nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 34:
Line 34: + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Transitional form (view source)
Revision as of 02:13, January 29, 2008
, 02:13, January 29, 2008→Recent quote: Why would there be some now?
*The Of Pandas and People issue is virtually meaningless. That one book does not define the entirety of ID. There are plenty of ID proponents who are not religious at all. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)
*The Of Pandas and People issue is virtually meaningless. That one book does not define the entirety of ID. There are plenty of ID proponents who are not religious at all. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 19:46, 28 January 2008 (EST)
:Yes, one book does not define it, particularly given that the book concerned came out pretty early in the ID movement, and was co-authored (from memory) by one of the ID people who ''is'' a creationist.
: As for the chances of things changing in the last decade, I wouldn't pin too much hope on that. In 1859 Darwin wrote,
{{QuoteBox|Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection fo the geological record.}}
: But 120 years later, David Raup wrote,
{{QuoteBox|Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information...}}
: Then we have the other quotes (such as in the article) from around the same time from various scientists, supporting the severe lack of transitional forms. So why would it suddenly reverse direction and there start to be a swag of transitional forms?
: What's "convenient" about it not being a conspiracy? Your language betrays your bias. But your analogy with magic is not bad, actually. Scientists sometimes speak out against astrology, fortune telling, communicating with the dead, etc. But nobody ever claims "conspiracy" with these; it's just that most scientists are of one mind on those issues, so they all tend to reinforce each other on them. The same with creation. I don't agree, of course, that creation is in the same basket as astrology etc, but in the minds of the scientists opposing creation, that's pretty much what they think. So no reason to suppose a conspiracy. Yet anti-creationists keep accusing creationists of claiming that, ''even though creationists don't claim that'', in order to denigrate them, and when creationists call them on it, rather than admit their error, they try and divert attention or excuse themselves with comments such as "how convenient".
: I've seen lists of transitional fossils. But with none of the examples provided can, in the word of Colin Patterson (in the article), with none can one make a watertight argument. Just because they are ''claimed'' to be transitional does not make them so, and none really stand scrutiny.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:13, 28 January 2008 (EST)