nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Talk:Transitional form (view source)
Revision as of 01:47, February 4, 2008
, 01:47, February 4, 2008→Recent quote: Reply to Barikada
::::::::: The Wikipedia quote is nothing more than post-hoc explanation for the lack of the evidence that evolutionists should expect, as I pointed out from Gould. Furthermore, it is trying to have a bob each way, in both claiming that the fossil record does ("Although transitional fossil elucidate...") and will ("progressing research and discover are managing to fill in gaps.") show evolution whilst also explaining why it doesn't.
::::::::: The Wikipedia quote is nothing more than post-hoc explanation for the lack of the evidence that evolutionists should expect, as I pointed out from Gould. Furthermore, it is trying to have a bob each way, in both claiming that the fossil record does ("Although transitional fossil elucidate...") and will ("progressing research and discover are managing to fill in gaps.") show evolution whilst also explaining why it doesn't.
::::::::: And how is it unbalanced to only say that there are no transitional fossils ''if that is so''? You are claiming that it is unbalanced because it doesn't acknowledge your views. But if your views are wrong, then it's not unbalanced to not acknowledge them. The article already has a reference to the link you provide, but the link fails to make its case. To take the first example I looked at, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#eleph elephants], it starts off with "''Minchenella'' or a similar condylarth (late Paleocene) -- Known only from lower jaws. Has a distinctive broadened shelf on the third molar. The most plausible ancestor of the embrithopods & anthracobunids." This is nothing more than evolutionary story-telling. There's not enough of the fossil to really tell, and the best she can say is that it's "the most plausible ancestor". So apart from it not being hard evidence contradicting Gould and Patterson, it's circular reasoning because it's starting with the assumption that there must be something that evolved into an elephant and that this is the most likely candidate. Not all her arguments are exactly like that of course, but from what I've seen there is nothing of real substance there. The existence of an article full of bluff and fluff trying to make the case does not mean that the case is actually made and that the paleontologists quoted in the article had no clue what they were talking about.
::::::::: And how is it unbalanced to only say that there are no transitional fossils ''if that is so''? You are claiming that it is unbalanced because it doesn't acknowledge your views. But if your views are wrong, then it's not unbalanced to not acknowledge them. The article already has a reference to the link you provide, but the link fails to make its case. To take the first example I looked at, [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#eleph elephants], it starts off with "''Minchenella'' or a similar condylarth (late Paleocene) -- Known only from lower jaws. Has a distinctive broadened shelf on the third molar. The most plausible ancestor of the embrithopods & anthracobunids." This is nothing more than evolutionary story-telling. There's not enough of the fossil to really tell, and the best she can say is that it's "the most plausible ancestor". So apart from it not being hard evidence contradicting Gould and Patterson, it's circular reasoning because it's starting with the assumption that there must be something that evolved into an elephant and that this is the most likely candidate. Not all her arguments are exactly like that of course, but from what I've seen there is nothing of real substance there. The existence of an article full of bluff and fluff trying to make the case does not mean that the case is actually made and that the paleontologists quoted in the article had no clue what they were talking about.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::: ""''Remember, these take a while to form.''": Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?" That's what my "uh, what?" was directed to. I have no freaking clue what you were attempting to say there.
:::::::::: ""''Remember, these take a while to form.''": Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?" That's what my "uh, what?" was directed to. I have no freaking clue what you were attempting to say there.
::::::::: "first, it's evolutionist Gould that you are calling "nutty"," Oh no, I will now withdraw my opinion upon finding out that I dared to call an "evolutionist" nutty.
:::::::::: "first, it's evolutionist Gould that you are calling "nutty"," Oh no, I will now withdraw my opinion upon finding out that I dared to call an "evolutionist" nutty.
::::::::: It does; You simply choose to ignore every transitional form, prefering instead to cry and weep that we haven't found every fossil yet.
:::::::::: It does; You simply choose to ignore every transitional form, prefering instead to cry and weep that we haven't found every fossil yet.
::::::::: It wouldn't be, if that was true. That's not circular, it's a correctly terminating idea. "If it evolved, and this fossil looks like it's reasonably simliar, this creature probably evolved from that."
:::::::::: It wouldn't be, if that was true. That's not circular, it's a correctly terminating idea. "If it evolved, and this fossil looks like it's reasonably simliar, this creature probably evolved from that."
::::::::: As a sidenote, I love how you write off every attempt to connect things as "storytelling" and seem to be scared by the idea that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:22, 3 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: As a sidenote, I love how you write off every attempt to connect things as "storytelling" and seem to be scared by the idea that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 19:22, 3 February 2008 (EST)
(unindent)"''That's what my "uh, what?" was directed to.''": That's better; explaining what it is that you don't understand.
You indicated that a creature would be intermediate if it was found ''in the same layer'' (which is the only reasonable conclusion to draw from "if a creature with features ABC and a creature with features ADE are found, and a creature with features ACD is found between them (vertically or '''horizontally''')" (my emphasis)), so I questioned how this would make it intermediate ("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?"). You replied with "Not nessecarily same time, but a similar time. Remember, these take a while to form. Sufficient for small changes.". I assumed that "these" refers to the rock layers. The reasonable conclusion to draw from this was that a given rock layer—containing creatures at two different stages of evolutionary development in the same line—took so long to form that the creature had enough time to evolve into something different (ABC to ACD, for example). So I replied, "Yeah? a given layer takes, what?, a few million years to form whilst slowly burying a specimen and it's evolved descendant?", to which you replied "Uh, what?". Do you understand now?
"''Oh no, I will now withdraw my opinion upon finding out that I dared to call an "evolutionist" nutty.''": How about just withdrawing that comment from the discussion that you are having ''with me''? In the context of this discussion, it reads as though I'm nutty or creationists are nutty or the article is nutty. I guess that you can think that Gould was nutty if you like, but keep in mind that you are calling "nutty" something said by a widely-respected scientist about his own field of study. I'm not saying that you have to agree with him (I don't on quite a few issues), but calling someone's idea "nutty" is hardly an argument.
"''It does; ''": What does? Could you please include mentions in your replies as to which points you are replying to? Much of the time I can figure it out, but I shouldn't have to solve a puzzle to do this, and sometimes it is very unclear.
"''You simply choose to ignore every transitional form, prefering instead to cry and weep that we haven't found every fossil yet.''": What transitional forms? Your criticism of me presumes that they exist, a presumption that I've rejected. I don't ignore ''claims'' of transitional forms; I ''reject'' such claims as unsubstantiated. You, in return, use emotive language about my motives rather than actually address the points and provide evidence.
"''That's not circular, it's a correctly terminating idea. "If it evolved, and this fossil looks like it's reasonably simliar, this creature probably evolved from that." ''": No, that's not circular reasoning. But it's circular reasoning to take it to the next step: "And this therefore shows that there ''are'' transitional fossils (and therefore that evolution is true)", which is (a) the point of the list of transitional forms, and (b) your point in citing it.
"''I love how you write off every attempt to connect things as "storytelling"''": I call it like it is! If I pick up a bunch of sticks and arrange them in order according to (say) size, then try and tell a story that one evolved into the other, all I'm doing is storytelling. And that's what evolutionary "connecting things" is; it's telling a story about how things supposedly came about; events that have not actually been observed happening.
"''...seem to be scared by the idea that the evolutionary paths of each creature are not fully understood yet.''": How can I be scared of something that I don't believe happened?
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 3 February 2008 (EST)
== Picture ==
== Picture ==