randman dissects talkorigins.org FAQ

I haven't received a reply to my request for clarification on the "thousands" of transitional fossils statement. I doubt seriously that there are thousands of transitionals species, but I know unequivocally that the fossils (whether in the end there are thousands are only hundreds) represent more than just "one or two" species. Just look at the horse series and you will turn up a dozen transitional species. There are several dinosaur bird transitions, and quite a few reptile-mammal transitional species. At least a few fish-amphibian species are known. All in all the number of transitional species that I am personally aware of amount to more than fifty. Considering that I am not an expert, there is good reason to believe that fifty is a low estimate. If each of the ones I am aware of have only 10 fossil representatives, then the number of transitional fossils is already at 500.

Maybe the author should have lengthened his FAQ considerably, and instead of merely pointing out that there are "thousands" of transitional fossils, have given a detailed explanation. The point remains that the creationist claims that there are "no transitional fossils" is very clearly wrong. This is the correct impression that Isaac seeks to leave. Any other impression you come away with will only be justified insofar as it comes from the words of the author - not what you naively read into them.

Everything in the FAQ is deceptive. It is spin city. Take soem time to actualy read it, and think about the number of overstatements and false impr essions it creates. Remember that this is an introductory FAQ. Think of the average person researching evolution via the Net, and they come to this site and are encouraged to read this site.

The FAQ creates straw men of the worst kind, lies about basic facts, and misleads and misdirects in about every single sentence. It is false in tone and content.

Everything randman says is deceptive. It is spin city. Take soem time to actualy read it, and think about the number of overstatements and false impr essions it creates. Remember that this is a discussion on a public forum that people unfamiliar with the subject will be reading. Think of the average person researching evolution via the Net, and they come to this forum and are encouraged to read randman's posts.

Randman creates straw men of the worst kind, lies about basic facts, and misleads and misdirects in about every single sentence. He is false in tone and content.

Even if I repeat it a gazillion times, it doesn't become more true. Please, stick to making your arguments, and when you get through and have a solid case, you can summarize "as I have demonstrated by a thorough deconstruction of several of the FAQ's at the Talk Origins site, the archive is continually misleading, misrepresenting and lying about basic facts."

If you have really demonstrated your case by that time, then your concluding statements will be credible.

As I said, Jerry, if you think to state "evolution has not been observed" is making a false statement, why go on to the rest?

Well, if you are going to state that TO is full of propaganada, I think that would be reason enough to go on and demonstrate the fact, whether or not I think it is responsible to claim that evolution hasn't been observed.

After all, I am not the objective judge and arbiter, as you pointed out earlier. You have credibility to defend before more than just me.

I think the reasons Isaac gave are sufficient to warrant the complaint that "evolution has not been observed" is a false statement. It is certainly not true on any fundamental level.

You must have forgotten to answer the question. Here is is again:

If I have a hundred thousand apples, 100 of which are green and the rest red, which of the following statements are true?

1. I have a hundred green apples.
2. Out of the apples I have, green apples are rare.
3. I have several superb examples of green apples.

By your own admission, they cannot all three be correct. So which is wrong?

Once you answer the question, we can discuss the analogy as it relates to the fossil record. But first, you must explain how two of the three statements above are wrong.

To the Lurkers: I just read a nice article in US News and World Reports (it was published a month ago. You know what waiting for a haircut is like) where they were basically discussing cladistics, and how a new tree of life is emerging.

Pattern systematics is rather cool. "We are all fish" indeed.

I suggest you reread the TO article and this thread and answer the issues raised before posting "out of context" analogies and expecting an answer.

It's a simple question, Randman. Why are you afraid to answer it?

randman, I take it that since you haven't convinced me yet on any but the most nitpicking points that you are going to make no more effort to support your stance that T.O. is a "propaganda site" (other than perhaps more re-iteration)?

If this is the case, I assume that the readers can safely browse the T.O. Archives, since your contentions are so poorly supported, and at most judge for themselves which has more merit between the FAQ's and your seemingly paranoid assessment of them?

__________________
Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.

- Colin Wilson