Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-06-2002, 10:37 PM

"PE says that, for example, the transition between two successive species doesn't appear in the fossil record."

That's my point. I am aware that he places species at the mid-point like other evolutionists, but he claims "the transitions between 2 successive species doesn't appear in the fossil record" as you put it. The actual transitions are not shown. I think one poster accuratelt described it as snapshots in a large picture album, and this what I think needs emphasis. These snapshots may be part of common descent, or they may not. If they are, then you can call many, really all, fossils transitional, but if you think God created the species individually, which is incidentally how they actually appear in the fossil record, then the so-called transitional species are not actually transitional. It really depends on the model more than the evidence. One model basically states the evidence is too scant, and the other that the evidence is scant because the events did not happen.
On hominds and humans.
1. I would label Neanderthals as simply a tribe of homo sapiens. In other words, they are people.
2. Cro-magnon, the same thing except a tribe that appears to have been taller and more successful.

These are not transitional. They were human.

On the rest, I will visit the site and get back to you.

randman · 03-06-2002, 10:55 PM

Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis, these are probably types of people.
The rest are not. That's where I would draw the line at this point.

Check out this article.
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv13n2_human_non-transitions.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv13n2_human_non-transitions.asp</a>

l-bow · 03-06-2002, 10:55 PM

What about Homo Erectus? Another tribe? Or a separately created kind?

hezekiah jones · 03-06-2002, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Check out this article.
<a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv13n2_human_non-transitions.asp" target="_blank">Human Evolution, by John Woodmorappe, MA, Geology</a>

As Pantera would say, "What - more crap?"

hezekiah jones · 03-06-2002, 11:03 PM

Quote:

As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man — all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.

<code>

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

l-bow · 03-06-2002, 11:12 PM

randman,

Thankyou for admitting that they're human, which means you have no problem accepting that humans can vary that much. Now,

h. habilis->h. erectus->h. sapiens

This is what evolutionists accept. Now if you remeber, PE says that the transitions between two successive species won't appear in the fossil record. That means the transitions between h. habilis and h. erectus and h. erectus and h. sapiens won't appear in the fossil record. so what? You said you accept h. erectus and h. sapiens as belonging to the same group, humans. If so, you accept that evolution has occurred between h. erectus and h. sapiens. Yet this is the kind of "gap" that PE is meant to address (between two successive species). But according to you (using quotes from Gould) claim PE is meant to address gaps between "created kinds".

lpetrich · 03-06-2002, 11:37 PM

Actually, different creationists differ on when hominids change from ape to human, and unlike real scientists, they don't try to address this serious discrepancy.

Silent Dave · 03-07-2002, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
[QB]
On hominds and humans.
1. I would label Neanderthals as simply a tribe of homo sapiens. In other words, they are people.
2. Cro-magnon, the same thing except a tribe that appears to have been taller and more successful.

These are not transitional. They were human.
[QB]

A typical creationist tactic: when a transitional species B is found between species A and C, creationists claim that B is close enough to A or C to be of the same "kind," and therefore is not transitional.

I have never heard a single creationist explain, however, what the biological or genetic mechanism that allows variations among kinds but prevents variation between them is. I expect I never shall.

And I think it says a lot, randman, that while real scientists base their worldview on years of reading and studying thick textbooks and lab results, you base yours on soundbites.

Dave

Chilli · 03-07-2002, 02:40 AM

randman:

Do yourself a favor and look up the original context of some of those quotes of yours (do the ones that haven`t already been pointed out to you). You will be surprised at how much the meaning of a quote can change when it is taken out of context or not entirely reproduced.

When you are done with that, ask yourself why the person(s) who collected those quotes did such a poor job of representing what those speakers meant. When I see quotes taken out of context; I generally think one of two things about the person doing the quoting:
1. They lack basic reading skills.
2. They are lying for a cause.

Usually, when creationists quote out of context, it is obvious that they are lying for a cause. The material before and after the quote leaves no doubt that the quoted person is saying something quite different than what the creationist wants you to believe. Why a god fearing creationist would do this, and risk hell for lying, I don`t know.

