Subject:
|
Re: A whole new debate.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Jan 2001 22:19:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
188 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> > All over the place. *Everything* is a transitional fossil (well, sharks are
> > pretty darn stable, but even they change).
>
> Although indirectly it seems that you are agin debating terminology and
> avoiding the real question (unless you misunderstood what I (they) meant
> by "transitional".
>
> Why are there no fossils that demonstrate transitions between any modern
> life-forms. Let's use an actual example. What animal does evolution
> say comes before a parrot (I don't know right off hand, so pick another
> animal if you like - a dog and whatever comes before it say), and then
> show me an example of any credible fossil record that shows a cross
> between the two animals.
What sort of "cross" are you looking for? Do you require a fish with legs
or an ape with gills? As Bruce points out correctly, *everything* is a
transitional stage. I myself am a transitional point between my father and
my son. The fact that we don't have grandpa-pa-son-grandson all the way
back to the first RNA strand isn't significant. You're equating the absence
of evidence with evidence of absence, which is faulty. If there were no
Bible, would the lack of such a book invalidate Creationism for you? I hope
not, because then you'd be saying that the thing only happened because a
book told you it happened.
Proponents of evolution admit, obviously, to the necessity of inference in
analyzing the fossil record. Of course it isn't complete, just as your new
reference indicates, otherwise we'd be buried up to the sky in fossil
remains. The fact that they happen at all, given the rarity of
circumstances required, is only indicative of the abundance of life at the
time the organisms died.
> > > Billions! Not a handful of questionable
> > > transitions.
> >
> > Tell us how fossilization takes place and thus how likely that everything is
> > fossilized. Then you still have to deal with the ones that exist.
>
> "Fossilization requires very special conditions.
Tim, you understand, don't you, that by including this quote you're
actually supporting Bruce's view? The rest of the quote addresses
"catastrophic conditions" which are certainly accepted by evolutionary
theory; the comet theory for the extinction of dinosaurs is well known, as
are the theories of rapid climatic change or bacterial pandemics. It seems
clear that your citation is taken to imply the Noachian Flood, but that is
hardly the only, or even the most likely, conclusion.
Paleontolgists have known for decades that specific conditions are
necessary for the formation of fossils; that's why they're so rare,
comparatively speaking.
> "Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of
> animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to
> creatures living today. It is said there are many more living species of
> animals than there are types known only as fossils. If Evolution is
> true, one may wonder why the case is not just the reverse! Evolutionary
> history is supposed to be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of
> Evolution, from amoeba to man.
Certainly not in that order, and once again you're supporting Bruce's view
with this quote. Evolutionary history has always been filled, as it is
filled now, with temporary, intermediate stages of life. You're assuming,
as your reference is assuming, that we have some way to judge any organism
as the "final" stage of that organism. Even animals supremely adapted for
their niches, like rats, roaches, and the famed coelocanth, aren't the end
of evolution; they just represent stages that have survived longer due to an
ability to fit into their environments over a much longer stretch of time.
> > And you are going to explain the fossilization process, correct? And the
> > unlimited power to sift through all the strata to find these? All fossils
> > at once? On demand?
>
> "Sufficient fossils. There is a continuing lack of evidence for
> Evolution despite an enormous number of fossils.
Now wait a minute. First you claim that the process by which fossils form
is much more rare than scientists think, and now you're saying that there's
an enormous number of these rare fossils? The implication, of course, is
that the enormous number of actual fossils must have arisen from a vastly
larger number of potential fossils (ie, carcasses), thereby refuting your
own previous point.
> Although scientists will continue to discover new varieties of fossil animals
> and plants, it is generally agreed that the millions of fossils already
> discovered (and the sediments already explored) provide a reliable indication
> of which way the evidence is going. That is, there will continue to be little
> or no fossil evidence found to support Evolutionism."
"Evolutionism," by which you can only mean the pursuit and support of
evolutionary theory, is certainly not a finished body of information, and
therefore perhaps fossils will indeed alter the theory as you say. That is
what science does. However, the process of evolution, which is not dependent
upon evolutionary theory, took place whether or not we are able to draw a
direct grandpa-pa-son-grandson line for your satisfaction.
> "Fossils are a great embarrassment to Evolutionary theory and offer
> strong support for the concept of Creation." (Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D.,
> Biologist/paleontologist and former Evolutionist)"
At last you've cited someone who actually seems able to claim himself as a
scientist. Have you abandoned Dr. Dino now that you realize he doesn't have
a legitimate scientific leg to stand on?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A whole new debate.
|
| (...) Essentailly, yes. Show me how a dog reproduces where its offspring contains NEW material (for example, has grown an entirely new organ) and is able to undeniably pass that organ on to all succeeding offspring. "Please understand, when I talk (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A whole new debate.
|
| (...) Although indirectly it seems that you are agin debating terminology and avoiding the real question (unless you misunderstood what I (they) meant by "transitional". Why are there no fossils that demonstrate transitions between any modern (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
