nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Talk:Transitional form (view source)
Revision as of 09:49, January 31, 2008
, 09:49, January 31, 2008→Recent quote: Intermediates, smooth sequences, years, and balance.
::::FINAL POINT: If we can't get a quote from this century, can we at least have some sort of counterbalance quote? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::::FINAL POINT: If we can't get a quote from this century, can we at least have some sort of counterbalance quote? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 22:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)
::::: If a creature with features ACD is found ''horizontally'' between creatures with features ABC and ADE, surely, according to evolutionary thinking, they lived at the same time? And therefore would not be intermediate?
::::: If a creature with features ACD is found ''vertically'' between creatures with features ABC and ADE, then (a) it still doesn't prove that it is transitional, and (b) it assumes the evolutionary view, as the creationary view would (depending on the layers concerned) probably be that all three were buried within the same year (of the Flood). And what's so unscientific about "kinds"? Answer please, and not one that's self-serving.
::::: "''You're claiming it's not a conspiracy, were you to claim there's a conspiracy, you'd be A: Wrong and B: Nutty.''": Yes, but your comment was not about whether or not I was ''claiming'' it, but whether or not it ''was a conspiracy'' ("...because if it's not a conspiracy...").
::::: "''Indeed, it would be a tricky business to find the entire series...''": Would it really? Given the number of fossils that have been found, I'd say that you should have found at least a few fairly-complete series. Gould thought so too, which is why he came up with Punctuated Equilibrium—to argue that you don't find the smooth series because evolution happened suddenly in short bursts. The point is, he came up with this because the ''expected smooth series'' was not found. So your argument that it would be tricky is really just a ''post-hoc'' argument to explain the uncomfortable facts. Secondly, it being difficult to find the required evidence is no excuse for claiming something for which the evidence has not been found.
::::: "''...the fact that previous ideas of evolutionary chains are constantly discarded, nearly every time a new fossil is unearthed''": Which to me says that the whole idea is so tenuous it has no right claiming that the alternative view (creation) has been disproved by the evidence.
::::: If the 21st century started at the beginning of 2000, then the first century must have started at the beginning of the year nought, but we number the years from ''one'', not ''nought''. So the first year ''ended'' at the end of year 1, the second year at the end of year 2, the tenth year at the end of the year 10, the hundredth year—the 1st century—at the ''end'' of the year 100, the first millennium at the ''end'' of the year 1000, and the second millennium (and the 20th century) at the ''end'' of the year 2000.
::::: What's unbalanced about the article as it stands?
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)
== Picture ==
== Picture ==