Is evolution a fact or theory?

[Bible Research Tools]

And here you are defending AIG, even though they blatently have published false information.

Evolutionism is based on false premises, and you don't seem to mind. Gingrich imagined whale evolution transitions from weak to almost non-existent fossil evidence, and you don't seem to mind. And evolutionism icons, such as Haeckel's embryos, cluttered up our children's textbooks for about a century after they were exposed as fraudulent, and you don't seem to mind. And yet you feign outrage and pretend moral superiority because I defend a group of Christians from a dubious claim?

They said that DNA was discovered in the T rex fossil, but in reality, it has not. This has nothing to do with pseudo-science or evolutionism or anything. Its just AIG publishing false information. And you defending them, tells us about your dishonesty in the topic, as well.

This is from the AIG report:

"The survival of DNA within dinosaur bones would be powerful evidence against a millions-of-years age for those fossils. That is one reason a recent discovery has stirred such controversy . . . Most recently, Schweitzer and her team discovered in a T. rex and a duck-billed dinosaur four proteins that are found only in bony creatures. More important, the team discovered DNA in the unfossilized osteocytes, and the tests show that the DNA came from a vertebrate, not bacteria." ["One Step Closer to Jurassic Park." Answers in Genesis, 2013] ​

That doesn't sound like the "we hit the jackpot" kind of reporting one would expect if they believed Dino DNA has actually been isolated. I believe you misinterpreted. This is Mary's article that AIG cited:

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~lezanno/Research_files/SchweitzerEtAl2012.pdf​

In a 2016 interview, Mary said:

"In our studies, we were able to localize a substance chemically similar to DNA inside the bone cells recovered from this T. rex, using both DNA specific stains, and antibodies to proteins associated with vertebrate DNA." [Tracey Peake, "What Do We Really Know About Dino DNA? Interview with Mary Schweitzer". NC State News, 2016]

What do we really know about Dino DNA?​

@NobleMouse Check it out. These are the people you're working with. They dont care if AIG publishes blatently false info, they still support it. I just dont want you to miss this one^.

There have been a few times now where ive point out young earthers bearing false witness. Here it is, again by AIG, and further, defended by another.

Take notes.

Clean up your own house.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

This again, isnt a response. He said the succession demonstrated a stasis, and then suggested fossil transition from sea to land.

That was the perfect response. You don't understand it because it contradicts your world view.

We've displayed transitions that are not of a static nature, that transition from land to sea. The person in the youtube video is incorrect.

There are no transitional fossils.

If you can present a real argument, ill be here. But if all you have are vague 1 sentence responses and these random youtube videos, i cant be bothered here. Ill be moving on, and again, you can have the last remarks.

Your incessant pretense that there is proof of transitional fossils is not a real argument from real evidence; so it is probably best you are moving on.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Yep. It's warm-blooded and has a primitive kind of nursing for the young. It has a single bone in the lower jaw, with the other bones incorporated into the middle ear. All these are mammalian traits.

But it has a soft bill like some therapsid reptiles, a sprawling reptilian stance, the reptilian shoulder, a reptilian cloaca and it lays reptilian eggs. So transitional between therapsid reptiles and eutherian mammals.

No, the platypus is just another species within a created kind.

Just as Archaeopteryx is transitional between dinosaurs and birds, without being the direct ancestor of birds, so monotremes are transitional between reptiles and eutherian mammals without being the direct ancestor of such mammals.

There is no evidence the Archaeopteryx is anything but an extinct perching bird. But you are welcome to imagine anything you please.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

"Bible Research Tools, post: 72723448, member: 409605"]"The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history. All historical sciences rest upon inference, and evolution is no different from geology, cosmology, or human history in this respect. In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past. We must infer them from results that stEditill surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology. " [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory." Stephen Jay Gould Archive, 2011]
Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory" 1994

Inference is a fancy word for "faith",


You've been misled about that, too...

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences. Charles Sanders Peirce divided inference into three kinds: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular premises to a universal conclusion. Abduction is inference to the best explanation.

Human inference (i.e. how humans draw conclusions) is traditionally studied within the field of cognitive psychology; artificial intelligence researchers develop automated inference systems to emulate human inference.

