Randman's challenge answered

[chickenman]

you have problems with your definition of "evidence" randman, I think you must equate evidence with proof. The transitional fossils are certainly evidence of evolution from one species into another, they aren't "proof" of evolution, but they are consistent with it

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Randman,

I demand that you address the following insult directed at me:

Now, this is a fact, but Mr LiveFreeorDie is an ignoramous who is so insanely desirous of winning an argument for his faith, evolution, that he is perfectly willing to flat out lie, or is so confused as to not realize he contradicts himself in both admitting "transitional" species may actually not have evolved but just went extinct, and then claiming there is proof that these same species did in fact all evolve.

You claim I contradicted myself by claiming that:
a) any single transitional species may not have any descendents
b) all transitional species in the fossil record evolved into something else

In fact, if you read what I posted, I made neither of these claims. Since I did not make the claims you attributed to me, I demand that you apologize for your totally baseless insults directed against me.

For the record randman, let's look at what I wrote. Instead of what you say I said in (a) above, I actually quoted a segment from talk.origins that read in part:

Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly ancestral to the next-youngest fossils.

This does not say that some transitional specimens "went extinct" or "did not evolve". It simply says that some are not "directly ancestral" to the later species in the sequence. This may be the case with Archaeopteryx. We can never really know for sure. But it doesn't really matter. The primary significance of Archaeopteryx is not that it establishes the exact relationship between dinosaurs and birds. The significance of Archaeopteryx is that its mere existence proves, unequivocally, that the existence of a creature with morhpology between dinosaurs and birds was possible.

Now let's look at your second allegation. Instead of what you say I said in (b) above, in fact I responded to a claim of yours:

randman: "Just remind them that there is no evidence these species evolved into another species at all."

me: "That would be lying. The evidence is overwhelming."

Nowhere did you say all transitional species. Nowhere did I subsequently add this qualifier. All that is needed to substantiate my claim against yours is to show that the evidence strongly suggests that at least one transitional species evolved into something else. That evidence is more or less the entire body of data produced by evolutionary biologists over the past 150 years, a body of data I feel is well summarized by the referenced talk.origins link. Since 150 years of data has confirmed prediction after prediction made by evolutionary theory, to claim that there is no evidence that a species later evolved is clearly a lie.

In short, randman, you've either failed to understand what I wrote or failed to ask for clarification on the parts of my argument that I did not make explicitly clear. Either way, your vitriolic insults were completely uncalled for.

 

[Jerry Smith]

The primary significance of Archaeopteryx is not that it establishes the exact relationship between dinosaurs and birds. The significance of Archaeopteryx is that its mere existence proves, unequivocally, that the existence of a creature with morhpology between dinosaurs and birds was possible.

Begging your pardon, I think that the significance of Archaeopteryx is that a creature like this is predicted by the theory of common descent by evolution, and was found. I think the primary signifance of Archaeopteryx is as evidence FOR evolution (if it is a relatively small bit).

The possibility of transitional morphology could normally be assumed until it was demonstrated that it could not exist. I don't think the possibility of transitional forms would be an issue if it weren't for the out of hand claims made by some creationists that such transitionals were not possible.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Now, this is a fact, but Mr LiveFreeorDie is an ignoramous who is so insanely desirous of winning an argument for his faith, evolution, that he is perfectly willing to flat out lie, or is so confused as to not realize he contradicts himself in both admitting "transitional" species may actually not have evolved but just went extinct, and then claiming there is proof that these same species did in fact all evolve. It seems to me the evolutionist camp at least those of the Talkorigin type deliberately use the term "transitional" in order to decieve, and that LiveFreeorDie it trying to do that here.

As has been demonstrated to you OVER AND OVER AGAIN, none of this is the case. Your comments were very rude. If you are going to call someone an ignoramus or liar you had better be right. You were wrong and you owe LFOD and the rest of us an apology. Unless you were absolutely certain without question and with proof that LFOD was truly stupid or truly a liar, then you had NO BUSINESS making such accusations.

