Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-08-2002, 05:55 AM

So what does Gould mean by "stasis" and "sudden appearance"?
Ya'll are still dodging the point.
Please define the "context" of what he is saying?
Is stasis real, or not?
Then, we can move on.

randman · 03-08-2002, 06:12 AM

Sudden is best understood by the fact they appear pretty much the same way as they go out. Ya'll are missing the basic points on the data. Gould may try to backtrack by the way. I note he has gone from stating Archeroptyryx, I am too busy to spell it right, is not transitional, to stating that now it can count.
But the basic contention needs to be answered. Why do species appear and go out without any evolutionary development in the fossil record?

Kevin Dorner · 03-08-2002, 06:23 AM

randman: I notice that you are still posting in other threads, avoiding <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000370" target="_blank">this thread</a>. You claimed to need until this weekend to research, yet still have enough time to respond here.

To other posters here, if possible please avoid reponding to randman until he responds to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000370" target="_blank">this thread</a> properly, to give him less opportunities to avoid it.

hammegk · 03-08-2002, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous:
I refuse to believe that chihuahuas and great danes have a common ancestor. Proove it. Where it the transtionals between chihuahuas and Great Danes? Show me the transitonals.

Microbiology most likely would demonstrate the probability of single ancestor. Why look for transitionals? Are these not the usual twigs on the tree so far from the trunk the question is meaningless?

Given a full set of dog fossils how do you suppose an evolutionist would arrange them? Maybe a sequence similar to eohippus to equus? Why insist the horse sequence is sequential as size & toes change rather than proposing that they are all distinct twigs from "something" (as we speculate dogs are).

Run this track for while and you will ask "were there x acts of abiogenesis, not just one?' <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

liquid · 03-08-2002, 07:07 AM

Just in case randman 'misses' this on the other thread...

Quote:

"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. Yet a pamphlet entitled 'Harvard Scientists Agree Evolution Is a Hoax' states: 'The facts of punctuated equilibrium which Gould and Eldredge...are forcing Darwinists to swallow fit the picture that Bryan insisted on, and which God has revealed to us in the Bible.'"

- Stephen Jay Gould,
"Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Emphasis mine. Note that we don't really expect to see many transitionals between particular species, beyond the fact that every organism with descendents is 'transitional', for a couple of reasons:

1. Changes between species are so small. A transitional might mean nothing more than a slightly different thumb-joint. This is sort of connected to new phyla and the like - creationists seem to expect them to spring up whole, but even entire kingdoms of life start because of one small mutation in one individual species.

2. Finding 3 consecutive species isn't particularly likely. far more likely we find 3 species that probably aren't consecutive but are close, where b shares particular characteristics with a and c, but a and c don't share them at all. That sort of thing is found all the time.

hezekiah jones · 03-08-2002, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevin Dorner:
To other posters here, if possible please avoid reponding to randman until he responds to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000370" target="_blank">this thread</a> properly, to give him less opportunities to avoid it.

Good idea. It's pointless to engage randman anyway. He'll never answer the questions in the other threads either, and, satisfied with his victory, will ultimately disappear back under his bridge along with every other creationist troll of recent memory.

randman · 03-08-2002, 06:50 PM

You guys claim to be educated on the subject yet you cannot even explain the fact of "stasis."
That's pretty pathetic.
Sad too.
If you were upright, you would admit to the weaknesses in your data, and offer an explanation rather than Gould's weak complaint.
hey, if the species to species are not shown, how do you know an extinct species is transitional?
Just because you guys say so, or because it is similar?
Fact is this is an assumption. It is not a fact.

Valentine Pontifex · 03-08-2002, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
You guys claim to be educated on the subject yet you cannot even explain the fact of "stasis."
That's pretty pathetic.
Sad too.

Gee guys, how many times have we all explained "stasis" to him? A dozen time at least.

randman · 03-08-2002, 08:11 PM

So you are admitting that the fossil record does not in fact show the suppossed evolutionary changes happening?
You admit that the transitions are not shown, or not.
By the way, some have answered the question LV, but it is patently obvious that others are totally clueless because they say it is taking Gould out of context to state species in the fossil record do not show evolutionary change.

HRG · 03-08-2002, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
You guys claim to be educated on the subject yet you cannot even explain the fact of "stasis."
That's pretty pathetic.
Sad too.
If you were upright, you would admit to the weaknesses in your data, and offer an explanation rather than Gould's weak complaint.

hey, if the species to species are not shown, how do you know an extinct species is transitional?
Just because you guys say so, or because it is similar?
Fact is this is an assumption. It is not a fact.

If Gould says that species-to-species transitions are "generally lacking", this implies that some examples nevertheless exist . Gould himself gave an example, and about 20 more are contained in We Elsberry's "Transitionasl Challenge" (in talk.origins). So your characterization of what the data show is false.

And a single sequence is sufficient to refute the creationist battle cry "There are no transitionals".

HRG.

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

03-08-2002, 05:55 AM	#61
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	So what does Gould mean by "stasis" and "sudden appearance"? Ya'll are still dodging the point. Please define the "context" of what he is saying? Is stasis real, or not? Then, we can move on.

03-08-2002, 06:12 AM	#62
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Sudden is best understood by the fact they appear pretty much the same way as they go out. Ya'll are missing the basic points on the data. Gould may try to backtrack by the way. I note he has gone from stating Archeroptyryx, I am too busy to spell it right, is not transitional, to stating that now it can count. But the basic contention needs to be answered. Why do species appear and go out without any evolutionary development in the fossil record?

03-08-2002, 06:23 AM	#63
Kevin Dorner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 762	randman: I notice that you are still posting in other threads, avoiding <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000370" target="_blank">this thread</a>. You claimed to need until this weekend to research, yet still have enough time to respond here. To other posters here, if possible please avoid reponding to randman until he responds to <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000370" target="_blank">this thread</a> properly, to give him less opportunities to avoid it.

03-08-2002, 06:50 PM	#67
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	You guys claim to be educated on the subject yet you cannot even explain the fact of "stasis." That's pretty pathetic. Sad too. If you were upright, you would admit to the weaknesses in your data, and offer an explanation rather than Gould's weak complaint. hey, if the species to species are not shown, how do you know an extinct species is transitional? Just because you guys say so, or because it is similar? Fact is this is an assumption. It is not a fact.

03-08-2002, 08:11 PM	#69
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	So you are admitting that the fossil record does not in fact show the suppossed evolutionary changes happening? You admit that the transitions are not shown, or not. By the way, some have answered the question LV, but it is patently obvious that others are totally clueless because they say it is taking Gould out of context to state species in the fossil record do not show evolutionary change.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.