Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:22:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
548 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
>
> > > > Ad infinitum? No I won't. The only links I've heard of have been
> > > > faked. The recent reptile/bird fake that made the cover? of
> > > > National Geographic being a great example.
> > >
> > > I have seen no such claims in any scientific source.
> >
> > What do mean? You've never seen National Geographic?
>
> Even if he hasn't, I have, and I ask you what does it prove?
All I said was that it was a good example of how AFAIK
there are no "transitional" fossils that aren't faked, even though
there should theoretically be more transitional than normal.
> Yet again, I remind you that everything is a transitional fossil...
> ...You ask me for a transitional form, and I say that *you* are a
> transitional form between your father and your (hypothetical) son...
Yet again, I remind you that what I'm asking for evidence of is the
theory regarding evolution OF species from one to another - part of
what I've "defined" as Darwinism - NOT evolution WITHIN a species.
> A fabulous refutation has been provided by Arnold Staniczek here:
> http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=9199
> He's done it. Deal with it.
Again - That's not related to what I'm asking/saying.
SRC
|
|
Message has 5 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Umm, Steve? You said:[...]what I'm asking for evidence of is the theory regarding evolution OF species from one to another Arnold said:[...]In fact, the entire fossil record of mammal-like reptils has a DENSE transitional field of species that (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) For anyone to give you that, you also need to "define" what a species is -- specifically, what criteria there are to decide where one species stops and the other starts. So much of your point depends on establishing a discrete categorization (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Actually, while I'm not an expert on the issue, shouldn't there be more normal than transitional? As I understand the 'current' theory of evolution, mutations happen in 'spurts'-- hence there would be much more probability (assuming standard (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) I gave a long list of fossils directly related to human evolution. No response from you. Please present your evidence that any or all are fake. Cite scientific sources, please. This is the third time I've asked. (...) There is ONLY evolution (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Morganucodon is no faked fossil. Yet it shows a perfect transitional stage of arrangement of mandibular bones and ossicles between the condition in modern mammals and reptils. The same transition occurs during the embryonic development of (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Even if he hasn't, I have, and I ask you what does it prove? Bruce, DaveL, and I (among many others) have stated for months that one of the primary strengths of science is its ability to modify itself to provide an increasingly complete (...) (23 years ago, 1-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 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
|
|
|
|