 

[randman]

The context of what I wrote was pretty clear, and LiveFree was trying to distort and take my quotes out of context. I do not apologize. I was plainly pointing out that the use of the word transitional to describe a species does not mean that it evolved at all but could have gone extinct. I then stated that Talkorigins should be reminded to explain that to their readers, in their FAQs for the general public for instance, when they state hundreds and thousands of transitional fossils were found. Otherwise, they are actually misleading, or decieving the public because they have no evidence these species did not simply go extinct. LiveFree then tried to cloud the issue and take my quotes out of context, and falsely so, and I called him on it, and do so now, which is why I included my quotes in context.

He can't have it both ways, and admit that when a species is labelled transtional, that doesn't mean there is evidence it evolved further, and then call me a liar or some such for stating that there is no evidence that the specific transitional species evolved.

More to the point, evolutionists such as those operating the Talkorigins web-site, need to quit misleading the public and make it clear that when they use the term transitional, it doesn't mean much. It certainly doesn't mean they have evidence that those specific species evolved at all.

Here is what he wrote.

quote:
Just remind them that there is no evidence these species evolved into another species at all.


"That would be lying. The evidence is overwhelming."

The context of my statement is clear. Just remind them that there is no evidence that the species they label transitional actually evolved into another species at all, that the idea of "transitional" for the evolutinists does no denote actual transition, but these species may have gone extinct actually without evolving further.

Here is the sentence in context.

"No, I am not looking for an imginary path that I believe in regardless fo the data. I am looking for the data that shows these "transitional" fossils actually transitioned into something.
Obviously, the most famous "transitional" fossil may have in fact not transitioned into anything.
I suggest you remind your buddies at TalkOrigins and elsewhere to make that clear to their readers when they claim there are hundreds if not thousands of "transitional" fossils.
Just remind them that there is no evidence these species evolved into another species at all.
Please.
Otherwise, you are basically trying to deceive the public."

Also, LiveFreeorDie began this thread by posting total BS, on purpose, "just to shut him up."

Calling LiveFreeorDie an ignoramous is perhaps being too kind.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
The context of what I wrote was pretty clear, and LiveFree was trying to distort and take my quotes out of context. I do not apologize. I was plainly pointing out that the use of the word transitional to describe a species does not mean that it evolved at all but could have gone extinct.

This is a no-brainer. Anyone who has enough knowledge of the science of evolution to even form an opinion on it knows that transitional fossils do not necessarily have descendents, or descendants who survive today.

To say that there is no evidence that any individual one of the transitional species that we have fossil remains of left descendents (evolved into something - in your words) would be true but redundant.

To say that there is no evidence that any of the the transitional species that we have fossil remains of (at all) left descendents (evolved into something) would be untrue. The evidence of common descent is plentiful, the evidence of evolution in general is plentiful, and the fossil transitions are well-enough represented that it would be a statistical anomaly that none of them had actual descendents that represented newer species or genera.

No, we cannot prove beyond doubt that any of the fossil transitionals was an actual ancestor of some later group - but the evidence says that at least some of them were. To say that there is no evidence that they were would be lying - as LFOD pointed out.

I would definitely take your arguments more seriously if you did the right thing at this point.

 

[randman]

Jerry, I respect you more than some f the other evolutionists I have run into, but think a little about what is really going on here.
LiveFreeOrDie begins the thread with a total lie as far as I can tell, and everyone including you knows it, and he does so in an insulting manner "to shut him up."
Do you call for him to apologize to me for being rude?
No.
The whole discussion is pretty simple. I wanted to make it clear that when evolutionists state something is transitional, that doesn't mean it actualyl transitioned into anything. You admitted this. Others like LiveFreeOrDie tend to try to fudge the issue.
Look again at my original statement.

"I suggest you remind your buddies at TalkOrigins and elsewhere to make that clear to their readers when they claim there are hundreds if not thousands of "transitional" fossils.
Just remind them that there is no evidence these species evolved into another species at all."

