Daggah

Oh really? Prove it.

There are creationist and ID models? Really? Could you explain them to us, please? Could you explain the creationist and ID theories? Could you explain how they're actually science?

And are you actually going to acknowledge the fact that BOTH the creationist and ID camps are getting to be rather infamous for their own dishonest tactics? You never responded to me before; would you like me to go into detail about the intellectual dishonesty of evolution deniers?

RufusAtticus

Please provide such a model so that we might review it. The "Challenge to those who beleive in kinds" thread is a perfect place for it. I have yet to encounter a creation model that does a better job of explaining ALL the available data than evolution. Since you claim that micro-evolutionary changes can happen and not macroevolutionary changes, when you present this model define microevolution and macroevolution. Also, to support your statement, your theory needs to contain a mechanism that prevents the gradual accumulation of microevolutionary changes from leading to macroevolutionary changes. In other words, your theory needs to explain "why" and be consistent with the available data. Evolution does both of these things. What about your model? If you are not capable of producing a model or answering our questions about it, stop refering to it. The "Challenge..." thread already has some questions for your model to deal with. Please see that you do that.

-RvFvS

randman

So are you guys contesting what Kitts says here?
“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.]

I am not budging until these quotes are completely explained. When all of the quotes concerning the fossil record are explained, since ya'll accuse me of taking them out of context, only then can we move on.
If you can't put these quotes into your own words and explain them away, I will assume you accept what they say on the face of them. By the way, Gould is not the only expert I have quoted concerning the fossil record.
The fossil record does not actually show species evolving on a macro-level. The transitions are not shown.
Both creationists and evolutionist beleive there are micro-evolutionary changes. That is not controversial.
As far as the mechanism, I think it is incumbent upon the evolutionist to prove his claims. You claim micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution.
Show me full documentation of this please.

RufusAtticus

This has been done, or are you not familiar with the scientific literature? There was once much debate as to whether microevolution leads to macroevolution. See <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul01.html" target="_blank">this post</a> by me.

If you want full documentation, I suggest you read Douglas Futyuma's Evolutionary Biology. It's a college level textbook, that explains very well the formation and evidence for evolution. You might also try keeping up with the journal Evolution.

Since you are making the affirmative claim that microevolution doesn't lead to macroevolution, you need to provide the mechanism which makes this impossible. Don't obscure this requirement of your argument, by claiming that neo-Darwinism is unsupported. Even if it were, you still must support your side.

What mechanism prevents horses and dogs from having a common ancester, despite the fossil and genetic evidence that leads to this conclusion?

Why do I think this is beyond your capabilities?

-RvFvS

RufusAtticus

Sounds like he's advocating additional forms of evidence, such as genetic. Would you care to provide more of the quote to rule this out?

This quote is over 20 years old. Do you actually expect no fossil has been discovered since then? There are well known transitions from the fossil record.

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

-RvFvS

ksagnostic

It should be noted that this quote appears, with the citation exactly as posted, at the True Origins website, to which you, randman, have linked before. As you have posted a quote from a secondary source, I doubt you have any knowledge of what Kitts said before or what he went on to say after that quote. More to the point, even taking that quote at face value, I strongly doubt that most paleontologists would agree with it. The fossil record is not consistent with special creation, unless one posits a progressive special creation. For example, paleontologists do not (I think) find synapsid reptiles in the Devonian, therapsids in the Carboniferous, or mammals in the Permian or early Triassic. However, the remains of later therapsid reptiles more closely resembled early mammals than early therapsid reptiles, and early therapsid reptiles more closely resemble early synapsid reptiles than later therapsid reptiles or early mammals. Such a fossil record is entirely consistent with evolution (including Darwinian evolution and the Modern Synthesis). It is not consistent with periodic creations unless one assumes that there were multiple special creations where the creator incorporated earlier designs into later designs, and consistently introduced new designs onto older features (reptile lower jawbones [plural intentional] to mammalian middle ear structures being an example). This fossil record shows what one would expect if earlier taxa were related to later taxa.

Well, I will let Morpho speak for himself, but I certainly DON'T understand Morpho to be saying what you apparently understand him to be saying. To quote the post from Morpho that you are replying to:

"Because of some anatomical similarities, we know A and B are distantly related. Because B shows up higher in the strata, we know that B is “younger” than A. Since T shares more traits with A and B than either share with each other, we state that T is transitional. This is, in reality, a convenient way of describing relationships – it has little or nothing to do with who begat whom in nature. This, I think, is where your confusion seems to arise. We can only detect gross morphological differences at such a great remove in time. In short, in the fossil record, we can only detect changes in major taxa."

What Morpho appears to be talking about is changes in morphological structure between groupsof organisms (such as classes and orders), which would include multiple species. In that sense, as I was describing above, the progressive changes in morphological structures from the species of early synapsid reptiles through early therapsid reptiles to later therapsid reptiles to early mammals, or from group to group to group to group, are consistent with MACRO changes across groups of species. This has been said to you many times, and incidentally, this is what Gould has said repeatedly. And I think that is what Morpho has been saying to you.

I have seen no evidence that you have reviewed information about the fossil record sufficiently to make the claim that "evolutionists lie" about it. Reading second hand quotes of Gould and Mr. Kitts on creationist websites does not give you the information to make this claim.

And by the way, exactly who are these shadowy "evolutionists"?
[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

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

Daggah

But Rufus, remember, TalkOrigins is not to be trusted! If such credible and honest websites as AiG, ICR, TrueOrigins, and drdino.com don't agree with it, it probably isn't true! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Daggah

randman said:

"I can't live here 24/7."

Funny, that. If I were posting at randman's posting rate I'd have well over 7,000 posts by now.

Silent Dave

I know -- he has logged nearly as many posts in less than a week as I have logged in the last year and a half. How can one type so much and yet say so little?


Dave

Silent Dave

Since I have done exactly that, and you have refused to acknowledge it, I find it reasonable to believe that you will not change your tune no matter WHAT we say, and that we are all wasting our time on you.

Hey Moderators, I move that, henceforth, all of randman's posts on the subject of what other evolutionists have to say either be deleted or moved to RR&P. Bandwidth on this forum, I understand, is scarce enough as it is without the droolings of someone who chooses not to acknowledge reality, to say nothing of posing any threat whatsoever to evolution.


Dave