Re: "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities

On 4 Nov 2005 23:06:07 -0800, "Skeets" <skillet3232@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>Of course since the real issue ultimately comes down to what evidence
>you have and not whose touting it,<<
>
>EXACLTY! prove to us all, once and for all, there exists a single,
>uncontestable series of multiple transitions from point A to point B on
>the volutionary scale.

What makes you think that evidence for descent through modification is
limited to the fossil record alone? Not that it doesn't greatly
contributes to our understanding of it, which it does in many ways
mind you, but what it also may or may not reveal in regards to any
specific series of multiple transitions is hardly less than what would
be expected given the rarity of fossilization as a whole.

Bottom line with the fossil record as a whole is we've got what we got
and it is more than enough to paint the same picture as the other
lines of evidence. You can't wish evidence into existence, but the
evidence that we do have both fits and is revealing in itself.

>Archaeopteryx is out because that is easily contestable - whithin the
>pro-evolutionary community, no less...

Out in what sense? That it doesn't show features that you would
expect to see in a transitional species?

>http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr97/bird.html

So, what's your point. There is always some room for interpretation.
I don't see anything here that removes any of the features that makes
Archaeopteryx such a good example of a timely transitional species,
one with features that you would fully expect to see as a result of
descent through modification.

Are you hung up about the 'reptile' vs 'dinosaur' origin of birds that
the article reflects? If so, get over it! Dinosaurs were a form of
reptiles. The most significant aspect about Archaeopteryx is how it
showed features that were both reptilian as well as avian, just as
what would be expected regardless of the specific type of species that
birds ultimately came from.

It isn't a bit surprising that the more we find out about a given line
of transition, the more precise a picture that can be drawn and
certain, more trivial aspects relative to the transition itself, are
bound to change. You simply refuse to see the forest through all the
trees.

>i don't want any sloppy science crap like those who tout Archaeopteryx
>as being shown to be transitional... that's hope, not science...

You clearly don't know what 'transitional' means here in regards to
the fossil record. It is clearly representative, as all fossils are
in their own way, of the general level of 'progress' between one form
and another, which in this case concerns reptiles to bird transition
even if Archaeopteryx itself might have ultimately led to a dead end.

Are you also proposing that this very fossil was actually the last of
its species with no progeny of its own? Whether this specific entity
was on its way to somewhere or nowhere, it still reflected a level of
progress that would also be present in any other related species that
existed as well but never underwent fossilization. Again, you've got
to take what you can get and then reasonably extrapolate from there.

>why does the evolutionary community have to rely on such bad examples
>to try to show a transition?

Exactly how is it a bad example? Your argument is not much better
than the creationist who insists that every fossil found must be
proven to have been a breeding individual in which there was in fact a
direct lineage to any other subsequent transition. Needless to say,
this is a rather simplistic approach that borders on being a straw
man.

>is it because there are no good ones?

And Copernicus was wrong when he stated that the earth's orbit was
round. Go figure! (Better observations which improve upon earlier
ones are not good reasons to throw everything out)

>if there are no good ones...
>
>naw, you guys aren't ready for logical deduction... -lol-

And exactly how many lines of evidence must you also ignore to come to
this particular conclusion?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Evidence
    ... evidence is a bad thing. ... >>so one doth provide examples of new species emerging in a lab, ... >>Then there's the fossil record. ... very badly preserved section of it, screams transition.<< ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The dont even bother to try to provide a mechanism or technicalexplaination of any sort for this
    ... >>>theory, for example, predicts that over time, the types of species ... Since different fossil strata are laid ... >>>consistent with the evidence that does exist. ... which would be impossible if evolution were a fact? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Transitional Fossils," "Micro- vs. Macroevolution."
    ... According to the theory of Evolution, ... single fossil we find; and for that matter, ... animal that has ever existed would be a transition between something ... fact that the geologic column as evidence is empirical in nature. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does similarity indicate descent to have occurred?
    ... a good case based, upon the evidence, he would not likely to go foward ... Just take the current intelligent design scam. ... I realize there is change in the fossil record from the pre-cambrian ... some 96+ %  of all the species that ever existed have become extinct. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Michael Ruses Model
    ... That's the problem with transitional fossils. ... But they're still evidence of evolution. ... Of course they're three separate species. ... Nobody is claiming that we have a complete record of any transition. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading