Evidence for macroevolution

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Creationists don't thing anything is perfect in the way you describe since they beleive in the Fall. What tey argue is that there is a level of perfection or beauty in design, and evolutionists I believe are smart enough to know what the creationists are saying, yet like political spin machines, they spew out nonsensical arguments like if God is so perfect, why do people get diseased, and why are things not designed better, etc,..as if there is no theology of the Fall of man.

Basically, it is just sophistry.

You know what? I agree with you somewhat on this. On the other hand, there is sometimes a point to arguing against a stated position rather than against the position you might think your opponent may hold (in reference to evolutionists are smart enough to know what creationists are saying.) If you get the "real" position out in the open first, then you can argue it. If you don't, then creationists can keep saying "nope - that ain't what I'm saying either. You can't refute me." By arguing against the stated position, you can force the creationist to state their position without equivocation or room for dodge later. I don't know if that was what Rufus was doing or not. Really it is not the evolutionists' responsibility to anticipate the theology of the creationists... remember that creationists theology is highly variable. All you can really expect us to do is argue against the statements you make - we cannot anticipate with certainty what you "mean by them" each time... When we try to, we usually wind up finding out our arguments were wasted -- it will almost definitely turn out that you "meant" something else.

 

[randman]

Come on. The argument is pretty clear that the specified complexity is such that these things could not have evolved, that half-way there, aspects of life wouldn't be well-adapted.

I don't know much about the eye, but that is the argument across the board, and a good one in my view.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Come on. The argument is pretty clear that the specified complexity is such that these things could not have evolved, that half-way there, aspects of life wouldn't be well-adapted.

Most - not all - creationists have stopped using "perfection of the eye" and started using "specified complexity". The reason for this is that "perfection of the eye" has been profoundly debunked. When the debunking of "specified complexity" is complete and well known to most folks, there will be some new argument in its place, and a few will hang on to "specified complexity".

Specified complexity, perfection, and the others: they do not falsify evolution, they merely serve to create doubt among those who aren't familiar enough with evolution.

The standard, when approaching an accepted scientific theory, is to either falsify it, or present a better one. Creationists can do neither. They can only complain that it shouldn't have become accepted in the first place. IMHO, they are wrong on that point - and the ones who are Professional creationists - sowing doubt in the ill-educated - many of them already know they are wrong.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Randman,

Rufus made his comment in answer to this statement by Nick

So yes, Nick stated outright that Rufus' original claim was false.

Okay, now let's give that some context by repeating Rufus' claim:

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

Creationists can't have it both ways: the world is either perfect in its design or imprefect. It can't change depending on what thread you are on. I expect a little more consistancy than:

Creationist Rosenkrantz: "The eye is perfect, God did it."
Creationist Guildenstern: "The eye is imperfect, The Fall did it."

Which one are you today?

I think the quote speaks for itself, and if you were honest, Jerry, you'd admit it was an overstatement and generalization. But although I believe in miracles, I don't expect one in this case.

 

[randman]

The specified complexity argument looks pretty strong to me, and by the way, evolutionists change their theories all the time, don't they?

You act like evolutionists practice science differently than creationists, and that is just not true. You want to beleive it, but the facts are evolutionists start with preconceived ideas just as creationists.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by npetreley


Okay, now let's give that some context by repeating Rufus' claim:



I think the quote speaks for itself, and if you were honest, Jerry, you'd admit it was an overstatement and generalization. But although I believe in miracles, I don't expect one in this case.

That is what you are complaining about? Overstatement and generalization. I can't make an admission about what RA's post was, but I can admit (easily) that it appears to me that his argument was a (slight) overstatement and a generalization.

And very much to the point.

Unlike the regular overstatements, generalizations, and most of all hand-waving mischaracterizations that you are routinely guilty of.

I hope my candid admission made you feel better.

 

[Jerry Smith]

P.S. You got your answer. Am I going to get mine? You know... the 16% claim in the other thread? And the reptile footprints claim?

 

[randman]

I am a evolutionary scientist, and state categorically that there are thousands of transitional fossils. In fact, really, all fossils are transitional since every one transitioned from another. That is because they did by definition.

No, we can't show you the exact path, oh actually, we can, and it is the right one, but if it changes, that path will be right too. Heck, we just don't know but even if a species goes extinct, it is still transitional. Why? Cuz they all are dummy.

Now, don't listen to the dumb creationist. They have nothing to say. Just remember. Evolution=good, and creation and God=bad.

OK?

written by evolutionist Barney

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman

No, we can't show you the exact path, oh actually, we can, and it is the right one, but if it changes, that path will be right too. Heck, we just don't know but even if a species goes extinct, it is still transitional. Why? Cuz they all are dummy.

uh.... Is this randman or Nick Petreley? randman, this is beneath you. You have seen the discussions of transitional fossils, and the reasons they are considered transitional. You have probably even seen dozens of examples in the literature that has been posted to your attention. Yet you pretend that none of this matters, and that apart from knowledge of the exact lineage - and fossil representatives of other steps in the lineage along with precise knowledge of which exact step they represent - all of the transitional fossil claims are merely an argument from authority.

