

quote:
It has been my experience that evolutionists can disbelieve the same facts when arguing against their critics that they later espouse and apparently do so without any hint of self-contradiction, just as you display.

An insulting anecdote does not in any way count as support. I have pointed out where I feel there are flaws in your arguments, and supported my points with quotes from your posts. Why can you not do the same, instead of endlessly repeating the same empty accusations?

quote:
Sorry to be rude but that sort of thinking stikes me as the sort of distorted illogic that accompanies brainwashing.

You are entitled to your opinion - but be careful not to present it as fact.

quote:
Clearly, most mammalian species are not some sort of fuzzy spectrum in terms of reproduction, but in general only reproduce within their own species. It is true, especially among whales, that sometimes across what are labelled different genera, reproduction takes place, but the argument there concerning wholphins and ligers generally is made in support of creationism than in evo arguments, and despite these notable exceptions, the vast majority of species cannot reproduce across genera, and I don't know of any though I could be wrong that can reproduce successfully across the family level.

Unsupported assertation, without any relevent links presented as evidence. This is your opinion, not fact - present it as such.

quote:
So whatever your imaginations, the facts of sexual reproduction are the same and so in analysing how many forms it would take to evolve a land mammal to a whale, the issues of some exceptions like ring species is not germane in the slightest in the discussion.

You have not answered the point, the reason ring species were brought up - that ring species are a spectrum in space between two species that cannot breed, and transitionals are a spectrum in time. You have not offered anything other than your own incredulity to address this point.

quote:
The failure of evos here to see and admit that is telling.

Even more telling is your continued refusal to respond to the points raised by evolutionists, to whit: my post regarding rarity of fossilisation, and mark24's questions regarding transitionals.

Answer them or face the loss of credibility on your part.

The Rock Hound


"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by randman, posted 10-24-2005 1:04 AM randman has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 716 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 254 of 304 (254566)
10-24-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by randman
10-23-2005 9:13 PM


Re: Roll Up! Roll Up! More Creationist Evasion Here!
randman writes:

If you want a real discussion, preface your post stating that and begin to deal with specifics of what I posted, showing you understand the points raised and why you disagree.

Now, by your own standard, answer the questions from Message 223:

Let me repeat -- do you deny:
(1) that variation between individuals exists within the populations of species?
(2) that speciation has been observed?
(3) that the greenish warblers show the gradation between forms that interbreed until a point is reached where two forms do not interbreed?
(4)that the greenish warblers show a very clear spectrum of life that diverges until two components no longer interbreed?
(5) that the variation shown by the greenish warblers in space is no different than the variation shown by other species in time: two populations diverging until a point is reached where two forms do not interbreed?

Is it really that hard to just answer these simple yes or no questions?


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by randman, posted 10-23-2005 9:13 PM randman has not replied

IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 3747 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 255 of 304 (254577)
10-24-2005 9:18 PM


A Review
I have grown tired of Randman's repeated statement - that he has made his points regarding the whale transitionals, and they have not been addressed. He also seems to think he has addressed the points of others and supported his own.

I have taken it upon myself to review his participation in this thread, and lay the matter to rest.

He entered the debate at this post. First unsupported assertations:

"We see all sorts of species or basic types of creatures, particularly in whales, with numerous fossils for them, but we just don't see the transitionals."
"The fact is a comprehensive and logical view of the fossil data is that either species did not evolve, or that some other mechanism is involved to explain evolution than is presented by evos."

Relevent responses:
-> nwr with an explanation of how whales could have evolved
-> Modulous with a point about fossil rarity and why it is irrelevent to the ToE

Post 53

Unsupported assertations:

"The problem is that within the lines of theorized evolution, say of whale evolution, we would expect to see most of the significant new features occuring in fairly large and well-established groups, according to your scenario, but we don't."

Relevent responses:
-> nwr explaining that the ToE does not in fact predict such a thing.

Post 58

Randman explains his position:
"I would suggest that the predictive aspect of ToE needs more precision with respect to the fossil record, specifically that if you are going to claim ToE predicts such and such, then there should be predictions of specific quantities of fossils of species relative to specific traits."

