nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 183:
Line 183: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Article plan: Reply to Merriweather's post.
::5. I note the suggestion above in relation to a picture. Would you be amenable to that? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 15:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::5. I note the suggestion above in relation to a picture. Would you be amenable to that? --[[User:Merriweather|Merriweather]] 15:55, 3 March 2008 (EST)
::: "''...your quotes give a false impression.''": How so?
::: "''Gould never suggested that transitional forms didn’t exist...''": His words were "extreme rarity", not "non-existence", so I'd go along with that. But then that's what the quote says, so I don't see the problem.
::: "''In the first quote he was making a point in support of his punctuated equilibrium theory (see Creationwiki’s entry on transitional forms).''": Yes, because PE supposedly explains ''the lack of transitional forms''.
::: "''[Raup] never rejected transitional forms.''": I didn't say that he did. Evolutionists believe that they ''must'' exist, and even people like Gould and Raup likely believe(d) that ''some'' exist. But the general impression given the public is that there are lots of them, whereas experts such as Gould et. al. admit that the supposed abundance of transitional forms is a myth. Patterson probably put it best: he said that there are none "for which one could make a watertight argument". Not that there are absolutely none at all, but that there may be some, but not that one could be certain about. That is, despite there being no conclusive evidence of transitional fossils, they cling to thoughts that do exist.
::: "''Aren’t you trying to show that there were/are no transitional forms?''": I'm trying to show that there is no convincing evidence of transitional forms, and therefore no reason to believe that they exist. This is different to proving that they don't exist (which is impossible anyway). The point is that if even ''those that believe that they should exist'' (Gould, Patterson, Raup, Darwin) admit that the evidence is severely lacking (Gould, Patterson, Raup) or not conclusive (Patterson) and that it is less than predicted by the theory (Raup cf. Darwin), then the ''reasonable'' conclusion is that the creationary explanation (which predicts their non-existence) is the better explanation than the evolutionary one which predicts that they should exist in great numbers (Darwin). Gould's PE theory is a variation on the evolutionary explanation that tries to explain why the evidence expected by evolution is lacking, and is therefore really based on a lack of evidence than on evidence.
::: To clarify a point, though, that may be causing confusion, the creation view predicts that there will be no transitional forms between the [[baraminology|created kinds]], not that there won't be transitional forms ''within'' created kinds. For example, there won't be transitional forms between amphibians and birds, but there would be between sheep and goats (or the common ancestor of sheep and goats), because sheep and goats are of the same created kind.
::: "''It seems to me, however, that the introduction must acknowledge that the predominant view amongst evolutionary scientists is that transitional forms do exist.''": I'm happy for the article to say that that's what they ''believe'', but it should also point out that ''evidence'' for that belief is severely lacking.
::: "''Of course the claims have validity.''": Of course?
::: "''...the bulk of the relevant scientific community do accept them.''": That might depend on what you mean by "relevant".
::: "''...surely we must rely on the experts.''": Perhaps that's why we have quotes from experts?
::: "''Your use of the term “storytelling” is quaint. I do not see it as being in any way helpful. I imagine that you didn’t even realise the irony attaching to a creationist talking about evolutionary theory as storytelling.''": Quaint? Not helpful? On the contrary, I think it's a pretty accurate, and therefore helpful, description. Irony? Ironic that a creationist who bases his views on observation (by the author of the Bible) and evidence (fossils, etc.) calls a view that is not based on observation "storytelling"? How is that "ironic"?
::: "''I see that many are full of one-sided rhetoric and devoid of serious scientific information.''": The site is still young, which is an excuse that Wikipedia doesn't have, despite it having the same problem.
::: "''I am certainly happy to attempt to be as even handed and as fair as possible.''": I don't know how "possible" it is for you to be even handed and fair, but I welcome the desire.
::: Regarding the picture, I don't know if that one is available (or copyrighted), but I've no objection as long as it's not presented as being correct.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 March 2008 (EST)