Now, don't listen to the dumb creationist. They have nothing to say. Just remember. Evolution=good, and creation and God=bad.

OK?

If God chooses to side with the creationists, that's His business. You don't get to pick which team He is on --- He gets to pick...

If a person listens to a creationist (as I have done, over and over) they are well-advised to listen very critically and to not only examine the arguments of the creationists, but to find out from an independent source whether the arguments hold water.

 

[randman]

I don't think even by evolutionist standards in terms of science publications that the claims of thousands of transitional fossils are at all accurate, and as you know, the standard of transitional I think is required for conclusive proof is nonexistent.

The only question is why. The evolutionist states it is because the record is too poor and the mode of evolution jerky. The creationist says it isn't there because it didn't happen.

I think at a minimum evolutionists ought to admit that the fossil record doesn't show evolution, nor prove it, but it doesn't disprove it either, and that they feel it is consistent with it. Unfortunately, they often state things like there are thousands of transitional fossils when there are not.

Let me tell about a little exercise we did in the 80s. We had a botany professor, a creationist, do a presentation to about 80 students who showed up. The guy was very low-key, not very charismatic, and he just presented the facts. Most students felt lied to by their schools and evolutionists when they realized "transitional" did not mean that the species to species transitions were not shown. Most were left with the exact impression, and I submit the same thing is happering deliberately today.

There aren't thousands of transitionals, and there may even be none. That is the truth.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
I don't think even by evolutionist standards in terms of science publications that the claims of thousands of transitional fossils are at all accurate,

I don't know how many transitional fossils have been found. I wouldn't be surprised by thousands.. I believe I have seen hundreds in the literature myself... too many to count, at least.

and as you know, the standard of transitional I think is required for conclusive proof is nonexistent.

If you are looking for conclusive proof, you are probably in the wrong business. Transitional fossils are established ot a high degree of confidence.

The only question is why. The evolutionist states it is because the record is too poor and the mode of evolution jerky. The creationist says it isn't there because it didn't happen.

The scientific creationists lost this argument decades ago. They switched sides. If this all came down to the evidence of the fossil record and nothing else, then there would be plenty of room (if not reason) for doubt. You left out half of the argument though - not only are there not more transitional fossils than there are --- there are also transitional fossils. Plenty of them. The creationist argument fails - (how often do you say "the transitional fossils are there because the transitions they represent didn't happen"?)

I think at a minimum evolutionists ought to admit that the fossil record doesn't show evolution, nor prove it, but it doesn't disprove it either, and that they feel it is consistent with it.

The fossil record only adds confidence and empirical support for evolution. It does not prove it, and by itself, it may not even be conclusive.

Unfortunately, they often state things like there are thousands of transitional fossils when there are not.

Can you prove there are not? I don't even know how many transitional fossils there are... How did you determine that there aren't thousands?

Let me tell about a little exercise we did in the 80s. We had a botany professor, a creationist, do a presentation to about 80 students who showed up. The guy was very low-key, not very charismatic, and he just presented the facts. Most students felt lied to by their schools and evolutionists when they realized "transitional" did not mean that the species to species transitions were not shown. Most were left with the exact impression, and I submit the same thing is happering deliberately today.

Shame that they were not better educated about what transitional means.. Of course, if they had stuck with the subject they would have become so.

There aren't thousands of transitionals, and there may even be none. That is the truth.

You are asserting that there are not thousands of transitionals. Prove it now.

There are definitely transitionals by the scientific definition. Whether there are or not by your definition is irrelevant. That is the truth.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
The specified complexity argument looks pretty strong to me, and by the way, evolutionists change their theories all the time, don't they?[/qb]

But they are at least consistant when they do. Although it might not be the case with you and Nick, I have encountered creationists who flip-flop between the argument of perfection and the argument of imperfection depending on the thread.

You act like evolutionists practice science differently than creationists, and that is just not true. You want to beleive it, but the facts are evolutionists start with preconceived ideas just as creationists.

Well, most evolutionists and creationists don't practice science at all. However, those who study evolution and those who "study" creation do not practice science the same way, in fact the latter don't practice science at all.

 

[randman]

Let me just give an example of the BS evolutionists use. I opened my WorldBook Ebcyclopedia from 1994, and am reading an article written by Jerry A. Cone, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. He is obviously well-learned and well aware his article is directed primarily at school kids.

What does he state? I can't tell you all of it, but it is an amazing reflection on the evolutionist community.

1. He states "recapitulation" which is italicized and thus highlighted as a primary evidence for evolution, though this is generally recognized as false of course.

