A transitional series from 0.01% of the fossil record

[Jerry Smith]

Wouldn't surprise me, either. But you're the only one who still insists it happened in spite of the total lack of evidence from 99.9875% of the fossil record.

Lack of transitional series between high-level groups does not equal (!=) "total lack of evidence" from that section of the fossil record. Faunal progression remains evidence from the entire fossil record. Furthermore, the abundant independent lines of evidence which converge on the one answer of common descent, but do not rely on fossils are conclusive by themselves.

So you are perfectly comfortable to abandon science when it comes to evolution.

So, no - it appears it is the other way around.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Furthermore, the non-fossil evidence is conclusive by itself.

So, no - it appears it is the other way around.

Right. "There's no evidence, therefore I believe it happened. That's science." I hope you inform your fellow scientists that they're doing everything backward.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Right. "There's no evidence, therefore I believe it happened. That's science." I hope you inform your fellow scientists that they're doing everything backward.

For those who care, my statement was meant to indicate that the evidence that comes from fields other than paleontology is conclusive by itself. Apparently someone thinks "non-fossil evidence" means the same as "no-evidence" or something.

[snipping vitriolic rejoinder]

I have edited my original words so that to make them clear to even the most opaque reader.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


For those who care, my statement was meant to indicate that the evidence that comes from fields other than paleontology is conclusive by itself. Apparently someone thinks "non-fossil evidence" means the same as "no-evidence" or something.

[snipping vitriolic rejoinder]

I have edited my original words so that to make them clear to even the most opaque reader.

Well, here's something that should be clear even to evolutionists. The non-fossil evidence you're talking about (things like DNA evidence) can easily be explained by creation, intelligent design, the fall -- everything that you can find in the Bible.

But here are a couple of things that would pose serious problems. If you could reproduce abiogenesis in the lab, that wouldn't falsify creation but it would be seriously problematic. If you could find thousands of clear transitional series in the 99.99875% of the fossil record (series that meet my challenge), that would not falsify creation, but it would also be seriously problematic.

Funny how when it comes to the evidence that could give creationists and ID proponents a serious problem, evolutionists come up totally empty-handed. All they've got is imagination and extrapolation from data that could just as easily be explained by ID and creation.

Well, like I said, evolution is from the land of Barney.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Well, here's something that should be clear even to evolutionists. The non-fossil evidence you're talking about (things like DNA evidence) can easily be explained by creation, intelligent design, the fall -- everything that you can find in the Bible.

Sure you can "explain away the evidence". If that was what we were going to do, we could use the Invisible Pink Unicorn to do it. We could "explain away" every bit of evidence for every modern theory of science that exists, then go back to our caves and wait on the sky-god to send lightning to our pile of twigs so we could have a fire. Explaining away the evidence doesn't help your evolution-denial cause.

If you could reproduce abiogenesis in the lab, that wouldn't falsify creation but it would be seriously problematic.

Religious ideas are not subject to falsification. They are accepted or rejected strictly on faith. Sometimes they seem to conflict with science, sometimes they don't.

Anyway, the purpose of the theory of evolution is not to falsify creation. It is to explain life. Many people who accept evolution also steadfastly believe in creation. I, for one, don't believe in creation - but I don't try to talk anyone out of believing in it.

If you could find thousands of clear transitional series in the 99.99875% of the fossil record (series that meet my challenge), that would not falsify creation, but it would also be seriously problematic.

Again, creation isn't falsifiable. There is no theory to falsify. It is a religious idea. Anyway, you would need a complete fossil record in order to identify thousands of clear transitional series. That we don't have. Would be nice if we did, & the paleontologists keep digging. Yet, the fossil record we do have accords with the evidence from other fields quite well in support of evolution (and only of evolution).

Funny how when it comes to the evidence that could give creationists and ID proponents a serious problem, evolutionists come up totally empty-handed.

Even funnier seeing as how neither is a falsifiable theory.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I neglected to mention earlier, when discussing the difference between the fact that we haven't identified large-scale transitional series that are fine-grained in the invertebrate record is different from (not equal to, !=) a "total lack of evidence" from that part of the fossil record, that besides fossil evidence of faunal progression, there are also species and genus-level transitional series (some that are very fine grained) in that part of the fossil record. There are also single transitional fossils (not part of a series) that show intermediates between higher level taxonomic differences.

 

[choccy]

The non-fossil evidence you're talking about (things like DNA evidence) can easily be explained by creation, intelligent design, the fall -- everything that you can find in the Bible.

If that is the case, then can you remind me again of why two types of yeast can have Cytochrome C sequences that differ more from each other than the sequences of a dog and a tuna. It's not only easily explained by common descent, but even predicted by common descent and what we have found in the fossil record. And it would falsify common descent if the differences wasn't like what is described above. Have creationism made any similar predictions?

Choccy

 

[choccy]

Furthermore, the abundant independent lines of evidence which converge on the one answer of common descent, but do not rely on fossils are conclusive by themselves.

This could be interesting to explore further. I'll start a new thread on it.

Choccy