Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:05:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
336 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> 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.
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 distribution) of 'regular' fossils vs. 'transition' fossils.
> 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.
Dave's right, still. Everything IS a transition fossil. When and where we
distinguish one species from another is totally a matter of preferance as
dictated by terminology. Humans are the ones to call a wolf something
different from a jackal. Just because we call one animal one thing doesn't
make it a different 'species'. And as for species, Dave's question is how
close does it need to be to existing specimens to make us think that it's a
'transition' species? You see an allosaur, you see an archaeoptryx, you see
a falcon. Presto, it's a transition fossil (to use a bad and probably wrong
example) Not good enough? Why? How close do they have to be before you'd
accept it? And granted you can say that it's not close enough to convince
you, but you can't say there AREN'T transition fossils-- you can just say
you don't *think* they ARE transition fossils, and that you would only think
they were if they were 'closer' to the 'mainstreams' of the 'species'.
And something else here-- there really are very very very very few fossils
that we've found compared with the number of living beings on Earth in the
last billion years or so. I'd consider us EXTREMELY lucky to get one sample
of every species, let alone any of the so-deemed 'transition' fossils.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| I promised I wouldn't re-enter this debate but... (...) I find it interesting that you do in fact find it extremely lucky. I also find it EXTREMELY convenient that vast majority of these (supposedly) few fossils just happen to be of non-extinct (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) 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 what I'm asking for (...) (23 years ago, 5-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
|
|
|
|