2. He states incorrectly the direct line theory of horse evolution as primary evidence, though this is false too.

3. He uses the peppered moth example though this is false on 2 counts. The moths didn't actually hang out on the trees they suppossedly adapted too, and micro-evolutionary changes are not evidence of macro-evolution. He could just as easily talked about the Indians dying of smallpox if that were the case. He also mislabelled the peppered moth section as, get this (LOL), "Direct observation of evolution."

4. He writes "The fossil record provides some of the strongest evidence for evolution" when in fact the fossil record is actually quite problematic for evolutionists, and must be explained by stating its incompleteness.

5. He states "The fossil record documents many examples of continuous evolutionary change and speciation" which is pure BS, a total fabrication. It isn't surprising. After all, he is an evolutionist professor at a well-respected university.

6. He states, "Creationists believe species remained relatively unchanged since the Creation, and no species has evolved one from another" - another false statement.

I could go on, but this is proof positive of what I am talking about. The overstatements, lies about their critics, and such are all over the place, and worse they are in an article directed at children, trying basically not to educate them, but to brainwash them.

It is sickening.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
I don't think even by evolutionist standards in terms of science publications that the claims of thousands of transitional fossils are at all accurate, and as you know, the standard of transitional I think is required for conclusive proof is nonexistent.

Please reference a science publcation that claims thousands of transitions. When/if you do, maybe we can talk about them.

The only question is why. The evolutionist states it is because the record is too poor and the mode of evolution jerky. The creationist says it isn't there because it didn't happen.

But the creationist can't explain why they're there and in such a pattern that it looks like evolution happened in the past too. Not to mention that lineages pieced together from the past agree with evidence gathered from living organisms. In other words, the creationist position ammounts to nothing more than petty nay-saying.

I think at a minimum evolutionists ought to admit that the fossil record doesn't show evolution, nor prove it, but it doesn't disprove it either, and that they feel it is consistent with it. Unfortunately, they often state things like there are thousands of transitional fossils when there are not.

That's quite a positive statement. I hope you can back it up with a recent study of the scientific literature.

Let me tell about a little exercise we did in the 80s. We had a botany professor, a creationist, do a presentation to about 80 students who showed up. The guy was very low-key, not very charismatic, and he just presented the facts. Most students felt lied to by their schools and evolutionists when they realized "transitional" did not mean that the species to species transitions were not shown. Most were left with the exact impression, and I submit the same thing is happering deliberately today.

Randman, you wouldn't happen to know how many of those students had taken paleontology. The fact that the students didn't fully understand what "transitional" refers to does not disprove evolution. It just proves that they hadn't gotten the education they should.

Furthermore, it appears that the botanist "forgot" to explain to the students that it doesn't matter between which taxa the transition occurs, the fossil is still a transitional and it is still evidence for evolutionary relationships and processes.

There aren't thousands of transitionals, and there may even be none. That is the truth.

Randman, transitional fossils do exist. Maybe you don't think they support evolution, but you're shooting your argument in the foot by claiming that there aren't any (or very few), or for instance that Archy is not one.

 

[Jerry Smith]

A WORLDBOOK encyclopedia article is the best "proof" you can come up with for this?

 

[randman]

Jerry, is this your attempt to change the topic. I don't know if it is the "best proof" but it is certainly fully adequate. I guess we could pull out some textbooks and look at them as well.

Evolutionists generally like to make the argument that false impressions are made by "popularizers" and not evolutionary scientists. That is obviously not the case, is it?

 

[randman]

"Please reference a science publcation that claims thousands of transitions. When/if you do, maybe we can talk about them."

We are talking about evolutionists. Talkorigins states there are thousands of transitional fossils. Rufus, I really don't want to waste my time with you. Obviously, from what I wrote, I doubt any science publications do state there are thousands of transitional fossils.

"But the creationist can't explain why they're there and in such a pattern that it looks like evolution happened in the past too."

I've explained it ad nauseum. Hey, maybe I can check out carville. Same thing as talking to you.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Jerry, is this your attempt to change the topic. I don't know if it is the "best proof" but it is certainly fully adequate. I guess we could pull out some textbooks and look at them as well.

If you notice, the topic is "Evidence of Macroevolution". You have changed it, not me. No, a WorldBook Encyclopedia article is not adequate, especially when it is a generally accurate article. I was going to leave it to others to discuss each point in the article that you took issue with, but really the only problem with the article is that it attempts to summarize an extremely complex subject in just a few lines.

Evolutionists generally like to make the argument that false impressions are made by "popularizers" and not evolutionary scientists. That is obviously not the case, is it?

You are right. False impressions are made by a lack of adequate familiarity with the subject.

 

[randman]

"The fact that the students didn't fully understand what "transitional" refers to does not disprove evolution. It just proves that they hadn't gotten the education they should."

Well, no kidding. You can't expect evolutionists to tell the truth so how could they be well-educated on the subject.

 

[randman]

Jeryy, then let's talk about it on the other thread.