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

Re: [Maury_and_Baty] Re: Transitionals?

Expand Messages
  • rlbaty@webtv.net
    ... I figured that, should a debate actually be attempted, the problem would involve such semantical problems with the defining of the terms used in the
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 13, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Todd's proposition was:

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

      To which David Willis opines:

      > This depends on how one defines a TF.

      I figured that, should a debate actually be attempted, the problem would
      involve such semantical problems with the defining of the terms used in
      the proposition.

      I get the impression that those who deny the existence of "transitional
      fossils" simply define the term in such a way that whatever someone else
      might identify as a "transitional fossil" isn't going to meet their
      definition.

      Hence, by definition, there are no transitional fossils.

      Similarly, by definition, they do exist.

      Perhaps Todd has away around the semantics problem, and it might make
      for a good discussion.

      Sincerely,
      Robert Baty
    • greeneto
      ... Hi, guys. Actually, in any discussion I would just dig right into presenting examples of transitional fossils. Then when the creationists started playing
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 14, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #2971):
        >
        > Todd's proposition was:
        >
        >> There are many transitional fossils
        >> in the fossil record.
        >
        > To which David Willis opines:
        >
        >> This depends on how one defines a TF.
        >
        > I figured that, should a debate actually be attempted, the problem
        > would involve such semantical problems with the defining of the
        > terms used in the proposition.
        >
        > I get the impression that those who deny the existence of
        > "transitional fossils" simply define the term in such a way that
        > whatever someone else might identify as a "transitional fossil"
        > isn't going to meet their definition.
        >
        > Hence, by definition, there are no transitional fossils.
        >
        > Similarly, by definition, they do exist.
        >
        > Perhaps Todd has away around the semantics problem, and it might
        > make for a good discussion.

        Hi, guys.

        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.

        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.

        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. And, again, AiG
        advises fellow creationists to not use this argument.

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