Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Scrambles · 03-08-2002, 07:27 PM

I tried to get randman's attention in one of his threads but that didn't work so now I'm going to preach to the choir.

Assume that species C is decended from Species A with fossilised individual X having some features which, taken alone would place it in species A and others which would place it in species C.

There are two possible outcomes:
1) The two species A and C are sufficiently similar to one another so that X could be placed in one or the other at, say, between 2-2.5 standard deviations from the norm. Hence X will be classified as either A or C

2) The two species are sufficiently different with X lying outside both normal ranges so that X must be placed in a new species B.

The result of (1) is that creationists will say there are no transitions between A and C. The result of (2) is that creationists will say that there are no transitions between A and C, A and B, or B and C.

Hence transitions, in the sense that creationists want, are impossible. But they don't seem to realise that the situation above comes about because the species is the smallest unit of classification. When they say transitions are impossible it's like saying there are no integers between 1 and 2.

I guess this has all been said before but why don't they GET IT?

Scrambles

randman · 03-08-2002, 07:46 PM

Let me ask you something, and maybe while you are thinking about it, you will learn something.
PE basically came about to explain the fact that we don't see species actually evolving in the fossil record?
Right or wrong?

phlebas · 03-09-2002, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Right or wrong?

I don't speak for Scrambles, but here's one vote for "wrong"

MrDarwin · 03-09-2002, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Let me ask you something, and maybe while you are thinking about it, you will learn something.
PE basically came about to explain the fact that we don't see species actually evolving in the fossil record?
Right or wrong?

Please define "species", "evolving", and "fossil record".

While you're at it, please define "we".

Or perhaps you'd rather address Patrick's questions which you've been avoiding in in this discussion:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000370" target="_blank">Randman says we've ignored AiG's "best arguments"</a>

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]

Scrambles · 03-09-2002, 08:53 AM

randman,

Why don't YOU tell ME whether you disagree with my argument that you would never accept anything as transitional even if it was. The reason for this being that, as a result of the way we classify things, an individual is either put in it's own species or an existing species.

You would say that something in it's own species is not transitional. You would also say that something classified in an existing species is not transitional.

Do you agree so far??

The conclusion from this is that you would say that any individual classified in a species is not transitional. Since all discovered individuals get classified into a species, you must therefore say that no individual can possibly be described as transitional between species.

This makes the way you think about "transitional" meaningless. Now, I started this thread and I want you to address what I have said in the original post before you
a) demand that I address some point of yours
or b) answer what someone else has said in this thread
(This is just good etiquette. Apologies to those who also want answers from randman)

Scrambles

Oolon Colluphid · 03-09-2002, 10:35 AM

Not that I'm expecting randman to respond, but still...

Back in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000197&p=2" target="_blank">this thread</a> I have already mentioned to randman Peter Sheldon's study of Welsh trilobites. Here's what <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0632052384/qid=1015700506/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-8637056-7391618" target="_blank">Clarkson (1998)</a> has to say about it:

Quote:

Ordovician (Llandeilian) trilobites in Central Wales occur in great numbers in a virtually continuous series of black shales. Sheldon (1987) studied a sequence spanning some 3 Ma, in which there are eight common trilobite lineages. [diagram]

In all of the eight genera, measured from 15 000 specimens, there was a net increase in the number of pygideal ribs, a character used in species diagnosis. It is a striking example of gradual evolution occurring in parallel in the various genera. Equally, Shaldon demonstrated that there are character reversals from time to time, such as temporary decrease in rib number. There is no reason why character reversals such as this should not take place, and here they are clearly demonstrated. This is one of the best examples of gradualistic genetic change known from the fossil record, though the selection pressures that caused it remain uncertain.

The original paper is P Sheldon: 'Parallel gradualistic evolution of Ordovician trilobites', Nature 330, 561-3, 1987. I don't suppose anyone has access to it, please please?!

I also linked to Don Lindsay's <a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html" target="_blank">Smooth Change in the Fossil Record</a>.

That ought to clear up this nonsense. There are more than enough 'transitionals' to satisfy all but the most cackbrained bigot.

Randman, punctuated equilibrium may explain some patterns in the fossil record, but it is not required, let alone essential, for an evolutionary explanation. It's a nice little add-on, not a key to the whole of evolution. As I asked in the last thread, if your creator was involved in punctuations, where was he for the gradual changes?

TTFN, Oolon

hezekiah jones · 03-09-2002, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
cackbrained bigot.

LOL!

Is anyone actually expecting randman to consider any of the veritable deluge of information that's been provided him?

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]

Late_Cretaceous · 03-09-2002, 10:45 AM

Randman

Intraspecific (within species) morphological changes over time HAVE been observed in the fossil record in T.rex, ceratopsians and hadrasorid dinosaurs from the Late Cretaceous of Montana and Alberta

randman · 03-09-2002, 10:48 AM

Couple of points.

1. I find it fascinating that so many of you are either plain ignorant to why PE came about, or in utter denial about the fossil record. It is astonishing, and a testament to the pseudo-objective, religious nature of evolutionism.

2. I find it very telling that the Welsh trilobite progression was printed in Nature in 1987 when this was old news. In fact, this was the only progression Gould and Eldridge originally said out of all the ones they considered and "tested" was their word that possibly fit as transitional.
Of course, the creationist response is quite clear. The progression is within the kind, and not an example of macro-evolution.

3. Some of ya'll's other comments I find amusing, but won't get into them. I will comment on one of the links. It stated that larger animals would be at the bottom of the flood, and I really don't know, but I have heard creationists argue that the larger animals would flee to higher ground.
For me personally, I am old earth guy, but I do beleive there was a global flood so I have begun, only in recent months reading the research done by YEC.
For those that point out flaws, I appreacite that. I do find the same types of flaws in evolutionist articles as well, by the way, but if you want to beleive they don't happen, take a look at the past and think about how many errors and mistakes and even hoaxes perpetuated by evolutionists.
I dare say many of you probably beleived in recapitulation, and a host of other nonsense such as Neanderthal being a hunchbacked ape-man.

Daggah · 03-09-2002, 10:53 AM

Quote:

For me personally, I am old earth guy, but I do beleive there was a global flood so I have begun, only in recent months reading the research done by YEC.

So where is the evidence of a global flood? There's more evidence for UFOs visiting the earth than there is for a global flood - and I believe that the UFO stories are hogwash.

Randman, I want you to name the books you've read dealing with evolution from the pro perspective. I dare you to read Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker."

03-08-2002, 07:27 PM	#1
Scrambles Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Chch, NZ Posts: 234	No transitions between species I tried to get randman's attention in one of his threads but that didn't work so now I'm going to preach to the choir. Assume that species C is decended from Species A with fossilised individual X having some features which, taken alone would place it in species A and others which would place it in species C. There are two possible outcomes: 1) The two species A and C are sufficiently similar to one another so that X could be placed in one or the other at, say, between 2-2.5 standard deviations from the norm. Hence X will be classified as either A or C 2) The two species are sufficiently different with X lying outside both normal ranges so that X must be placed in a new species B. The result of (1) is that creationists will say there are no transitions between A and C. The result of (2) is that creationists will say that there are no transitions between A and C, A and B, or B and C. Hence transitions, in the sense that creationists want, are impossible. But they don't seem to realise that the situation above comes about because the species is the smallest unit of classification. When they say transitions are impossible it's like saying there are no integers between 1 and 2. I guess this has all been said before but why don't they GET IT? Scrambles

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

03-08-2002, 07:46 PM	#2
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Let me ask you something, and maybe while you are thinking about it, you will learn something. PE basically came about to explain the fact that we don't see species actually evolving in the fossil record? Right or wrong?

03-09-2002, 08:53 AM	#5
Scrambles Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Chch, NZ Posts: 234	randman, Why don't YOU tell ME whether you disagree with my argument that you would never accept anything as transitional even if it was. The reason for this being that, as a result of the way we classify things, an individual is either put in it's own species or an existing species. You would say that something in it's own species is not transitional. You would also say that something classified in an existing species is not transitional. Do you agree so far?? The conclusion from this is that you would say that any individual classified in a species is not transitional. Since all discovered individuals get classified into a species, you must therefore say that no individual can possibly be described as transitional between species. This makes the way you think about "transitional" meaningless. Now, I started this thread and I want you to address what I have said in the original post before you a) demand that I address some point of yours or b) answer what someone else has said in this thread (This is just good etiquette. Apologies to those who also want answers from randman) Scrambles

03-09-2002, 10:45 AM	#8
Late_Cretaceous Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Alberta Posts: 1,049	Randman Intraspecific (within species) morphological changes over time HAVE been observed in the fossil record in T.rex, ceratopsians and hadrasorid dinosaurs from the Late Cretaceous of Montana and Alberta

03-09-2002, 10:48 AM	#9
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Couple of points. 1. I find it fascinating that so many of you are either plain ignorant to why PE came about, or in utter denial about the fossil record. It is astonishing, and a testament to the pseudo-objective, religious nature of evolutionism. 2. I find it very telling that the Welsh trilobite progression was printed in Nature in 1987 when this was old news. In fact, this was the only progression Gould and Eldridge originally said out of all the ones they considered and "tested" was their word that possibly fit as transitional. Of course, the creationist response is quite clear. The progression is within the kind, and not an example of macro-evolution. 3. Some of ya'll's other comments I find amusing, but won't get into them. I will comment on one of the links. It stated that larger animals would be at the bottom of the flood, and I really don't know, but I have heard creationists argue that the larger animals would flee to higher ground. For me personally, I am old earth guy, but I do beleive there was a global flood so I have begun, only in recent months reading the research done by YEC. For those that point out flaws, I appreacite that. I do find the same types of flaws in evolutionist articles as well, by the way, but if you want to beleive they don't happen, take a look at the past and think about how many errors and mistakes and even hoaxes perpetuated by evolutionists. I dare say many of you probably beleived in recapitulation, and a host of other nonsense such as Neanderthal being a hunchbacked ape-man.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.