RufusAtticus

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=14739" target="_blank">Randman</a>

Does he ever say anything new, that hasn't been debunked before?

~~RvFvS~~

seebs

I dunno. I'd never seen "what were the next five species before and after archeoptryx" before. It's nice to see something funny you haven't seen before.

randman

Well, since neither you Seebs or Rufos here could do it, maybe you should get some help, or better yet, admit it can't be done.

seebs

I explained why the question was stupid once already.

Okay, just as an example: Have you ever gone from one place to another? If so, can you show at least ten pictures of yourself along that path?

One picture in the middle, with pictures at both ends, is pretty good evidence.

randman

No, you didn't explain. You dodged as was rightly pointed out to you.
Moreover, your analogy here is fallacious. You assume that the pictures are of the same thing. In other words, common descent is assumed, that is that these are all pictures of the same thing in different stages of development.

Fact is a better description would be snapshots of completely different people, and you trying to prove they are all related without any direct evidence that they are. You state that well, this one has a nose similar to that one, yada, yada, yada, but still no direct evidence.

But really, I was asking you to post your comment on the other board. The rudeness and hostility I experienced here is not something I will allow myself to relive.

Vorkosigan

Nice analogy, seebs. I'll have to remember that one.

randman, remember that the path from ancestral to modern can be demonstrated by shared characteristics and by DNA.

For example, see this article on the evolution of dogs. The evidence for the evolution of dogs consists of two independent lines. First, the skeletal and fossil evidence. Second, the evidence from DNA studies. Not only do they confirm each other, they also are, as seebs so eloquently put it, snapshots at the beginning, middle and end of the path.
<a href="http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm</a>

Vorkosigan

RufusAtticus

Randman, your challenge was answered <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000364&p=" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000365&p=" target="_blank">here</a>. It's amazing what modern technology can recall these days.

I also responded to you concerning transitional in an earlier <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000378&p=" target="_blank">thread</a>.

---------
I'll explain this argument so a forth grader could understand it.

My mother took pictures of me as a baby. She also took pictures of me when I'm 4,5,9,11,13,18, and, 22. I am now 23. Although we are missing pictures from when I was 2,3,6,7,8,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,19,20, and 21, my girlfriend (who didn't see me grow up) is pretty certain that those pictures of me as a baby are of me. She is also very certain that during my life, I was 6,7,and 8 at one time or another. Just because I can't provide evidence for my appearence every second of my life, you would consider me to have always been an adult, that I haven't changed in the last 23 years. However, my girlfriend has more sense and correctly concludes that I did grow up and can infer what I looked like at 7 or 13, even though she doesn't have a picture.

Likewise scientists can use fossil evidence, despite interruptions in the record, to determine the paths of evolution that have passed. Your characterization of Gould's quote concerning natural history is bankrupt and illogical?
-------------

Now will you respond this time around, or will you just generate RRP material?

~~RvFvS~~

Hayden

A further point: it is unreasonable to attempt to assert your version of "creation" (if my assumption is correct - apologies if it's not) by debunking evolutionary theory. You can, in fact, argue thus:

P: If evolutionary theory is incomplete, creation is true.
P: Evolutionary theory is incomplete
C: Creation is true

However, this argument is invalid, because the first premise cannot be proven.

Let me add another analogy: You can't find your car keys, but you're certain you left them on the coffee table as you usually do. Your wife finds the keys on the kitchen bench. You can't readily explain how they got there: does this mean that a god moved your keys?

You should remember that evolutionary theory is exactly that: a theory derived by scientific observation, and as such completely open to further scientific enquiry. A true scientist will arrive at one conclusion one day, and will then be capable of another the next, if the observations merit the new conclusion. Evolutionary theory does have holes in it; almost all scientific principles do.

Seebs' or my or anyone's inability to name some fossils for you does not prove that evolution did not occur. However, I'd be willing to bet that someone can name the last few strains of the influenza or Ebola viruses, both of which show signs of mutating in a way eerily similar to evolution.

I hope this helps.