P.S. you know that throwing quotes around as a substitute for an argument is rather feeble, don`t you?

Oolon Colluphid · 03-07-2002, 02:51 AM

Hey, I go to bed and here in the morning is a fully formed thread! It must have been created (and to hell with the stepwise increase in posts)

Don't see why all you westerners should have all the fun...

Oi! Ignoramus (qv)! Go away and learn about the <a href="http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm" target="_blank">Synapsida</a>. Here's a nice pic to be going on with...

TTFN, Oolon

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2002, 10:37 PM	#41
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"PE says that, for example, the transition between two successive species doesn't appear in the fossil record." That's my point. I am aware that he places species at the mid-point like other evolutionists, but he claims "the transitions between 2 successive species doesn't appear in the fossil record" as you put it. The actual transitions are not shown. I think one poster accuratelt described it as snapshots in a large picture album, and this what I think needs emphasis. These snapshots may be part of common descent, or they may not. If they are, then you can call many, really all, fossils transitional, but if you think God created the species individually, which is incidentally how they actually appear in the fossil record, then the so-called transitional species are not actually transitional. It really depends on the model more than the evidence. One model basically states the evidence is too scant, and the other that the evidence is scant because the events did not happen. On hominds and humans. 1. I would label Neanderthals as simply a tribe of homo sapiens. In other words, they are people. 2. Cro-magnon, the same thing except a tribe that appears to have been taller and more successful. These are not transitional. They were human. On the rest, I will visit the site and get back to you.

03-06-2002, 10:55 PM	#42
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo heidelbergensis, these are probably types of people. The rest are not. That's where I would draw the line at this point. Check out this article. <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv13n2_human_non-transitions.asp" target="_blank">http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tjv13n2_human_non-transitions.asp</a>

03-06-2002, 10:55 PM	#43
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	What about Homo Erectus? Another tribe? Or a separately created kind?

03-06-2002, 11:12 PM	#46
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	randman, Thankyou for admitting that they're human, which means you have no problem accepting that humans can vary that much. Now, h. habilis->h. erectus->h. sapiens This is what evolutionists accept. Now if you remeber, PE says that the transitions between two successive species won't appear in the fossil record. That means the transitions between h. habilis and h. erectus and h. erectus and h. sapiens won't appear in the fossil record. so what? You said you accept h. erectus and h. sapiens as belonging to the same group, humans. If so, you accept that evolution has occurred between h. erectus and h. sapiens. Yet this is the kind of "gap" that PE is meant to address (between two successive species). But according to you (using quotes from Gould) claim PE is meant to address gaps between "created kinds".

03-06-2002, 11:37 PM	#47
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Actually, different creationists differ on when hominids change from ape to human, and unlike real scientists, they don't try to address this serious discrepancy.

03-07-2002, 02:40 AM	#49
Chilli Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: U.S.A. Posts: 6	randman: Do yourself a favor and look up the original context of some of those quotes of yours (do the ones that haven`t already been pointed out to you). You will be surprised at how much the meaning of a quote can change when it is taken out of context or not entirely reproduced. When you are done with that, ask yourself why the person(s) who collected those quotes did such a poor job of representing what those speakers meant. When I see quotes taken out of context; I generally think one of two things about the person doing the quoting: 1. They lack basic reading skills. 2. They are lying for a cause. Usually, when creationists quote out of context, it is obvious that they are lying for a cause. The material before and after the quote leaves no doubt that the quoted person is saying something quite different than what the creationist wants you to believe. Why a god fearing creationist would do this, and risk hell for lying, I don`t know. P.S. you know that throwing quotes around as a substitute for an argument is rather feeble, don`t you?

03-07-2002, 02:51 AM	#50
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	Hey, I go to bed and here in the morning is a fully formed thread! It must have been created (and to hell with the stepwise increase in posts) Don't see why all you westerners should have all the fun... Oi! Ignoramus (qv)! Go away and learn about the <a href="http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm" target="_blank">Synapsida</a>. Here's a nice pic to be going on with... TTFN, Oolon

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.