Re: Evidence


"Alexander" <alexanderhudson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dlf1vl$kt3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Skeets" <skillet3232@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1132119149.701574.147820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>A creationist demands evidence for "macro-evolution", as he calls it,<<
>>
>> as compared to you, who doesn't? you make it sound like demanding
>> evidence is a bad thing.
>>
>>>>so one doth provide examples of new species emerging in a lab, but the
>> Creationist says "Ah but a lab is the lab, wild is wild".<<
>>
>> i'm interested. site a specific example where dna was added and a
>> creature changed... not a change based on what was already present,
>> but a change based on *NEW* genetic information.
>>
>> even if you can find a situation analogous to macro-evolution, and i'm
>> not sure you can, you still have the lab issue that it *is* created at
>> the hand of intelligent beings...
>>
>> now, this isn't a subtle issue and i think you understand the
>> complaints against ID creating new species doesn't prove that totally
>> random processes can create new species. you shouldn't even have to
>> try hard.
>>
>>>>So, one provides examples of observed species emerging in the wild, but
>>>>then
>> the creationist says "ah but they are all influenced by the hand of
>> man".<<
>>
>> again, please provide a single, undisputable example where new genetic
>> information was added, in the wild, and it created a new species that
>> was more fit for the environment.
>>
>> just one. it appears you don't like to discuss details, but you have
>> to in order to back up your assertions.
>>
>> just one. this is *easy*, right?
>>
>>>>Then examples of observed wilderness speciation is provided,<<
>>
>> where?
>>
>> in which case a new thread is set up a couple of days later by the
>> creationist re-declaring that this or that is a great unsolved
>> mystery,<<
>>
>> i won't do that, will you when you can't come up with a single
>> analogous example to macro-evolution in the wild?
>>
>>>>Then there's the fossil record. Sometimes people overexplain. Let's get
>> back to basics here. Even a cursory glance at the fossil record, even a
>> very badly preserved section of it, screams transition.<<
>>
>> it sure doesn't to me. rather, it appears to scream DISCRETE. if you
>> disagree, show us all a single, undisputable series of transitional
>> fossils that shows clear and convincing evidence of a smooth
>> transition.
>>
>> the FACTS do seem clear that, in general, simple life forms appeared on
>> earth before more complex life forms, but i've seen nothing in the
>> fossil record that indicates macro-evolutionary processes at work in
>> specific lines throughout history.
>>
>> iow, if macro-evolution was a crime, it would walk free due to lack of
>> evidence.
>>
>>>>The fossil
>> record shows feathered dinosaurs before smaller feathered climbing,
>> half-winged dinosauresque creatures, before what be might birds except
>> for teeth, tail and claws, followed by more modern varieties.<<
>>
>> this is false. the following was penned by an expert and a staunch
>> macro-evolutionist...
>>
>> http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr97/bird.html
>>
>> now, apologize for spreading misinformation. Archaeopteryx may OR MAY
>> NOT BE a transitional animal, we just don't know.
>
> Skeets - haven't we been over the Feduccia claim? I distinctly recall
> John Harshman demonstrating how Feduccia was wrong and that his protoavis
> had been found and that it wasn't what Feduccia believed it would be.
>
>>
>> the LIE is that you claim we know for a fact. THAT IS UNTRUE. there
>> are very strong, empirical arguments to indicate this alledged
>> transitional animal wasn't transitional at all - delivered by expert
>> evolutionists themselves!!!!
>
> Well no - that's not true at all. Just Feduccia - which is, we have seen,
> is an old claim without much supporting it. He doesn't say that
> Archeaopteryx wasn't transitional either - he just says it wasn't _the_
> transitional between theropods and modern avians.
>
> Even if Feduccia were right, would this change your argument Skeets?
> Let's say that the Protoavis of Feduccia's claim was real and _that_ was
> now held as evidence of a transitional to modern avians, would you now be
> claiming that another scientist says differently? Do you understand that
> Feduccia is not arguing against transitionals at all - just that he's
> looking for a different one?
>
>>
>> we'd grow old and die before you'd present *ALL* the facts, right?
>
> Quite possibly as there are a lot of facts to present. It would probably
> take many lifetimes to go through the detail present in all the arguments
> for evolution.
>
>>
>>>>EVEN if there is a god, he is creating things in a transitional
>>>>manner.<<
>>
>> maybe, maybe not. you sure haven't provided any evidence of it. when
>> you make an attempt to support your view, you are easily shown to be
>> 100% wrong about your conclusions.
>
> People have presented the arguments and evidence many times Skeets. You
> have yet to provide anything other than an assertion it's not right.
>
>>
>>>>But when a creationist asks for a transition between this and that, it
>>>>is
>> provided,<<
>>
>> uh, but you didn't provide a transitional fossil that isn't reasonably
>> not a transitional fossil - as explained by an expert and an
>> evolutionist... in case you missed it the first time...
>>
>> here is the logic one more time...
>>
>> http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/spr97/bird.html
>
>
> Have you even read the article? Do you really understand the implications
> of the argument. Even _if_ Feduccia was proved correct do you acknowledge
> that the only change would be the fossil representing the transitional
> form between theropods and contemporary avians. Would you then accept
> that evidence?
>

I should have course emphasised that Feduccia was (still is as far as I can
tell) arguing against the entire concept of descent from Theropods, rather
than looking for an alternative candidate (pardon my layman's knowledge).
If anything this makes Skeets' argument even weaker though as all Feduccia
is doing is looking for an alternative line of descent - not simply trying
to remove Archae from the equation and saying 'Ha ... now explain that
gap!' - which is the ID argument of course.

>>
>>>>in which case the creationist asks what the transitions
>> between the transitions are, and so on indefinitely to the edge of our
>> knowledge in which case he behaves like he's exposed some grand
>> fallacy.<<
>>
>> buring down a strw man isn't particularly hard. now that you've
>> mastered the skill, how about working in reality so someting PRODUCTIVE
>> can be accomplished?
>>
>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial min
    ... What makes you think that evidence for descent through modification is ... Bottom line with the fossil record as a whole is we've got what we got ... Archaeopteryx such a good example of a timely transitional species, ... certain, more trivial aspects relative to the transition itself, are ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hey Skeets! Did you screw up? Heres your chance to tell the good folk of Talk Origins how you di
    ... > for evidence ii have been unable to find in my own interent research. ... transitional fossil. ... are presumed to be whales based on a group of features found only in whales. ... > i then asked for any indication of the transition between the very ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Reflections on the transitional fossil problem
    ... creationist camp is that it is not possible to show that a fossil ... of a major transition (fish to tetrapods, dinosaurs to birds, ... to prove Tiktaalik is transitional between fish and tetrapods in ... and where is the evidence for it? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evidence
    ... > evidence is a bad thing. ... >>>Then there's the fossil record. ... > very badly preserved section of it, screams transition.<< ... Skeets - haven't we been over the Feduccia claim? ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading