Difference between revisions of "Talk:Transitional form"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Recent quote: Fossils, flexible explanations, and lack of balance.)
(Recent quote)
Line 85: Line 85:
 
::::::: "''...could it be the fact that every single quote is from one side?''":  Golly!  You're right!  They're all evolutionists!  Do you want me to find a quote from a creationist too?
 
::::::: "''...could it be the fact that every single quote is from one side?''":  Golly!  You're right!  They're all evolutionists!  Do you want me to find a quote from a creationist too?
 
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
 +
::::::::Uh, what?
 +
::::::::Teach the controversy! Bats are birds!
 +
::::::::Are you familiar with the term "statistical improbablity"?
 +
::::::::What, about it being a "trade secret"? Yeah, that doesn't sound nutty.
 +
::::::::Oh boy, let's pick apart every single word I say! Perhaps I mistyped when I said discarded-- Rearranged fits better.
 +
::::::::No, science is good because it's constantly being updated in response to new evidence. Religion, however, is not.
 +
::::::::"Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be "caught in the act" as it were. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species. However, progressing research and discovery are managing to fill in gaps." -Wikipedia.
 +
::::::::No, mein freund, that's not what I meant. Not one saying that there are, indeed, transitional fossils.
 +
::::::::Here, have a list of them: [http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html List from Talk Origins] [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 09:26, 1 February 2008 (EST)
  
 
== Picture ==
 
== Picture ==

Revision as of 14:26, February 1, 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)
If it really was a conspiracy, then I wouldn't look like a nutter for claiming persecution. So how does it not being a conspiracy change that?
Perhaps the question should be, how do you prove that they are transitional? If creature 1 has features A, B, C, D, E, and F, and creature 2 has features A, B, C, G, H, and J, then we find a creature with features A, B, C, D, H, and J, does that mean that it's transitional between 1 and 2. Or just a creature with a different mix of features? Evolutionists presume that creature 1 must have evolved into creature 2, so anything with a combination of the two creatures' features is seen as evidence of an intermediate/transitional form. That explanation is an over-simplification, but that's at least part of how it works. That was the basis for claiming that Archaeopteryx was transitional: it had some features in common with both reptiles and birds. But even staunch evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould described it as a "curious matrix", that is, a creature that had some features in common with reptiles and birds, but not on the way from one to the other.
So how do you prove that something is transitional? I don't think you can, ultimately, but a big step in the right direction would be to find not just a creature intermediate between two others, but a whole chain showing a gradual transition. My example above listed six "features", but any real creature is going to have hundreds if not thousands. If you have two creatures that differ by 200 features, and you found 200 other creatures that could be placed in a sequence where each one had one feature different to the previous, you'd be well on the way to demonstrating transitional forms. I'm not, of course, suggesting that you would need to have every one of those 200, but a large proportion of them would be needed. As it is, all you have these days is one or at best a handful.
Furthermore, given that creationists argue for variation within a created 'kind', this would need to be for two distinctly different creatures (i.e. of different created kinds); a smooth transition of intermediates between one type of shark and another type of shark doesn't count.
Philip J. Rayment 20:46, 29 January 2008 (EST)
Logically, 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) the natural conclusion is that ACD is some sort of midway. Haha... "kinds"... right, how scientific.
You're claiming it's not a conspiracy, were you to claim there's a conspiracy, you'd be A: Wrong and B: Nutty.
Indeed, it would be a tricky business to find the entire series-- after all, fossilisation is the exception, not the rule. This isn't helped by the fact that previous ideas of evolutionary chains are constantly discarded, nearly every time a new fossil is unearthed.
Also, this century started 1/1/2000.
FINAL POINT: If we can't get a quote from this century, can we at least have some sort of counterbalance quote? 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?
Philip J. Rayment 04:49, 31 January 2008 (EST)
Not nessecarily same time, but a similar time. Remember, these take a while to form. Sufficient for small changes.
Kinds is not a scientific designation of any sort.
Dude. Do you know what oil is? Do you realize how much more of that there is than fossils? Out of all the creatures that have ever lived, we've recovered very little in the manner of fossils.
Tenuous? No, not really, but the exact order is uncertain. Such is the way of science; things change when new evidence is uncovered. I could give a condescending explanation of how that's different from religion, but I'll spare you that.
There's a nice bit on this on Wikipedia, d'you mind if I quote it at you in my next edit?
Gee... could it be the fact that every single quote is from one side? Barikada 09:41, 31 January 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?
"Kinds is not a scientific designation of any sort.": How about baramin then? That's the scientific word for "kind".
"...we've recovered very little in the manner of fossils.": I totally agree that we've only found a small proportion of all the creatures that lived, but there's still been enough to expect some smooth transitions. You didn't address the evidence I offered from Gould.
"Tenuous? No, not really, but the exact order is uncertain.": Now it's "the exact order". Before it was "evolutionary chains are constantly discarded". Your explanations seem about as flexible as evolution itself.
"I could give a condescending explanation of how that's different from religion, but I'll spare you that.": I don't think you did (spare me). Besides, I already know the explanation: "Science is good because the scientists can't be certain they know what they are talking about. Religion is bad because they know what they are talking about". Well, that's not how you would spin it, but that's not far from what it would amount to.
You can quote Wikipedia here if you wish.
"...could it be the fact that every single quote is from one side?": Golly! You're right! They're all evolutionists! Do you want me to find a quote from a creationist too?
Philip J. Rayment 03:28, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Uh, what?
Teach the controversy! Bats are birds!
Are you familiar with the term "statistical improbablity"?
What, about it being a "trade secret"? Yeah, that doesn't sound nutty.
Oh boy, let's pick apart every single word I say! Perhaps I mistyped when I said discarded-- Rearranged fits better.
No, science is good because it's constantly being updated in response to new evidence. Religion, however, is not.
"Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be "caught in the act" as it were. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species. However, progressing research and discovery are managing to fill in gaps." -Wikipedia.
No, mein freund, that's not what I meant. Not one saying that there are, indeed, transitional fossils.
Here, have a list of them: List from Talk Origins Barikada 09:26, 1 February 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)

Useful in what way? Jinxmchue 00:08, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Useful to explain the concept of a transitional form. --GDewey 16:55, 30 January 2008 (EST)