By the way:
This was written by a "Senior Moderator" on the forum:

Hows that?

Jerry Smith

Another question for Randman:

If you find a stack of pictures of someone, as newborn, at age 1,3,5,7,11,12,14,16,17,21, and 30 ---- can you figure out whether or not they are the all the same fellow, even without pictures at 5 months, 6 months 18 months, 5 years, 5.5 years, 6 years, 6.5 years etc...?

Oolon Colluphid

Well you’ve been given an analogy. Now here’s a fact or two.

Being a scientific theory, evolution makes predictions that can be tested against reality.

One such is that birds evolved from a less bird-like ancestor. By comparing present anatomy, a reptilian-type ancestor would be most likely.

Therefore evolution predicts that, with luck, with the vagiaries of fossilisation and discovery allowing, fossils might be found of organisms which share characteristics with both of the two, now separate groups.

Nobody expects to find uninterrupted sequences. It is enough to confirm the prediction that some fossils fitting the description be found.

They have been found. There are now several examples of Archaeopteryx lithographica, for instance. All but one were found after the publication of The Origin of Species, and the predictions that flow from the common descent that Darwin argued. Here are some facts about it:

Archaeopteryx is sufficiently similar to some theropod dinosaurs that one of these fossils was originally mistakenly classified as a Compsognathus.

Archaeopteryx has the 'sickle-claw' (hyperextendable second toe with a very curved claw), which is one of the most distinctive features of deinonychosaurs.

Deinonychosaurs, unlike other theropods, have the backward-pointing pubis, as do modern birds.

Archaeopteryx, and modern birds, have a furcula (wishbone). Some dinosaurs are now known to have had a furcula: some coelophysids, oviraptors, allosaurs, tyrannosaurs, troodonts, and not surprisingly (another confirmed prediction), deinonychosaurs.

The arm of Archaeopteryx, its wing, is structurally identical to that of deinonychosaurs, though proportionally bigger. It is quite far from modern birds' proportions.

Most notably and famously, Archaeopteryx has feathers. Feathers just like those of modern birds. (Oh, and they’re genuine: they are on several separate fossils; the slab and counterslabs match exactly; microcrystaline analysis shows that they are part of the same rock as the bones; one feather passes under a bone, making it extremely hard to forge; plus other evidence.)

What’s more, fossils of <a href="http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/ollivier/dino/birds2.html#Descr" target="_blank">a whole range of other feathered and birdlike dinosaurs</a> have been found.

I don’t know about the five species before and after Archetoptryx (sic)... I imagine that they too would be species of Archaeopteryx, since that is the genus name . Though maybe Protarchaeopteryx could be involved...

Looks like Mr Randman does not have the faintest clue about anatomy, palaeontology or cladistics. All these fossils are placed together because they share so many characteristics. That in itself does not demonstrate that they are related. (In fact, one of the most basic ideas in palaeontological cladistics is that we are very unlikely to be dealing with members of the exact populations that are genetically linked. It is enough to show the sorts of things, the sibling species and closely related species, that were around at the time.)

What it does is confirm the prediction that evolution makes: if evolution is correct, such things should exist.

Hence of course the creationist claim that there are no transitional fossils. Please, Mr Randman, can you actually define a transitional fossil for us? What features should we expect to see, if evolution were true?

Maybe I’ll repeat this there. How are they on censorship (cf the BB)? I will not allow my posts to be tampered with, which is why I only post here.

Erm, so why come here at all? “I’m coming here to say this, but I’m not talking to you here.” Looks a bit rude, that.

The rudeness came about because of the way you handled the discussions (we have plenty of ‘nice’ discussions, so it’s not that the folks here are innately rude); the hostility similarly stemmed from (what seemed like) your ignoring of the points made and (what seemed like) your confrontational attitude. If it was not your intent to act like an ignorant troll, then I apologise for any disservices I may have done you. But it sure as hell looked like your intent.

Basically, you play nice, we play nice. If you can handle that, you are welcome here. If not, your taking of a running jump is requested.

TTFN, Oolon