Freethought & Rationalism Archive

randman · 03-06-2002, 07:28 PM

Also, please break the chart down for me. What is the meaning of the -- marks?

Kevin Dorner · 03-06-2002, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Evolution is a step by step issue, whether branch or bush. The sun is not.

That's not what the folks at ICR say... they say the so-called (and I know non-existent) sun is <a href="http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-082.htm" target="_blank">shrinking five feet every hour.</a> That's pretty "step-by-step" I'd say, a nice linear shrinkage. Can I see my answers now?

[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]

l-bow · 03-06-2002, 07:36 PM

LordValentine,

You might want to the talk.origins vertebrate faq for the reptile to mammal transition.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html</a>

Valentine Pontifex · 03-06-2002, 07:36 PM

And Randman, you are more than welcome to tell us where the apes stop and the humans begin at

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html" target="_blank">this link</a>.

Kosh · 03-06-2002, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Evolution is a step by step issue, whether branch or bush. The sun is not.
Fact is guys that you can't fill in the blanks. You know it, and I know it.

Are you going to wait a little more than an hour?
Not everyone with specific knowledge of the
bird transitions is online now. You know, they
can't live here 24/7. I'm sure Patrick will have
some interesting information for you...

Quote:

Lord Valentine, I did not see where you did this. If you don't mind, list the specific species in the order and time and such as I asked, and I will be off to do some searching on those species.
Similarites, in my mind, do not equate transitions by themselves.

ARTHUR:
O Knights of Ni, we have brought you your shrubbery. May we go now?
HEAD KNIGHT:
It is a good shrubbery. I like the laurels particularly,... but there is one small problem.

ARTHUR:
What is that?
HEAD KNIGHT:
We are now... no longer the Knights Who Say 'Ni'.

HEAD KNIGHT:
Shh! We are now the Knights Who Say 'Ecky- ecky- ecky- ecky- pikang- zoop- boing- goodem- zoo- owli- zhiv'.
[...]
HEAD KNIGHT:
Firstly, you must find... another shrubbery!
[dramatic chord]
ARTHUR:
Not another shrubbery!
[...]
HEAD KNIGHT:
Then, when you have found the shrubbery, you must cut down the mightiest tree in the forest... with... a herring!
[dramatic chord]

randman · 03-06-2002, 07:44 PM

Kevin, have I made claims about the sun. I really don't care. It is not germane to the discussion.
Lord Valentine, yea, I could link you to a scientist that does indeed make a very clear line, and we cab get into that later.
But my questions are a little more basic.
What I would like to see from that little list of your's is a breakdown, heck, of even 4 species in a chain.
Specifically, have the changes from say one species that evolves into another species, not steps between been examined, and then so on until a whole new creature is formed.
In other words, could we day here is bird 1, nad it undergoes x genetic mutations into bird 2, etc,etc, ..until we see a whole new creature.
I haven't seen this. What I have seen is very sketchy and speculative and over time, tends to change.
Extinct species are said to be transtional based on mere similarities.
For instance, I would expect to see the fossils of one species in an area, maybe isolated for some reason, and see within that species gradual changes until it becomes something else.
In fact, I would expect this as an ongoing trait of gradual changes in all species if evolution is true.

Kosh · 03-06-2002, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

For instance, I would expect to see the fossils of one species in an area, maybe isolated for some reason, and see within that species gradual changes until it becomes something else.
In fact, I would expect this as an ongoing trait of gradual changes in all species if evolution is true.

Lord Valentine hits the target, and Randman moves
the target.

Typical.

Valentine Pontifex · 03-06-2002, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
OK, Lord Valentine, now help me out a little. What are some the common names of some of these creatures, and when did they exist, and what changes are between the species.
Don't do so much as that will take too much time. You are welcome to narrow it down to a chain of 7 species. List them, if you don't mind, with the places roughly where the fossils have been found, and such, and then I will go and research them.
I am serious by the way.

These creatures don't have common names!

And I don't think you are serious. If you are, you do the research. Several links have already been provided. Here is
<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4ex2" target="_blank">another good link</a> that almost exactly gives what you ask for.

randman · 03-06-2002, 07:57 PM

These are some of the quotes that influenced my thinking some 15 years past.
Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)]
If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]
George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]
David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. 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 (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]
E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]
Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupl�ne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. ’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]
<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils</a>

I am not a paleontologist, but these statements such are either true or a lie.
Are ya'll saying they are a lie?"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed."
That Gould is wrong here, and I have read his whiney complaints about how he never meant to undercut evolution. Gimme a break.
What it looks like to me is evolutionists make up these long lines of transitions and make it like all the transitions are shown in the fossil record, that it is proven, and such. That is the way it was presented to me in the 70s, and then you hear what leading paleontologists say, and you realize that you have been deceived. There is considerable debate as to how evolution occured, the exact paths, because they are not actually shown.

randman · 03-06-2002, 08:00 PM

Lord V, my searches have shown that the statements of Gould and others concerning the rarity of species to species transitions to be accurate. The fact that people like you still insist this is not the case baffles me.

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

03-06-2002, 07:28 PM	#11
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Also, please break the chart down for me. What is the meaning of the -- marks?

03-06-2002, 07:36 PM	#13
l-bow Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Hawaii Posts: 215	LordValentine, You might want to the talk.origins vertebrate faq for the reptile to mammal transition. <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html</a>

03-06-2002, 07:36 PM	#14
Valentine Pontifex Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orion Arm of the Milky Way Galaxy Posts: 3,092	And Randman, you are more than welcome to tell us where the apes stop and the humans begin at <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html" target="_blank">this link</a>.

03-06-2002, 07:44 PM	#16
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Kevin, have I made claims about the sun. I really don't care. It is not germane to the discussion. Lord Valentine, yea, I could link you to a scientist that does indeed make a very clear line, and we cab get into that later. But my questions are a little more basic. What I would like to see from that little list of your's is a breakdown, heck, of even 4 species in a chain. Specifically, have the changes from say one species that evolves into another species, not steps between been examined, and then so on until a whole new creature is formed. In other words, could we day here is bird 1, nad it undergoes x genetic mutations into bird 2, etc,etc, ..until we see a whole new creature. I haven't seen this. What I have seen is very sketchy and speculative and over time, tends to change. Extinct species are said to be transtional based on mere similarities. For instance, I would expect to see the fossils of one species in an area, maybe isolated for some reason, and see within that species gradual changes until it becomes something else. In fact, I would expect this as an ongoing trait of gradual changes in all species if evolution is true.

03-06-2002, 07:57 PM	#19
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	These are some of the quotes that influenced my thinking some 15 years past. Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards): “Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460. (emphasis added)] If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out: “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.] George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories: "...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.] David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed: “Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. 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 (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.] E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that: “Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981] Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits: “At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupl�ne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977] “The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. ’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)] <a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils</a> I am not a paleontologist, but these statements such are either true or a lie. Are ya'll saying they are a lie?"In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed." That Gould is wrong here, and I have read his whiney complaints about how he never meant to undercut evolution. Gimme a break. What it looks like to me is evolutionists make up these long lines of transitions and make it like all the transitions are shown in the fossil record, that it is proven, and such. That is the way it was presented to me in the 70s, and then you hear what leading paleontologists say, and you realize that you have been deceived. There is considerable debate as to how evolution occured, the exact paths, because they are not actually shown.

03-06-2002, 08:00 PM	#20
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Lord V, my searches have shown that the statements of Gould and others concerning the rarity of species to species transitions to be accurate. The fact that people like you still insist this is not the case baffles me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.