Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: transitionals

Expand Messages
  • DBWILLIS@aol.com
    In a message dated 12/13/03 7:54:51 AM US Eastern Standard Time, ... This depends on how one defines a TF. Apparently even some ev s think there are few if
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 12/13/03 7:54:51 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
      Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com writes:


      > Proposition: There are many transitional fossils in the fossil record.

      This depends on how one defines a TF. Apparently even some ev's think there
      are few if any by SOME definition. That is what provoked the idea of
      Punctuated Equilibrium. It was the ABSENCE (or relative absence, to them) of TF's in
      the record that forced Gould and Eldridge to come up with that idea. Do you
      agree to that statement, Todd?

      David Willis


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • DBWILLIS@aol.com
      In a message dated 12/14/03 8:24:25 AM US Eastern Standard Time, ... So Todd, are you saying that Gould and Eldridge did NOT say that there was a lack of
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 14, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 12/14/03 8:24:25 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
        Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com writes:


        > Actually, in any discussion I would just dig right into presenting
        > examples of transitional fossils. Then when the creationists started
        > playing word games I would simply point out that the creationist (1)
        > is purposely ignoring the transitional fossils that do exist (which I
        > would have presented some examples of) if and when he claims
        > that "there are no transitional fossils." If the creationist chooses
        > to ignore the empirical facts and just play word games, then, of
        > course, I will point out that the creationist is doing this.

        So Todd, are you saying that Gould and Eldridge did NOT say that there was a
        lack of transitionals (by SOME definition) when they began to argue for PE?
        Were they as devious as you want to paint non-evolutionist creationists for
        having an issue about how to define a TF?

        Did not Darwin himself expect there to be many examples of transitionals, but
        saw there were not...and suggested that was due to knowing so little about
        the fossil record? I believe I can cite a quote of his about that. So was he
        also devious?

        One could take ANY assemblage of phenotypes and arrange them in an order that
        puts those more similar in structure closer to one another. But what does
        that prove about their origin or whether they were intermediary? Imagine taking
        all the types of nuts, bolts, nails, screws, tools, etc. in a hardware store
        and arranging them according to how they look. Or maybe types of vehicles.
        The fact that you can find something "in between" what two others look like
        does NOT prove that one was "transitional" to the others. Indeed it could be
        that both the others were in existence first and THEN a use for a "middle point"
        was found and it was then made. Or they all could have been made at once, or
        in backward "order." There is nothing implied by the fact that someone
        after-the-fact can identify similarities in structure.

        And besides there SHOULD be correlation in the microscopic details (such as
        the amino acid sequences of proteins) of these supposed near relatives and
        transitionals but there is not.

        >>I would note that David Willis did not address a single one of the
        examples of transitional fossils mentioned by me in my previous post
        or by others in the online references I provided. >>

        That's ok. You don't address my arguments either. And I don't plan to chase
        website references at your request. Your posts are bags of gas anyway. Last
        time I did that (regarding the Drake equation) I proved that you were blowing
        hot air about the content of those sites. You refused to reply to my
        arguments about those sites. But instead just declared victory for yourself and ran
        off. Why don't you get busy and do that, Todd?

        David Willis


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Todd S. Greene
        Hi, David. You remind me of Gil Yoder, who has the bad habit of wasting people s time by conveniently editing out the highly relevant comments they have made
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 15, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi, David.

          You remind me of Gil Yoder, who has the bad habit of wasting people's
          time by conveniently editing out the highly relevant comments they
          have made about something without any indication that he has done so,
          and then turning right around and asking questions which the edited
          out portions specifically address. I suppose that's what bags of gas
          do, though, and it's what I've come to expect from you as well.

          As I already wrote, transitional fossils are fossils of organisms
          that possess intermediate (transitional) morphological
          characteristics. The chronological order of the fossils is also a
          factor, but not a strict factor (because of the fact that species can
          branch [divergence] as opposed to being just a singular
          transformation of the parent species, and the fact that the fossil
          record is a biased statistical sampling of organisms).

          Punctuated equilibrium is a concept about the pattern of transitional
          fossils in time and place. The argument does not propose or imply
          that transitional fossils don't exist. (Golly, it doesn't even
          propose or imply that "fine-grained" examples of gradual evolution in
          the fossil record don't exist.) It is an argument about a certain
          kind of pattern that is found with transitional fossils in a lot of
          cases. Of course, you have to have good examples of transitional
          fossils in order to make the argument in the first place.

          Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium
          by Dr. Dale D. Edwards (University of Evansville)
          http://faculty.evansville.edu/de3/b32003/PDFs/Mode_and_Tempo.pdf

          Regarding Darwin's concept of the "pace of evolution," Darwin
          mentioned the punctuated equilibrium concept in his *Origin of
          Species* book, he just didn't call it puntuated equilibrium. And
          regarding the fossil record itself, paleontology has in fact
          progressed greatly since the middle of the 19th century.

          Gould himself made the following comment: "Since we proposed
          punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be
          quoted again and again by creationists -- whether through design or
          stupidity, I do not know -- as admitting that the fossil record
          includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level
          of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at
          the higher level of transitions within major groups." ("Evolution as
          fact and theory," in *Science And Creationism*, Edited by Ashley
          Montagu, 1984). Note Gould's implication that when creationists claim
          that there are no transitional fossils they are being either
          dishonest or stupid.

          Finally, here again are those online references giving examples of
          transitional fossils that I gave you previously, which you have
          stated that you will intentionally ignore (just as I wrote
          previously: "Of course - never fear! - since young earth creationists
          possess an attitude of obstinately promoting error and have little
          respect for the truth, we should remain confident that they will
          continue to promote this wrong argument for at least another twenty
          years. This is not cynicism, but reality."; thanks for so beautifully
          demonstrating the truth of my statement):

          The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"
          Mammal-Like Reptiles
          http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

          Horse Evolution
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html

          A Critical Look at Creationist Paleontology
          http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tran.htm

          Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record
          http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

          Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

          On Creation Science and "Transitional Fossils"
          http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html

          Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution
          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

          Re: New transitional fossil
          http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199807/0020.html

          Regards,
          Todd Greene
          http://www.creationism.cc/


          --- In Maury_and_Baty, David Willis wrote (post #2980):
          > In a message dated 12/14/03, Todd Greene writes:
          >
          >> Actually, in any discussion I would just dig right into presenting
          >> examples of transitional fossils. Then when the creationists
          started
          >> playing word games I would simply point out that the creationist
          (1)
          >> is purposely ignoring the transitional fossils that do exist
          (which I
          >> would have presented some examples of) if and when he claims
          >> that "there are no transitional fossils." If the creationist
          chooses
          >> to ignore the empirical facts and just play word games, then, of
          >> course, I will point out that the creationist is doing this.
          >
          > So Todd, are you saying that Gould and Eldridge did NOT say that
          there was a
          > lack of transitionals (by SOME definition) when they began to argue
          for PE?
          > Were they as devious as you want to paint non-evolutionist
          creationists for
          > having an issue about how to define a TF?
          >
          > Did not Darwin himself expect there to be many examples of
          transitionals, but
          > saw there were not...and suggested that was due to knowing so
          little about
          > the fossil record? I believe I can cite a quote of his about
          that. So was he
          > also devious?
          >
          > One could take ANY assemblage of phenotypes and arrange them in an
          order that
          > puts those more similar in structure closer to one another. But
          what does
          > that prove about their origin or whether they were intermediary?
          Imagine taking
          > all the types of nuts, bolts, nails, screws, tools, etc. in a
          hardware store
          > and arranging them according to how they look. Or maybe types of
          vehicles.
          > The fact that you can find something "in between" what two others
          look like
          > does NOT prove that one was "transitional" to the others. Indeed
          it could be
          > that both the others were in existence first and THEN a use for
          a "middle point"
          > was found and it was then made. Or they all could have been made
          at once, or
          > in backward "order." There is nothing implied by the fact that
          someone
          > after-the-fact can identify similarities in structure.
          >
          > And besides there SHOULD be correlation in the microscopic details
          (such as
          > the amino acid sequences of proteins) of these supposed near
          relatives and
          > transitionals but there is not.
          >
          > >>I would note that David Willis did not address a single one of
          the
          > examples of transitional fossils mentioned by me in my previous
          post
          > or by others in the online references I provided. >>
          >
          > That's ok. You don't address my arguments either. And I don't
          plan to chase
          > website references at your request. Your posts are bags of gas
          anyway. Last
          > time I did that (regarding the Drake equation) I proved that you
          were blowing
          > hot air about the content of those sites. You refused to reply to
          my
          > arguments about those sites. But instead just declared victory for
          yourself and ran
          > off. Why don't you get busy and do that, Todd?
        • Todd S. Greene
          ... [snip] ... Hi, David. Indeed, what we saw with the references I provided, just as I pointed out, is that you had badly misrespresented both the Drake
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 15, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In Maury_and_Baty, David Willis wrote (post #2980):
            [snip]
            > I don't plan
            > to chase website references at your request. Your posts are bags
            > of gas anyway. Last time I did that (regarding the Drake equation)
            > I proved that you were blowing hot air about the content of those
            > sites. You refused to reply to my arguments about those sites. But
            > instead just declared victory for yourself and ran off. Why don't
            > you get busy and do that, Todd?

            Hi, David.

            Indeed, what we saw with the references I provided, just as I pointed
            out, is that you had badly misrespresented both the Drake Equation
            and the position*s* of evolutionists. You pretended that the Drake
            Equation itself produced a conclusion from information, whereas the
            equation is really just a parameterized equation used to determine
            the result of a series of assumptions (i.e., speculation). You also
            pretended that evolutionists had only one position on the prevalence
            or rarity of extraterrestrial life (and extraterrestrial
            intelligence), whereas in reality there is a whole range of
            positions. Your pretensions are quite wrong, and this is exactly what
            the references proved.

            Beyond that, you were trying to create some kind of argument for
            theism based on sheer speculation. But sheer speculation simply
            doesn't provide a good basis for an argument. Of course, I would
            never expect a young earth creationist like you to understand a
            logical point as subtle as this.

            I have made all of these points at least three or four times (or
            more). What is the magic number of repeating these points to you,
            beyond three or four times, for us to expect you to not misrepresent
            me by lying that I have "refused to reply to [your] arguments"? Five?
            Six? Seven? Twenty-two?

            Of course, with young earth creationists like you promoting false
            arguments for decades after they are known to be wrong, why should we
            ever expect any kind of carefulness and responsibility? Moon dust.
            Shrinking sun. Short-period comets. Earth's magnetic field decay.
            Ocean salinity. Lightspeed decay. Paluxy River human tracks. Et
            cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

            Chuckling,
            Todd Greene
            http://www.creationism.cc/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.