Kosh

I've done an analysis on Randman based on the
condensed quotes colated on another thread (was
it theYeti? Not sure). There are enough repetitions
to ascertain that Randman is nothing more than
a random posting bot which was written to pull
text out of a database and display it. Further
evidence of this can be seen by very weak
cohesiveness between the arguments, and the fact
that the content never changes, ie, it's a static
database, not an AI neural net. Also supporting
my theory is the sheer volume, and the hint
of the name "Randman" as in "Random Manure".

There may be other explanations, but this theory
certainly fits the evidence well.

trunks2k

beacuse he keeps saying the same thing over and over and not understanding what other people have been saying. Seriously, by the time I read the posts after his last post, he has managed to make 2 more posts claiming he has read them all and writing some other dumb "argument" (I'm following this pretty much in real time).

Vorkosigan

I typed David Kitts and evolution into Google, and only creationist sites fell out...tried to track it down.

The quote is variously attributed to several mags, and other quotes are attributed to him as well. His name seems to collect quotes. However, he is listed as the Curator of the Stoval Museum of Evolution at Oklahama. There is no such museum there, but there is a Sam Noble Museum, so I emailed them to ask about Kitts.

Michael

Vorkosigan

Hey Randman, are you ever going to put up the best one from AiG?

Still waiting....

Michael

notto

The full, non condensed, in context quote (with an explanation of how it is used and what it is referenceing) can be found here
<a href="http://www.digisys.net/users/hoppnrmt/transitionfossils.htm" target="_blank">http://www.digisys.net/users/hoppnrmt/transitionfossils.htm</a>

It seems that the person who constructed the version you place here left out a bit. Care to comment on that randman? It would seem that the source of your quote has edited it and in doing so, has TAKEN IT OUT OF CONTEXT!!! Don't you think it is telling that they have done this? Did they mention that they clearly left out sections of the quote? Did they mention that the context of the quote was a review of another persons work and was pointing out the misconceptions of that person????
------------------
Grassé insists, however, that we must begin our consideration of evolutionary theory with the history of the living world based upon paleontology. There is a view, supposed by many to be common among paleontologists, that fossils give direct and immediate evidence of evolution. Paleontologists have recently come under attack for holding this view, particularly by the followers of Hennig. Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G.G. Simpson and S.J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be constructed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. Grassé, on the other hand, holds just the view that has so often been erroneously attributed to Darwinian paleontologists...
[two long paragraphs discussing Grassé’s theory and erroneous view attributed to Darwinian paleontologists, compared to how they really interpret fossils]
...Darwinian Paleontologists cannot take much comfort from the fact that the fossil record does not compel them to reject their theory because it does not compel them to accept it either. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories."
[David B. Kitts, "Search for the Holy Transformation", Paleobiology, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1979, pp. 353-355]

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: notto ]</p>

ksagnostic

Ah, very good notto. And who here is surprised by the extensive quote editing uncovered here?

Hands?

Anyone?

Quetzal

Since Randman is apparently back in action, I thought I'd resurrect this thread so that I could respond to his last post to me. Again, apologies for being out of the loop so long - work does occasionally interfere with what I'd rather be doing...

Thanks to ksagnostic for the clarification on what I was trying to get across. Randman, you are still missing my major points.

The reality is we see two different kinds of transitions in the fossil record consistently. The first is what could be termed in-species transitions (c.f. forams, snails, trilobites and clams, for instance) which, over very long evolutionary timescales, remain recognizably forams, snails, clams and trilobites, although small morphological differences are used by the paleontologists who study them to indicate different species, but not a change in higher taxa. These transitions are about as close as you can get to your "begats". No surprise - limited environmental change over very long timescales yields only the small microvariations that Darwinian gradualism predicts. This particular flavor of "transitional" fossil is actually accepted by most creationists, as they proclaim it "variation within a kind". This is the ONLY type of fossil record even remotely consistent with special creation. The actuality is that special creation modified its original premise (immutable kinds) to accommodate the fossil evidence. They state that this is "microevolution" since there was no major change between classes or orders - they're all still clam "kinds" or some such regardless of species. BTW: I think it's pretty funny that creationists use trilobites, since they span four complete orders, but I won't quibble that they're all recognizably trilobite.

The other type of transitional is the one I have been trying (unsuccessfully, apparently) to get across to you. These transitions are the A..T..B variety between major genera or classes. Examples such as Hynercetus, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus (yeah, yeah, I know they're not in order) which are differentiated temporally and morphologically. We don't, in these major transitions, see a series of begats. We DO, however, see a step-wise, time-linked series of species transiting from a fully-land-dwelling mammal to a fully sea-going mammal. These species are actually representatives of genera (or even families), and thus constitute single representatives of higher taxonomic groupings. What the fossil record shows is thus changes in major groups, rather than "simple" speciation.

The above is the "data from the fossil record". It is fully consistent with evolutionary theory, and thoroughly inconsistent with special creation because the data shows macroevolution as well as microevolutionary change. BTW: I very carefully did not say the record "disproves" creationism. I said the record is "not consistent" with the claims many creationists make in its name.

Just a point of correction: the examination of modern organisms and ecosystems is a way of showing that the postulated mechanisms and predictions of evolutionary theory are valid. Since they work and are observable in the modern world, there is absolutely no reason to assume that they DIDN'T work the same way in the past. Since ESS, natural selection, development of complex adaptive systems, etc, is observable, modern ecosystems make excellent analogies for interpreting the fossil record. Moreover, there are countless organisms alive and kicking today that manifest environmental adaptations that are not only analogous to what we are terming "transitional forms" or postulated transitions in the fossil record, but provide literally one-for-one correspondance (-climbers-to-gliders-to-flyers, fish-to-amphibian, etc).

Again, I have to question your continued insistence on the Vast Evilutionist Conspiracy to defraud people. Evolutionary biologists neither lie, cheat, or obfuscate evidence. Yes, as I've said before, scientists generally don't do a very good job of explaining complex concepts like the fossil record to non-specialists. And yes, they need to work on how the information is presented. But getting from there to deliberate lying is a verrry long stretch. Biology doesn't proselytize or propagandize. Scientists are at worst guilty of underestimating their audience. I agree that instead of simply stating "transitions" as a fact, they should take a little more time and explain why a fossil is transitional and some of the evidentiary reasoning - including using modern analogies - that led to that conclusion.

I hope I've made my position a little clearer.