Subject:
|
Re: A whole new debate.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:15:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
244 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
> >
> > Oops. :-)
Since you conveniently cut the first half, let me point that you are clearly
not disputing that you are in fact ignorant of what constitutes science, and
what constitutes a scientist (there's nothing wrong with being ignorant, but
I have a problem when you pretend otherwise). If you wish to dispute this,
go back and answer the rest of this. Just establishing that you have dodged
these points consistently.
> >
> > >
> > > Assume that this message is the first ever posted in this newsgroup.
> > > -----BEGIN NEW MESSAGE BELOW THIS LINE-----
> > >
> > > If you do not believe in Creationism (http://www.m-w.com lookup
> > > "creationism"), please anser the following question.
> > >
> > > Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if
> > > your theory is right?
> >
> > 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".
No, it's (they) that misunderstand what is transitional. That was my point.
I knew what they thought they were saying. I'll address that.
>
> 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),
To figure relationships, refer to the taxonomic scale: Kingdom, Phylum,
Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. Just to complicate things, there are
sub- and super- appended. Phylum chordata (bilateral symmetry, notochords)
has the rather important sub-phylum Vertabrata (where the notochord becomes
a more complex spinal column). For man, taking up from Vertabrata: Class -
Mammalia; Order - Primates; Family - Hominidae; Genus - Homo; Species -
Sapiens. I skipped a few of the intermidiary levels (placental mammals
rather than marsupial, but I don't remember the exact name).
Man used to be considered the only Hominid, but due to genetic reasearch,
Gorillas, Chimps, and Orangutans share the same family name. Man (Homo) only
has the one species. Other species are gone for one of two reasons: they
were a dead end, or they evolved into modern humans. Thus you may see Homo
Neanderthalensis listed, or perhaps Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. The
first indicates that Neanderthals are a seperate species, the second
indicates if a Neanderthal was walking down the street and of the
appropriate sex, you could mate with it and produce viable offspring
(offspring that can have offspring). Last I saw genetic research indicated
that Neanderthals were a dead end - they are related further back in time to
modern humans, but do not continue forward. Proceeding back in time, Homo
Heidelbergensis (or Homo Sapiens Archaic), which is one of those smooth
transition pieces you refered to; Homo Erectus, possibly the first fire
user; Homo Habilus, first to use stone tools. We then switch to Genus
Parathropus, which was formerly part of the next Genus, Australopithecus.
Several species of each (Africanus and Afarensis probably the best known).
From there we go up the scale to the Hominid superfamily. There are several
there, but the only one I remember is Proconsul. So there's the links
between us and the other Hominids, the great apes, which in turn derived
from other placental mammals, which evolved from other vertebrates, which
evolved from creatures with notochords, etc.
Things may get refined as we acquire more information.
and then
> show me an example of any credible fossil record that shows a cross
> between the two animals.
Thar ya go!
>
> > > 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. Dinosaur and other
> fossils could not have formed in the way suggested by most Evolutionary
> books.
Denial, but without evidence.
Animals almost never fossilize unless they are buried quickly and
> deeply - before scavengers, bacteria and erosion reduce them to dust.
> Such conditions are highly unusual. In almost all cases, the very
> existence of the fossils, in the types and numbers discovered, strongly
> indicates catastrophic conditions were involved in their burial and
> preservation.
This last is incorrect.
> Without such conditions, there seems to be no plausible
> way to explain their existence. Huge dinosaurs, huge schools of fish,
> and many diverse animals are found entombed by massive muddy sediments
> which hardened into rock. Almost all fossils are found in water-laid
> sediments."
> (from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html)
A religious source then, not a scientific one. You seem to think that
religion = science. Find a scientific source and get back to me.
>
> > Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all
> > > living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
> > > (from http://www.creationscience.com/quest.shtml)
> >
> > We are getting a pretty good one for man, but there are others, just not as
> > widely publicized. Further, the road isn't always smooth (just ask
> > Neanderthals). :-)
>
> "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.
See above: Thar ya go.
>
> ...There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution despite an
> enormous number of fossils. 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."
> (from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html)
If one sticks one's head in the sand. .
>
> > 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. 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."
> (from http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html)
Again, a non-scientific source. A rather biased one, at that.
>
>
> > I can refer you to evolution websites - it's hard to debate a static site
> > either way.
>
> I probably shouldn't have included that in this message - I meant it as
> an aside.
>
> finally (for the "credablilty" issue):
>
> "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)"
One out of how many? And it's just a blanket statement, unsupported.
Bruce
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
