Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by davewhite04, Jan 5, 2015.

  1. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    you didn't read the file i uploaded did you.
    it was niles eldridge that says there are no transitional fossils.
    this corroborates what ayala said in the science article, and explains WHY he would say such a thing.
    like i said, i've come up with 2 more possible sources, i just have to find them.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    I read it leopold. Are you quoting Eldridge in relation to the development of the horse? The bit that finishes in the next column? Is that what you're on about as to Eldridge saying "there are no transitional fossils"? Yes or no?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    no, that's a separate issue.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    Oh, sorry. In my haste I must have completely missed the quote from Eldridge about no transistional fossils. Care to point it out to me?
     
  8. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    ahhhh, chocolate covered cherries.
    i bought 4 boxes of the damned things and can't stop eating them.
     
  9. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    first column, near the bottom.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,602
    No, he didn't say that. That's another Leopold Lie. What he said was "the pattern we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist." He is referring to 100% gradualism, not the absence of transitional fossils.

    A good article on quote-mining (and a good guide to what Eldredge was really saying) -
    ============
    Gould and his colleagues are widely cited by creationists in their effort to establish that the fossil record documents "no transitions." To creationists this is taken to mean that there are no evolutionary links between "created kinds." But Gould, Eldredge and Stanley are talking about the failure of the fossil record to document fine-scale transitions between pairs of species, and its dramatic documentation of rapid evolutionary bursts involving multiple speciation events -- so-called adaptive radiations. They are not talking about any failure of the fossil record to document the existence of intermediate forms (to the contrary, there are so many intermediates for many well-preserved taxa that it is notoriously difficult to identify true ancestors even when the fossil record is very complete). Nor are Gould, Eldredge, and Stanley talking about any failure of the fossil record to document large-scale trends, which do exist, however jerky they may be. Furthermore, fine-scale transitions are not absent from the fossil record but are merely underrepresented. Eldredge, Gould. and Stanley reason that this is the unsurprising consequence of known mechanisms of speciation. Additionally, certain ecological conditions may favor speciation and rapid evolution, so new taxa may appear abruptly in the fossil record in association with adaptive radiation. Since creationists acknowledge that fine-scale transitions (including those resulting in reproductive isolation) exist and since the fossil record clearly documents large-scale "transitions," it would seem that the creationists have no case. Indeed. they do not. Their case is an artifact of misrepresentation to the lay public of exactly what the fossil record fails to document.
    ===========
    "Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion" Laurie R. Godfrey. Ashley Montagu, ed. 1984. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 167-81.
     
  11. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    I don't see a quote there leopold. I see a reporter's interpretation of a suggestion. Why do you consider reporters to be the ultimate authorities on evolution?
     
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,602
    Good article from Gould on this topic. Your misunderstanding is bolded.
    =========================================
    I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis) -- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond . . .

    Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
    ===========================================
    - Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.
     
  13. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    oh, i don't know, maybe it's because everyone gets to use personal websites to trump respected sources.

    so, you got basically the same thing from 2 different sources.
    the science article mentions these gaps no less than 3 times, but refers to them as "typical"
    this in itself implies there might be some, but not many.

    the article i uploaded seems to confirm this observation, but goes a step further as proclaiming none exist.

    billvon,
    you are more obnoxious than paddoboy is.
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,602
    Sorry. Do I post too many factual items? Or is it that I just don't believe your lies?
     
  15. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    This micro-evolution that is seen in the lab is not only consistent with the theory of evolution, it is also consistent with the theory of intelligent design/creation.

    This is why the broad term "evolution" should not be used when debating with someone who thinks the distinction between micro-evolution(observable) and macro-evolution(not observable) are important.

    Proclaiming evolution as being "seen in the lab everyday" is deceiving and counterproductive.... you could just as rationally say that creationism is seen in the lab everyday(micro-evolution) .

    It seems disingenuous to take advantage of the fact that the name of your overall theory happens to also be the same word used for a proven part of your theory and the unproven part. The distinction of micro and macro should always be used when it is pertinent to do so.
     
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,602
    No, it's not. Creationism requires divine intervention. No such event is observed in a lab.
    Do you believe there is a difference between microerosion and macroerosion, too?
     
  17. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,188
    No it's not.

    Why not? They are simply subsets of mechanisms affecting evolution. Who says (besides you) that the term evolution is not applicable?

    No it's not - it is a statement of truth - enlightening and constructive. Enhancing understanding is laudable - ducking and covering the way creationists tend to is disingenuous. What is your word for the processes observed in the lab that normal people refer to as "evolution"?

    You could, except that would be deceiving and counterproductive. And most certainly irrational, nearly by definition.

    Theories aren't proven. Therefore your statement is meaningless gibberish.
     
  18. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    after reading this a few times, i have a question.
    what the hell is a "transitional fossil between groups"?
     
  19. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    SUMMARY: Mutual re-enforcing observed facts from nine different scientific fields of study, all supporting one ToE, is not worth a grain of faith for the ToE deniers. They know evolution is false, their bible told them so. God made the universe and all that is in it in six days. God, like the automobile industry, made many different models and of course some are similar to others.

    But for others who reason, the link with long discussion of these nine fields reaching the same ToE position is a good read.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 3, 2015
  20. zgmc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    831
  21. davewhite04 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,894
    So how do we know that a "transitional" fossil isn't just another species fossil, rather than the fossil in question? macro evolution did happen, bur MUCH faster than we think...Look at what man has achieved in just 6000 years! Something 6000 years ago(roughly) released the power of our imagination and we learnt to talk. That is either evolution or God or both. I say God.
     
  22. matthew809 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    480
    I assume that's a rhetorical question.
    What I will take away from it is that you believe macro-evolution is so obvious that we don't even require proof of it. That sounds religious to me.

    To make this analogy a little more relevant to the discussion, an example of micro-erosion would be my ever-sloping back yard, while an example of macro-erosion would be Mount Rushmore.
     
  23. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,117

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page