How can you state this is lying. Even if my use of "all" in a later post is overstating, which I don't feel it is, my statement here is confined to the qualifier of "transitional" being referred to the "them" here. All it takes is one fossil to have gone extinct to make my statement true. In the context of Talkorigins stating that there are hundreds and thousands of transitional fossils, I say to just remind them that calling them transitional does not mean that they are stating there are hundreds and thousands of species that can be shown to have actually transitioned into something else.
In other words, quit lying to the public, and that is exactly what they are doing. They are deliberately leading the questioner surfing the web to think and beleive something which is false.
Say what you want, but that is the impression they are leaving, and it is this exact type of overstatement that convinced me that evolutionary theory was bogus 15 years ago.

 

[Jerry Smith]

To clarify what (exactly) the "lies" and deception at TalkOrigins consisted of, I have taken the liberty of quoting the opening paragraph of the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ:

[ I ] wrote this FAQ as a reference for answering the "there aren't any transitional fossils" statement that pops up on talk.origins several times each year. I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned....

And more tellingly, from the Introduction page:

Usually there are still gaps between each of the groups -- few or none of the speciation events are preserved. Sometimes the individual specimens are not thought to be directly ancestral to the next-youngest fossils (i.e., they may be "cousins" or "uncles" rather than "parents"). However, they are assumed to be closely related to the actual ancestor, since they have intermediate morphology compared to the next-oldest and next-youngest "links". The major point of these general lineages is that animals with intermediate morphology existed at the appropriate times, and thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible. General lineages are known for almost all modern groups of vertebrates, and make up the bulk of this FAQ.

Basically, the same thing I have been telling you. LFOD's only crime was not to dignify your straw man with an explanation, but rather to talk about what we DO have evidence for.

 

[randman]

Well, I am glad to see that they do make some reference to the idea that transitional does not mean that the species actually transitioned into something else.

I still think this sentence you quoted is misleading.

"I've tried to make it an accurate, though highly condensed, summary of known vertebrate fossil history in those lineages that led to familiar modern forms, with the known transitions and with the known major gaps both clearly mentioned...."

"Of known vertebrate fossil history" is highly misleading. Of "beleived", or of "theorized", fossil history would be more accurate.

They modify this sentiment a little here, and I'll grant you that.

"..thus that the transitions from the proposed ancestors are fully plausible."

"Fully plausible" is much better than "known."

Also, to state there are "gaps" in this context nears the absurd. There are primarily gaps. That is what we mostly have, if evolution is considered to have happened.

I also think the nature of these gaps deserves a little more careful analysis. The fact is there could well be a hundred, or a thousand, species between these gaps, and that is very troubling that you don't see an analysis of the number of mutations and changes needed to produce from one level to the next so to speak. Similarites are pointed too, but there isn't enough documentation of the exact number and nature of mutations needed. Is it 25 mutations that survive over 2 million years for instance, or is it 2500, or 25,000?

 

[Jerry Smith]

At some point, it does come down to what evidence we DO have. We have plenty of creationists out there to keep us fully cognizant of what we cannot expect to find and nevertheless, still don't.

 

[randman]

Jerry, tell me a piece of evidence that as a layman I could understand that would disprove evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Jerry, tell me a piece of evidence that as a layman I could understand that would disprove evolution.

I have done so in another thread now, but I will repeat here. Fossil human remains found in the same stratum with dinosaur remains. Mammals in the Cambrian. An even distribution of left- and right-handed DNA among various species.

