Difference between revisions of "Talk:Transitional form"

Revision as of 00:49, January 30, 2008

Recent quote

Oooh, can we get a quote from a scientist from some point within the last ten years? Barikada 14:50, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Why? That would seem to be a rather abitrary cut-off point. Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Cutoff point would mean eliminating everything from before then, not simply adding something made since then... Barikada 20:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Not it wouldn't. Philip J. Rayment 00:47, 24 January 2008 (EST)

What? Yes it would. That's the definition of a cutoff point. You ignore everything past the cutoff point. I'm not suggesting we ignore everything before ten years ago, I'm just asking for a recent source so this article seems current. Barikada 01:29, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Yes, a "cutoff point" means that you ignore everything past the cutoff point, but in context that means ignoring everything older than ten years when looking for a quote to add. It doesn't mean deleting every quote in the article older than ten years, because that's not what you were suggesting. Philip J. Rayment 04:20, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Well, what would you consider a less arbitrary cutoff point? Nine? Eight? Seven? Six? Five? Four? Three? Two? One? Seriously, having a more recent quote in the article can't be a bad thing. Barikada 15:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I wouldn't specify a cutoff point. If you have an appropriate quote from more recently, feel free to add it. Philip J. Rayment 20:34, 24 January 2008 (EST)

So you're suggesting you'd be perfectly fine adding quotes from any time period? I don't have any; I'm not arguing for the non-existance of transitional forms. If "Many scientists have admitted the lack of transitional fossils.", it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find something from this century, should it? Barikada 20:36, 24 January 2008 (EST)

If the quotes are relevant, when they date from should not be an issue (but the date of them could affect their relevance). But "many" is a relative term (in fact I would consider changing that in the article), and I'd say that only a few (relatively speaking, although I think it could easily be a dozen or so) have admitted as much. Note the quote from Gould about it being a "trade secret", i.e. it was not something that was widely known. Also, since creationary views have been gaining ground, many of these scientists have been much more guarded in what they admit to, so given that this century is only seven years old, then no, I don't agree that it wouldn't be difficult to find something from this century. That's not to say it's impossible, of course, but it may not be easy. Philip J. Rayment 01:15, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I don't really think they've been gaining ground, but eh, if you say so/claim there's a conspiracy against non-scientific beliefs being passed off as science, that's your right. As for the quotes, I'm just saying that a more recent one would make the article more up to date, and not like outdated ramblings.

Oh, and this century is eight years old. Barikada 15:46, 25 January 2008 (EST)

45 years ago there were almost no creationist organisations, and now there are quite a few. 40 years ago we didn't have science magazines publishing articles about what was wrong with creationism. 30 years ago the anti-creationist group NSCE hadn't started. Creationism is definitely gaining ground. I've said umpteen times that I don't claim there to be a conspiracy (a group of people plotting to suppress something they know to be true), but it is a standard anti-creationist tactic to accuse creationists of claiming that. And how are the existing quotes "outdated" and "ramblings"? Or is that just a throwaway line when you've got no actual criticism?

The century began on 1st January 2001, which is seven years, 25 days ago.

Philip J. Rayment 02:22, 26 January 2008 (EST)

I said they look like outdated ramblings, not nessecarily that they are outdated. You're accusing scientists of hiding information because it would be helpful to your cause-- That is accusing them of conspiracy. But I know you're just going to dismiss that with "Standard darwinist tactic, ha ha!" so I ask you this: If Creatinionism has been "gaining ground" as you so claim, surely the number of scientists speaking out against it must be going up? Barikada 14:39, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Okay, so I guess I should have asked how the existing quotes look "outdated", and "rambling".

No, it's still not conspiracy. I defined conspiracy as "a group of people plotting to suppress something they know to be true". I'm making no accusations of any sort of group, i.e. organisation of individuals, plotting, i.e. planning this together. And when I said "suppress something they know to be true", I was talking about them suppressing creation knowing it to be true. They don't believe creation to be true, so their suppression of it is not fitting that definition.

I would say that the number of scientists speaking against it is going up, although I would qualify that with several points:

* Scientists tend to not like getting involved in this sort of thing, thinking that it gives creation some legitimacy. So they tend to leave it to non-scientists to comment on (including the mass media and the science magazines).

* They have reduced their involvement in live public debates, ostensibly because it gives creation publicity and legitimacy, but likely because they tend to lose the debates.

* They consider Intelligent Design to be a form of creationism, and their efforts in recent times have been more directed to that, with not so much effort directed against creationism itself.

Philip J. Rayment 05:47, 27 January 2008 (EST)

The quotes look outdated because they're all at least a decade old-- Things easily could've changed in a decade. If memory serves, there are many lists of transitional specimens, and I can dig them up if you wish once I return home from the LAN party I'm at.

Ah, so it's conviently not a conspiracy, just... Every scientist hates magic.

For the record: Science is not decided by who can plead the most. Watch a Creation video, and you'll see what I mean.

ID is Creationism. I again reference Of Pandas And People, bearing the historic words "cdesign proponentsists." 16:58, 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. 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,

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,

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 (and one is referenced in the article). But with none of the examples provided can, in the words 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.

Philip J. Rayment 21:13, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Bugger, thought I responded to this yesterday. It's convenient because if it's not a conspiracy, you don't look like a nutter for trying to play the persecution card.

And I must ask, how do you prove that they aren't transitional? Barikada 19:49, 29 January 2008 (EST)

Picture

Would it be useful to add a picture such as this: http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/3803/horseevolutionbl3.png --GDewey 22:15, 28 January 2008 (EST)