Relevent responses:
-> robinrohan pointing out that fossilisation is hit-and-miss
-> Modulous pointing out that the ToE does not predict this
-> Modulous suggesting that he do such an analysis, if he believes it's that important
-> BuckeyeChris pointing out that random mutation plus natural selection (i.e. the core of the ToE) says nothing about fossilisation
-> NosyNed pointing out that Randman was apparently basing his comments on personal incredulity

Post 61

Randman makes assumptions about what is scientifically possible:
"Over time, millions and millions of years, the differences in the hit or miss affair would average out some, right? What we know is that a whole bunch of features would have to had evolved if ToE is true. We can do anatomical comparisons to whales with their nearest land mammals, and quantize the number of differences that exist and new features that would have to develop, right?"

Unsupported assertations:

"You guys claim ToE has made an accurate prediction relavent to the fossil record. Imo, that is a false claim. Looking at the fossil record comprehensively, it appears to me to be very, very strong evidence against evolution."
"But irregardless, since evos to date have refused to actually tackle the rigorous process I outline above to make a comprehensive prediction within a range, the best we can say is evos are ignoring the fossil record as a whole, and claims it is supportive of evolution have not been rigourously supported by a comprehensive study of the data which includes estimates of the number of fossilized forms we should expect to find."

Relevent responses:
None

Post 68

Randman presents his opinion regarding Darwin and evolutionists:
"Darwin in fact did predict the fossil record should show ToE, and went on to say it was a means of falsifying ToE. So from a layman's perspective, it appears to me that since the fossil record now negatively falsifies ToE that evos claim it was never important in the first place."

Relevent responses:
-> Modulous saying that Darwin did not predict this, and supplied quotes from Darwin as support

Post 69

NosyNed asks why the ToE is expected to predict fossil frequency; Randman responds:
"I already did that. Read the following paragraphs in the post. If one is to make a claim about the fossil evidence, then it must be considered in toto with a comprehensive analysis, not just picking out piecemeal some species that can be a "token transitional" while ignoring the fossil record as a whole."

It has already been pointed out at this stage that the ToE does not predict fossil frequency, only that IF fossils are found they will fit the pattern of common descent.

Relevent responses:
None

Post 71

Randman makes the claim that such a study would be evidence in support of the ToE, and the onus is on evolutionists to do it.
"Furthermore, the claim that the fossil record supports ToE is an evo claim so evos should have to back up their claim with such studies, but to date, I have never seen any comprehensive studies along these lines."

Again, it has been pointed out that the ToE makes no predictions about fossilisation, in which case such a study would not support it.

Relevent responses:
-> Modulous points out that no evolutionist has made any claim about fossilisation predicted by the ToE - it merely states that fossils found will fit the ToE, and to date none have been found that do not. He also points out that the data needed to make the predictions suggested by Randman is not available, nor would the study be significant.

Post 72

Randman suggests that the discussion be confined to whale evolution

Relevent responses:
-> Modulous agrees

Post 76

Unsupported assertations:
"The fossil record should be considered in toto, and a comprehensive view of the fossil record does not show macro-evolution occurring."
"The evo explanation is that it can be considered consistent with ToE due to massive fossil rarity..."

Relevent responses:
-> Modulous pointing out that the record shows that life changed over the course of earth history (i.e. evolution), and the ToE ONLY predicts that fossils will be consistent with it.

Post 83

Unsupported assertations:
"Every fossil uncovered, when considered in toto, is totally inconsistent with the ToE."

Randman asks "You claim we should not expect to see more transitions due to fossil rarity, but offer no real studies to explain why such a rare event produces "common fossils" such as whale fossils which commonly appear in marine sediment layers."

Relevent responses:
-> Modulous points out that without knowing the original number of animals, such studies are impossible, and the ToE does not predict the volume of transitionals.
-> mark24 asks for support of his assertation.

Post 85

Randman discusses a vague methodology with robinrohan for such a study, and repeats himself:
"But here's the thing, such a quantitative comprehensive analysis should have been conducted and should be conducted before evos make claims of the fossil record being congruent with ToE."

This is after it has been pointed out that the ToE makes no such predictions and such a study would not be supporting of it.

Relevent responses:
None

Post 89

Unsupported assertations:
"Basilosaurus seems to have thousands of fossilized remains as it was fairly common in Mississippi and Lousiana, but whole specimens are much more rare."

Randman repeats himself:
"The point of claiming fossil rarity for evos is to claim it is very rare for a species to leave any fossils at all, and thus they claim the fact we don't see fossils for the vast majority of species, even the vast majority that must have evolved in the land mammal to whale evolution, is consistent with the ToE."

It has been pointed out that the ToE and evolutionists make no claims regarding fossil rarity - only that fossils found will be consistant.

Relevent responses:
-> Thor pointing out that finding many Basilosaurus fossils simply means that Basilosaurus lived in areas where fossilisation was relatively easy.
-> Modulous repeats himself; not all transitional fossils are seen, those that are, are consistant with the ToE - and asks for support for assertations.

Post 90

Randman responds to mark24:
"I've already answered in detail, and you completely ignore it and offer not one comment on the points I raised.

Sorry, but if you want a conversation, I suggest you read my posts detailing exactly the type of comprehensive analysis which would need to be done to consider if the numbers and type of fossils do or do not support ToE."

Relevent responses:
-> mark24 pointing out that he had in fact offered many comments which were not addressed, specifically to do with the correlation of the fossil record to cladograms.

Post 102

Randman responds to schrafinator regarding Gould and Etheridge's work (punctuated equilibrium, I assume).

Unsupported assertations:
"They used facts that creationists had used for decades but which evos steadfastly denied were true because creationists used these facts as evidence against ToE. Gould and Etheridge were able to use these same facts to support the evo paradigm, and only then were they admitted by the evo community at large, which is very, very telling imo."

Relevent responses:
-> Paulk asks for support for assertation

Post 104

Randman responds to Admin.

Unsupported assertations:
"I repeat myself because not once has the issue I raised been addressed."
"It's the same point, over and over again, yep, but only because there is abject refusal by evos to tackle it in any meaningful manner."
"I spent lots of time addressing many of those issues, but honestly, why should the evos not have to address the issues I have raised here?"
"Is it not reasonable to expect evolution proponents to back up their claims on "fossil rarity", which is given as an explanation for why the vast majority of species that supposedly lived leave absolutely no trace whatsoever. If fossilization is so rare, then why do many species leave so many fossils in so many different parts of the world?"

Again, at this point is has been repeated many times that neither the ToE nor evolutionists are making any claims on fossil rarity.

Relevent responses:
-> mark24 repeats himself; the ToE does not make claims about fossil rarity. He also explains the reasoning behind the rarity of fossils and asks for support for assertation.

Post 108

Unsupported assertations:
"The answer evos give is fossil rarity, but then again, as you can see by some references to fossil rarity for individual members, that has not been addressed, as you claim that it has."

mark24 wrote a long and detailed post on fossil rarity, which was ignored.

"For example, just because fossilization is rare for individual members, as many have pointed out here, does not mean fossilization is rare for species as a whole. You and the other evos continually ignore this, over and over again."
"We are not talking about whether fossilization is rare for individuals, but for species as a whole, and no evo here has ever given any scientific evidence to back up their claim for fossil rarity for species as a whole."

Again... the same point - ToE and evolutionists make no claim regarding fossil rarity.

Relevent responses:
-> Modulous pointing out that this claim of fossil rarity has been answered again and again and...
-> At this point I entered the discussion, and explained how it is impossible to do the studies he is suggesting because there is no population data to base it on.

------------------------------------------

I'm going to stop here, as from this point on I am involved.

I believe this answers the question - Randman does not support his statements, ignores responses, ignores requests for supporting evidence, and misrepresents evolutionists and the ToE. He is wilfully ignorant of earth history, the ToE, and fossilisation, and convinced that his view on them is the only correct one.

As to his manners, I leave that to you to decide.

As of this post I am leaving the discussion, as I do not believe any more productive debate can occur here. I recommend that all involved post their final statements, and allow the admins to close the topic.

The Rock Hound


"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022