 

[randman]

OK, let's say that human remains are found in the same strata as dinosaurs. How does that disporve evolution?
All one has to do is revise evolutionary models to account for this somehow. For instance, they could state that this is merely evidence that evolution is not necessarily progressive, but that species can both evolve "upwardly" and actually appear to "digress" which, of course, makes perfect sense since mutations can be harmful, and environmental changes can occur where an adapted trait that was once useful in a group that was seen as "progressive" (more evolved along the lines of what we see today) can then perhaps have a trait which causes them to go extinct, and a more primitive group reemerges as the dominant group and thus what might be termed deevolution occurs.
This, in fact, is what evolutionary theory actually predicts since evolution is essentially random, and climate and other environmental changes can occur quite rapidly geologically speaking.
In fact, you could state such finds are to be expected.
In no way would this disprove evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I have given you the data that would falsify evolution. Go out & find it & see what happens. I cannot expect you to understand why it would absolutely falsify evolution, but lets just put it this way: If humans were found in the same stratum as dinosaurs, that would mean that they existed before mammals had significantly diversified & LONG before the chimp/human common ancestor. Therefore, evolution would be turned on its head.

You need not worry yourself over the why of it - ask any self-respecting science advocate & they will tell you: human remains in the same strata with dinosaurs would falsify evolution. The ONLY equivocation they would make would be that the finds had to be well-documented - a single incidence that might be fraud would not be enough. Several, well documented, would be.

When you find them, please be sure you document them in situ. You dig them up, carry them away, & then make your claims & you will have ruined your falsifying evidence.

By the way, evolution is not a random process.

 

[randman]

I don't s ee how that woukld recent evolutionists from simply revising their time-table for mammals, or that particular species of dinosaurs.

For instance, let's say some mammals are found with a particular dinosaur. Is it not possible that the strata could be considered much younger, and that this is just an example of a species that was thought to have gone extinct, but actually did not?

Fact is I doubt evolutionists would drop their belief no matter what you found.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
I don't s ee how that woukld recent evolutionists from simply revising their time-table for mammals, or that particular species of dinosaurs.

The time-tables for the emergence of mammals is only open to revision within strict limits. If the human remains are found in recent strata, and a particular species of dinosaur were found in those same strata, then this could be explained by the survival into recent times of this species of dinosaur - you are right there. If human remains are found in, say, the Jurassic - and the find is legitimate and properly dated and cross-checked - then evolution is falsified period.

For instance, let's say some mammals are found with a particular dinosaur. Is it not possible that the strata could be considered much younger, and that this is just an example of a species that was thought to have gone extinct, but actually did not?

If, indeed, the fossil dinosaur was found in recent strata that could be the case.

Fact is I doubt evolutionists would drop their belief no matter what you found.

Why? What has been found that we SHOULD HAVE dropped our "beliefs" over?? If you can't name something and PROVE that we SHOULD HAVE considered evolution falsified when it was found --- then you are just blowing hot air by making these cynical comments.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

That is because you are still looking at it from a religious standpaion Randman.
Evolution is not a religion and stands or falls by what we find.

If a modren human was found at that level there is nothing that far back for it to have evolved from. I supose just one might allow evolution to survive If you could also find the time machine.

Scientist are not the evil stupid cult like figures you seem to think they are. If you find evidence that a theory does not work, especialy a long standing theory, they'll be shocked for a bit, but then they will move on and try to find a theory that matches the new observations better. They do not "Believe" in evolution because they want to, but they think it very likely because of the evidence. Find truly contrary evidence and they will make a new and better theory to try and understand it. But never can or will one of those theories include God because science can not use any kind of unfalsifiable evidence.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
Jerry, tell me a piece of evidence that as a layman I could understand that would disprove evolution.

If inheritance was through blending, then evolution via natural selection could not happen. Blending inheritance actually destroys (through averaging) the varation which natural selection needs.

One of the major flaws with Darwin's writings is that he was stuck on the mode of inheritance. Mendel showed that inheritance was particulate in nature and R.A. Fisher showed why that was necessary for natural selection to work.

 

[randman]

People are taught to beleive in evolution from a very early age so that by the time they become "scientists", it has already been ingrained into them.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Randman,

You might want to check out these articles, written by Christians for Christians, about transitional fossils. They are from ASA, which is "a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science."

Transitional Forms and the Evolution of Phyla
The Precambrian to Cambrian Fossil Record and Transitional Forms