What do I care about the whole fossil record?

seebs · #1 22nd July 2002, 04:38 AM

If someone can show me a single example of a transitional series from *ANY* part of the fossil record, I now know that transitions happen. To say that they don't happen under other circumstances, I need to provide reasons for which those transitions are impossible, and show my work. I have not yet seen any convincing evidence showing that other transitions are impossible; even one transitional series provides an existance proof for transitions.

Once I've accepted that some species changes happen by evolution, why should I insist that others don't, unless I have specific concrete evidence to point to?

npetreley · #2 22nd July 2002, 06:35 AM

Simple. First, ask yourself if there is any doubt about the transitions you accept. First, accept the fact that they are not fine-grained transitions. There are still gaps between them that are no smaller than gaps you see in extant species today. For example, there is a HUGE gap in the supposed whale evolution transition that goes from arms and hands with full digits to no arms at all. There's nothing inbetween.

So the only reason you have to suspect the fossils represent transitions is the geochronology of the finds. The problem here is that the accepted geochronology of fossil transitions changes all the time. That's why archaeopteryx is no longer considered a transitional. A fish was found much earlier in the fossil record than expected, and that changed things, too.

If, in spite of all this, you are 100% convinced of your transitions, then you're like an atheist -- it's the same as if you think you know enough to know there is no G~d, although any intelligent person would admit that he or she cannot possibly know enough to be 100% sure there is no G~d. But, you are who you are. So if you say you are 100% convinced you know enough to know the fossils truely represent transitions, then enjoy your ignorance.

But for the sake of the rest of those reading this, any reasonable person on either side would have doubts, which are exacerbated by the errors that have already been committed in many transitions -- archaeopteryx, Lucy, whale evolution, horse evolution, etc.

Now if you add to this the fact that you can't find any transitional series in 99.9% of the fossil record, then that casts even more doubt on the transitions you THINK you see in the other fossils. Again, any reasonable person would go back and look at those transitions and reconsider the possibility that they aren't transitions at all.

But evolutionists aren't reasonable people, so that kind of proves your point, I guess.

choccy · #3 22nd July 2002, 06:47 AM

That's why archaeopteryx is no longer considered a transitional.

How about a reference? You're not making things up just to support your position are you?

Choccy

choccy · #4 22nd July 2002, 06:52 AM

Oh, and btw.

But evolutionists aren't reasonable people

From the forum rules:
1. Be kind to your fellow poster. No name calling. No flame-inciting language.

Choccy

npetreley · #5 22nd July 2002, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by choccy

How about a reference? You're not making things up just to support your position are you?

Choccy

Look it up, yourself. Even the hard core evolutionists should back me up on this one. If not, they're pretending to be ignorant.

edgeo · #6 22nd July 2002, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by npetreley

Look it up, yourself. Even the hard core evolutionists should back me up on this one. If not, they're pretending to be ignorant.

Whoa!  Did I miss something or did you just ask someone else to validate your statement?  This is a bit backward.  Usually, one makes a statement he can, or is willing to, back up.   Why should anyone else do your research for you? 

And, no.  I for one will not back you up on this.  Archie is still considered to be a transitional species.  There are others, yes.  There are older ones, yes.  But archeopteryx is still a transitional as far as I am concerned.

 

npetreley · #7 22nd July 2002, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by edgeo
But archeopteryx is still a transitional as far as I am concerned.

Well, that makes one.

Jerry Smith · #8 22nd July 2002, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by npetreley

Well, that makes one.

OH! OH!... Ambulocetus... That's Two!!!

LiveFreeOrDie · #9 22nd July 2002, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by npetreley
So the only reason you have to suspect the fossils represent transitions is the geochronology of the finds. The problem here is that the accepted geochronology of fossil transitions changes all the time.

Omigosh!  You mean science changes to fit the data?  Heresy!

That's why archaeopteryx is no longer considered a transitional.

It is debated as to whether Archie is directly ancestral to birds, but there is no doubt that it is a supreme example of a transitional species.

A fish was found much earlier in the fossil record than expected, and that changed things, too.

I'm shocked.  Truly shocked. :rolleyes:

If, in spite of all this, you are 100% convinced of your transitions, then you're like an atheist -- it's the same as if you think you know enough to know there is no G~d, although any intelligent person would admit that he or she cannot possibly know enough to be 100% sure there is no G~d. But, you are who you are. So if you say you are 100% convinced you know enough to know the fossils truely represent transitions, then enjoy your ignorance.

What if I'm only 99% convinced? 

But for the sake of the rest of those reading this, any reasonable person on either side would have doubts, which are exacerbated by the errors that have already been committed in many transitions -- archaeopteryx, Lucy, whale evolution, horse evolution, etc.

How much doubt scientists have depends upon the specific claim you are asking about.  If you ask what their confidence is that the current series of whale fossils represents the exact evolutionary history of whales, you will get very high levels of doubt.  If you ask if the current fossil series is an approximation of what the actual evolutionary history looked like, you will get much higher levels of confidence.

Errors are part of the scientific process, Nick.  That's one characteristic that separates science from revelation.  Keep in mind, too, that all of your alleged "errors" were error in the specific details and never errors in the hypothesis of evolution itself.

Now if you add to this the fact that you can't find any transitional series in 99.9% of the fossil record,

Liar.

Research has provided many examples of successive species and genera (and in some cases families) linking major higher taxa of order or class rank (Cuffey, 1984, p. 266). For example, within Phylum Mollusca, transitional fossils have been found between [1] Class Monoplacophora and Subclass Nautiloidea (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974), [2] Class Monoplacophora and Class Rostroconchia (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Runnegar, 1978), [ 3] Class Rostroconchia and Class Pelecypoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976; Pojeta, 1978), [4] Class Rostroconchia and Class Scaphopoda (Pojeta, 1980; Runnegar & Pojeta, 1974; Pojeta & Runnegar, 1976, 1979) , [5] Subclass Bactritoidea and Subclass Ammonoidea (Erben, 1966).

 then that casts even more doubt on the transitions you THINK you see in the other fossils. Again, any reasonable person would go back and look at those transitions and reconsider the possibility that they aren't transitions at all.

Any reasonable person who had doubts about the transitional nature of the fossils would demand an alternative explanation for the geochronology of the fossils and their observed morphological change over time.

But evolutionists aren't reasonable people, so that kind of proves your point, I guess.

ROTFL.  Evolutionists only appear to you to be unreasonable because your "reasoning" is so full of fallacious thinking.