Evolution=Bad Science Fiction (lack of transitionals)

Whales? not mine... perhaps you are trying too hard to cover everything at once?On the dispersal of introduced species, the one species dying out was one of the introduced species, not a native. Also noted that several introduced species have not survived. The sparrow and the starling are impinging on some native species but are not driving them to extinction.suggest you take further discussion of this to the topic ...
EvC Forum: Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium
as that would be the place to discuss it

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

They're not imagined, though. The mechanism of natural selection and random mutation is very real - it's been observed countless times in observation and experiment, including experiments you can do yourself at home.But the only way you can detect the action of these mechanisms in the past is to observe their results, and that's exactly what the fossil record is - a record of natural selection and random mutation on organisms.So, we've observed the mechanisms happening now, and we have the evidence we would expect if they had happened in the past. That's enough to convince any scientist, but not you, apparently. Why is that? Yet, we have as much evidence as we do for anything else in the past. I wonder why it is that you reject evolution, however, but not, say, George Washington being the first president of the US. Could it be because you don't like the conclusion of the evolutionary model? You didn't show it, you just claimed it.

laserlover,Curious, you didn't answer the question. Are you deliberately avoiding answering the question? For the THIRD time:"A transitional is a form that possesses character states that are part way between two separate taxa, &/or a mix of discrete characters between two taxa."do you agree with this definition? If not, why not?Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Elvis has left the building.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Content deleted because jar already did what I suggested he do before I suggested it. Sigh."Day late and a dollar short" Quetzal[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 05-01-2004]

answer moved to http://EvC Forum: Would it be possible to recognize a transitional change at the time it was happening? by edit[This message has been edited by RAZD, 05-01-2004]

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

quote:

---

You didn't show it, you just claimed it.

---

Actually, I claimed to have shown it Anyway, that is how debates work. One person claims something, then supports it. After that, the other party does a rebuttal. You haven't rebutted anything I claimed about the monkey-skulls.Razd, those weren't your whales? (I go check) Oh, those were schrafinator's.Crashfrog, about the dots and lines, I'm still busy, I'll get to that in a couple days.

That's what I'm saying - if you think you supported that claim that "there's a lot less dots than we think", you're mistaken. You claimed that, but you've hardly demonstrated it.Specifically, re hominid skulls, that's not my area of expertise (if I could be said to have one), so I ignored your argument there - it wasn't relevant to my argument and I wasn't the one that brought it up.There's transitional forms aplenty to substantiate plenty of ballpark models about the evolution of almost any vertebrate that you care to. Generating more detailed models is an ongoing work in paleontology. Take your time. Just be sure you're not faulting biologists for a failure to find "fossils" of something that can't reasonably be expected to fossilize, like a mechanism in action.

quote:

---

That's what I'm saying - if you think you supported that claim that "there's a lot less dots than we think", you're mistaken.

---

You only claim that I haven't supported my claim. You can't just claim things without any evidence. If there is something you disagree with about my claims, please tell me what the problem is, then back it up. Debating is more than just telling the other person they are mistaken. I accept that I might be mistaken, but I am not just going to take your word for it.

quote:

---

Specifically, re hominid skulls, that's not my area of expertise (if I could be said to have one), so I ignored your argument there - it wasn't relevant to my argument and I wasn't the one that brought it up.

---

I am not an expert in hominid skulls either; I haven't even graduated high school yet. However, I reasearched hominid skulls and made an argument based on the research. You can do the same, research my arguments and then formulate an argument. Since neither of us are experts, we are equal.

quote:

---

transitional forms aplenty to substantiate plenty of ballpark models about the evolution of almost any vertebrate that you care to.

---

I do not agree with this, and I am working the hominid aspect of it.The current debate in this thread is about transitionals in general, but more specifically, about hominids. If you are ignoring arguments about hominids, you might be bored here for a while (aside of when the debate is about "dots" and "lines"). I would appreciate if you research my post and answer with a well thought out response.
{added in edit}If you do not want to debate on hominids because you do not feel you know enough about the subject, that's ok with me. But if you don't know enough to prove me wrong, don't just assert that I'm wrong{/added in edit}

quote:

---

Take your time. Just be sure you're not faulting biologists for a failure to find "fossils" of something that can't reasonably be expected to fossilize, like a mechanism in action.

---

Just give me a couple days(I have a lot of homework and tests), and I'll start posting substantial stuff again.[This message has been edited by JT, 05-01-2004]

You made a claim that there's "a lot less dots than we think", which I interpreted to mean that "there are a lot less transitional fossils than evolutionists believe."Now, in support of that claim, you offer a post where you analyzed some fossils purported to be of hominid ancestry.Even if your analysis was correct - I didn't really read it because it wasn't the discussion you and I were having - that hardly speaks to the volumes of transitional fossils in the entire vertebrate phylum, for instance. Moreover even if you succeeded in disproving these as ape-human transitionals, they're still transitionals between some two hominids.So I don't follow the logic that concludes that "there's a lot less transitionals than you think" from disputing a few specifically hominid fossils. Now, are we clear on why I think that's a claim you haven't yet supported? You're already having the discussion with someone else; I don't want to jump in unless the other participant drops out. Moreover I'm much more interested in your conceptual objections; specifically, why you don't believe in putting dots and lines together. I haven't asserted that your comments re hominids are wrong, because I don't know that they are. All I'm saying is, even if you're right about the skulls, that doesn't imply what you said it implies, namely "there's a lot less dots than you think."Like I said, I await your response to the Dots Discussion. (Mmm, I love Dots - so chewy and fruity.)

I can see that there was a misunderstanding here (my fault). The dots I spoke of are only hominids, not all transitionals. That is why I offered a post where I "analyzed some fossils purported to be of hominid ancestry." I should have understood that you wouldn't impose on someone else's debate, and I'm sure the other evolutionists apreciate it. Hey Loudmouth, are you listening? Bump. Crashfrog, I'll get to my conceptual objections in a couple days I misunderstood again; I thought that you were talking about my analysis of the skulls, not the conceptual stuff.
Next time, do you think you could make your objections clearer? Not that I shouldn't have been able to understand what you were saying, but the fewer misunderstandings the better. Hey, I like dots too

DOTS!!! Dots are NOT chocolate and so are off topic. If you can't keep the discussion centered on chocolate then don't bother.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Oh. Then we're having two different discussions, I guess. The conversation I thought I was having was about the validity of inferring species change from a static record. I'll do my best, like always, but sometimes this is how it works - there's a back-and-forth as we clarify our positions, which eventually reveals misunderstandings. Glad to know we're on the same page, at least.I appreciate that you're the kind of person that recognizes a miscommunication, rather than adhering to dogmatic opposition to another's view. I suspect I'll enjoy our exchanges greatly (especially after 2 day's worth of dealing with Laserlover and his ilk.) I look forward to when you get around to the Dots situation; don't feel rushed on my account. Take care!

I am repentant

crashfrog said: Yeah, we were; I just forgot about it. Thanks Here goes...
I'm going to change to a different analogy here:
1. "Dots"- Fossils showing the path evolution would have taken. These, to switch analogies, are like stepping stones across a creek, allowing one to cross the creek.
2. "Lines"- The evolutionary processes(I do not believe those processes are adequate to explain all the changes necessary for evolution. For the purpose of this debate, however, I will concede their existence. I do look forward to debating about them, though) serve as lines connecting the dots. These processes are the path a person would take crossing the creek, stepping from one stone to another(note: I claim that there are so few stepping stones that our unfortunate person would drown crossing the creek, but that is the debate I am having with Loudmouth, not you. For the purposes of our argument, I will concede that all the transitionals which you claim are valid, are).Using my creek analogy (sorry to keep using analogies, Ned, but they can be quite useful when talking about more abstract concepts), if you find a creek in the woods that has stones in it, does that mean someone crossed it? Just because something is possible does not mean that it happened. Sure, someone might have crossed the creek, but unless there are footprints or other telling evidence, we wouldn't be able to know.
That is the problem. If someone crossed a stream, they would leave footprints, but the footprints would not last long. So we don't really have any good evidence just from looking at the stream, we have to consider other factors. Factors such as the existence of a busy trail leading through the stream, or such as that the view we have is an aerial view of a pristine wilderness. The other categories of evidence include things like genetics, microbiology, geology, astronomy, etc. True, evolution predicts that there would be a number of transitionals.(Again, I maintain that...)But the results we have are the ones predicted by the creation model, as well. A number of distinct species, some having similarities, but all distinct. Even if all the claimed transitionals are included (although it would significantly strengthen your case), we still have only distinct species. We do not have a record showing a smooth blend from species to species, which is the evidence evolution needs to be proven (I am not claiming that we should expect to have such a record, only that we don't).I am not attempting to disprove evolution with the dots 'n lines discussion. I am only trying to show that the creation and evolution models are equally predict the fossil record we have. It is just as possible that someone crossed the stream as that no one has ever seen it before.See what I'm saying?{added in edit}
By the way, whoever did the software upgrade, thanks for taking 1.5 hours instead of 12.
{/added in edit}[This message has been edited JT, 05-02-2004]

---

"There are only ten kinds of people: those who know binary, and those who don't."
-somebody