Re: Editorial in LA Times
- From: "DJT" <mousedecat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 23 Apr 2006 16:17:19 -0700
Ray Martinez wrote:
snip
Speaking of transitionals, Ray, that brings up an interesting
question... one you've fled several times. But I am a confirmed
optimist, and I hope maybe you will answer it this time:
What would you expect to see in a transitional fossil, Ray?
--
How would I know since no one has ever seen one ?
Ray, certianly this is not beyond your imagination. I've never seen a
"creation scientist" but I can imagine what one would look like. But
as for your assertion that "no one has ever seen one", you are
mistaken. Transitional forms are fairly common in the fossil record.
But let's imagine what one might look like:
Suppose there were a transitional between birds and dinosaurs. I
would expect the creature to have dinosaur features, and bird features
combined. Looking at the fossil record, we immediately find
Archaeopteryx lithographia. If you expect a transitional between
land animals and whales, I'd expect to find a creature with both
aquatic, and terrestrial features. A quick look at the fossil record
gives us Ambulocetus natans. Suppose you want to find a intermediate
fossil between humans and other apes. I'd expect to find a creature
with human features, such as an upright stance, human sized arm and
legs, but a smaller brain size, larger teeth, and prominent brow
ridges. A quick look at the fossil record and we find... Surprise
.....our old friend KNM WT 15000, the very fossil you refuse to talk
about. This fossil is categorized as Homo erectus (some scientists
consider it to be H. rudolphensis). So, you see that people have seen
transitional fossils, even if you refuse to look at the evidence.
Richard:
Tell me what you think of Jim Foley's method of determining
transitional ?
Jim Foley seems to think there are transitional fossils. What do you
feel is wrong with his method?
DJT
.
- References:
- Editorial in LA Times
- From: David Fritzinger
- Re: Editorial in LA Times
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Editorial in LA Times
- From: Richard Clayton
- Re: Editorial in LA Times
- From: Ray Martinez
- Editorial in LA Times
- Prev by Date: Re: Developing a focused set of questions for IDists - Comments encouraged
- Next by Date: Re: Chez Watt Re: '...only (recent) evolutionary change in man'
- Previous by thread: Re: Editorial in LA Times
- Next by thread: Re: Editorial in LA Times
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|