Re: Transition


"Richard Forrest" <richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1125860738.556922.215170@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Glenn wrote:
> >
http://www.plesiosaur.com/creationism/overcome_problems/evolution-disproved-002.htm
> >
> > "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic
evolution
> > accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, Dr. Steven M.
Stanley
> >
> > Richard claims "Once again, it is part of a larger discussion presented out of
> > context" and cites the full quote:
> >
> > "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic
evolution
> > accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that
the
> > gradualistic model can be valid."
> >
> > He cites http://www.skepticfiles.org/misctext/stanley.htm
> > which includes the argument:
> > "The passage is merely stating what palaeontologists *HAVE KNOWN
> > FOR DECADES*, that a purely gradualistic approach the evolution is invalid."
> >
> > Well, "purely" or not, Stanley reported "The known fossil record fails to
document
> > a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic
> > transition" *and* "and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model
can be
> > valid." Read that last part again. Stanley claims that there is *no* evidence
for
> > the gradualistic model, not that evolution is not "purely" gradualistic.
> >
> > It seems more reasonable to characterize, or emphasize what "paleontologists
have
> > known for years", as "The known fossil record fails to document a single
example
> > of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition" rather
than
> > "that a purely gradualistic approach the evolution is invalid."
> >
> > Who is misrepresenting who here?
>
> Incidentally, as this is the only item on the site you have found which
> you feel you can criticise (albeit in a very unconvicing way), I
> presume that you concur that the site I have analysed contains

After a while, loons get only one chance to discuss rationally, and when they blow
it, they suffer. This does appear to be typical of your reasoning, Richard. The
problem, although you probably won't be able to see it, is that your premise is
rather shaky to say the least, and your conclusion is even shakier. I was actually
searching for articles about this particular quote, and your website page popped
up. I didn't even bother to look at your other blabbering. Don't let your nose hit
you on the way out.

snip







.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Transition
    ... >> "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic ... >> accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Transition
    ... >> "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic ... >> accomplishing a major morphologic transition" Evolutionist, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Transition
    ... > "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution ... > accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Transition
    ... "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution ... accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Transition
    ... > "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution ... > accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading