Intermediate fossils

[USincognito]

Hey pyro,

Look what your tax dollars paid for.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

valkhorn, ill be the man in this situation and just leave the fight were it is...only kids carry on such a pointless discussion. Obviously i need to go to another forum for my questions. [only for this topic, still will stay with this forum for other stuff, just seems some of the people in the evolutionary section are not what im looking for....not judging you as people, just dislike you debating techniques)
thanks for the help on the topic, Bye.


if your really intrested,

[FONT=&quot]Eldredge, Niles. The monkey business: a scientist looks at creationism. New York, N.Y. : [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Washington Square Press, 1982.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] If you like Eldredge I suggest reading The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. [/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]

Tiffin, Lee. Creationism's upside-down pyramid: how science refutes

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]fundamentalism. Amherst, N.Y. : Prometheus Books, 1994.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Newell, Norman Dennis. Creation and evolution: myth or reality?. New [/FONT][FONT=&quot]York: Columbia UP, 1982.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Berra, Tim M. Evolution and the myth of creationism: a basic guide to [/FONT][FONT=&quot]the facts in the evolution debate. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford [/FONT][FONT=&quot]UP, 1990.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I haven't read those. I also wonder if you did. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Montagu, Ashley, ed. Science and creationism. New York: Oxford UP, 1984.[/FONT]

Did you actually Read Science and Creationism? I haven't but you might want to check out the reviews on Amazon. I don't think there is anything in it that really supports your position.

"Some major flaws in Evolutionary Theory." Adequacy. 14 Nov 2001. 28 Nov 2006 <http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.9.30.172813.212.html>.

The Adequacy story is just the same old same old antievolution stuff.

Alcorn, Randy. " Ten Major Flaws of Evolution." Creationism Unleashed. 16 Aug 2005. 28 Nov 2006 <http://creationismunleashed.blogspot.com/2005/08/ten major flaws-of-evolution.html>.

Valkorn addressed this guy.

"Quote: Charles Darwin About Fossils." Don Lindsay Archive. 20 Oct 1997.
28 Nov 2006 <http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/darwin_fossil.html>.

Let's actually quote a page from Lindsay's archive called what is a transitional fossil. (Bold Added)


Some parts of the fossil record are good, in the sense that they provide a large number of well-preserved fossils, nicely spread out across spans of time. Transitional fossils are often found in those rockbeds. When fossils are rare, transitional fossils are also rare. It is interesting to ask if good fossil records ever show a lack of transitional fossils. The answer is yes. However, there are known examples where a transition occurred in a specific geographic area. The new species then spread from that area, and arrived "suddenly" in other areas. If you dig in the wrong place, there are no transitionals. If you dig in the right place, there are.

Lindsay does explain yet again how creationists have quoted Darwin out of context HERE.


F.B.

 

[Loudmouth]

calm down man, read the date on that article...only purpose was to show ive done research on the topic before.

microevolution can be a change in size, not a change in species.

like Wiccan_Child said earlier, maybe its best we define what macroevolution is before we start attacking it.

Change in size is all we see in human evolution. So I guess that it was all microevolution between us and our common ancestor with chimps?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
BTW, A=chimp, B=Australopithecus afarensis, and N is modern day human. Can you please show me where something other than "change in size" was involved?

 

[Edx]

can you say "Archaeoptrix?
well, probably not, it is kinda hard. But it is the perfect transitional fossil from lizard to bird.

FYI Birds evolved from dinosaurs not lizards.

 

[Valkhorn]

I wonder if Pyro left because he couldn't handle the truth?

 

[FoeHammer]

monkey body parts + human body parts (without seperations).
stages before a monkey would also be intresting

Good point Pyro214.
Where are all the skulls of the ancestors of the apes with intermediates?

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Change in size is all we see in human evolution. So I guess that it was all microevolution between us and our common ancestor with chimps?

BTW, A=chimp, B=Australopithecus afarensis, and N is modern day human. Can you please show me where something other than "change in size" was involved?

There seem to be a a few thousand skulls missing from this list.

FoeHammer.

 

[MartinM]

Where are all the skulls of the ancestors of the apes with intermediates?

Three posts above yours?

 

[FoeHammer]

FYI Birds evolved from dinosaurs not lizards.

Prove it.

FoeHammer

 

[MartinM]

There seem to be a a few thousand skulls missing from this list.

Ah, yes. Always worth remembering that when a creationist asks for transitional fossils, they often don't actually mean it. No matter how many we produce, they just insist it's not good enough and ask for more.

 

[Edx]

Prove it.

FoeHammer

You've been shown plenty of evidence for other things why should anyone waste their time?

 

[MartinM]

Prove it.

FoeHammer

First you prove that you're willing to honestly consider it. What evidence would you require?

 

[FoeHammer]

Ah, yes. Always worth remembering that when a creationist asks for transitional fossils, they often don't actually mean it. No matter how many we produce, they just insist it's not good enough and ask for more.

You are right, we KNOW that it cannot be proven that any one fossil is intermediate between other fossils. I'm left wondering why evo's still bother using them in their argument.

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

Three posts above yours?

So the earliest never had any ancestors? Did it just appear as it is?

FoeHammer.

 

[FoeHammer]

You've been shown plenty of evidence for other things why should anyone waste their time?

What this means of course is that you can't prove it.

FoeHammer.

 

[MartinM]

You are right, we KNOW that it cannot proven that any one fossil is intermediate between other fossils.

In much the same way as it cannot be proven that the fossils ever had flesh or soft organs. Hey, maybe they were just magic skeleton creatures.

Back in the real world, 'intermediate' is defined in terms of observable characteristics, not ancestry. So yes, we can indeed know that a fossil is intermediate between other fossils.

 

[FoeHammer]

In much the same way as it cannot be proven that the fossils ever had flesh or soft organs. Hey, maybe they were just magic skeleton creatures.

Back in the real world, 'intermediate' is defined in terms of observable characteristics, not ancestry. So yes, we can indeed know that a fossil is intermediate between other fossils.

So the diagram isn't meant to be taken as demonstrating the ancestry of man?
How then is that evidence of/for evolution?

FoeHammer.

 

[MartinM]

So the diagram isn't meant to be taken as demonstrating the ancestry of man?

Yes, it is. Look, this is remarkably simple. Common descent implies the existence of transitional fossils. We know what observable characteristics such fossils will have. We find fossils with those characteristics. Hence, transitional fossils, and the evidence supports common descent.

You might recognise this as basic scientific method, common to all scientific study.

 

[Loudmouth]

What this means of course is that you can't prove it.

FoeHammer.

Only fools, alcoholics, and mathematicians look for proof. Scientists look for evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

So the diagram isn't meant to be taken as demonstrating the ancestry of man?
How then is that evidence of/for evolution?

FoeHammer.

Each of those fossils are either a chimp, human, or something that is intermediate between modern humans and their common ancestor with chimps. If you don't agree with this, then please list the characteristics a "true intermediate" between humans and their common ancestor with chimps should have.