Statistical inference uses mathematics to draw conclusions in the presence of uncertainty. This generalizes deterministic reasoning, with the absence of uncertainty as a special case. Statistical inference uses quantitative or qualitative (categorical) data which may be subject to random variations.
Inference - Wikipedia

That is equivocation. This is from Gould's own words (from above):

"The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason. Major evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observation on the scale of recorded human history . . . In principle, we cannot observe processes that operated in the past."​

Obviously Gould was using the word "inference" to explain away the absolute FACT that there is NO supporting evidence for macroevolution; historical or otherwise. Therefore, inference, at least in the manner in which Gould used it, is another word for faith, based on premises assumed to be true.

No, you have that backwards, too. Deductive reasoning starts with premises assumed to be true and makes decisions about particular things based on those assumptions.

Inductive reasoning, which is the way science works, observes particular things and infers the rules based on the evidence from those observations.

Learn about it here:
Deductive Reasoning vs. Inductive Reasoning

Remember, ultimately, the conclusion has to be testable, and until the conclusion has been repeatedly validated by such testing, it's not a settled theory. If it's not testable, it's not science.

Bad news. Macroevolution is not testable, which means it is not science.

Therefore, my definition of Gould's use of the word "inference" is 100% accurate: he used it as another word for faith, based on premises assumed to be true. But since you brought it up, let me revise and expand my definition.

"Gould used the word "inference" as another word for faith, based on premises assumed to be true, but which can never be proven since they are untestable."​

There. Fixed it.

Dan

 

[The Barbarian]

That is equivocation.

Nope. You just learned what "inference" means. This is from Gould's own words (from above):

"The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason.

Obviously Gould was using the word "inference" to explain why it's foolish to assert that we can only know what we have directly observed.

As you learned, we can directly observe macroevolution; speciation has been repeatedly observed. Even many creationists admit this fact. What we can't directly observe are things like common descent, the battle of Gettysburg, and the like. However, we can use evidence to know about them through inference.

Now that you realize that "inference" means "conclusions based on evidence", we can go on.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yep. It's warm-blooded and has a primitive kind of nursing for the young. It has a single bone in the lower jaw, with the other bones incorporated into the middle ear. All these are mammalian traits.

But it has a soft bill like some therapsid reptiles, a sprawling reptilian stance, the reptilian shoulder, a reptilian cloaca and it lays reptilian eggs. So transitional between therapsid reptiles and eutherian mammals.

No

Yep. It's a transitional. Even your fellow creationists have admitted that much. Remember when you learned the definition of "transitional?" Think about it. Here's a simplified version that might be easier to remember:
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

The platypus is just another transitional form between mammal-like reptiles and more advanced mammals.
Just as Archaeopteryx is transitional between dinosaurs and birds, without being the direct ancestor of birds, so monotremes are transitional between reptiles and eutherian mammals without being the direct ancestor of such mammals.

There is no evidence the Archaeopteryx is anything but an extinct perching bird.

As you learned, Archaeopteryx has more dinosaur characteristics than avian ones. In other words, the definition of a transitional.

 

[The Barbarian]

"In our studies, we were able to localize a substance chemically similar to DNA inside the bone cells recovered from this T. rex, using both DNA specific stains, and antibodies to proteins associated with vertebrate DNA."

So, as we told you, Schweitzer never claimed to have found DNA. As you seem to now admit, she only found a substance similar to DNA.

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, he wrote they are extremely rare..

Well, let's take a look...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen Gould Evolution as Fact and Theory , p. 260

As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise, admits, they are "strong evidence" for evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

"he wrote that transitional we're extremely rare"

Well, let's take a look...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen Gould Evolution as Fact and Theory , p. 260

​

n

This is hilarious. He is so intellectually dishonest that he will accept a blatent contradiction to reality, and so prideful that he is unable to accept that he has been misinformed.

@NobleMouse don't miss this one,^

 

[Job 33:6]

So, as we told you, Schweitzer never claimed to have found DNA. As you seem to now admit, she only found a substance similar to DNA.

He just doesn't seem to understand. Haha.

He can't comprehend the fact that AIG deliverse false information.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Nope. You just learned what "inference" means. This is from Gould's own words (from above):

"The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason.

Obviously Gould was using the word "inference" to explain why it's foolish to assert that we can only know what we have directly observed.

LOL! You gotta be kidding? Either something is provable, or it is not. Pretending it is "secure" because it fits your world view is not science, but faith! Therefore, Gould's use of the word "inference" is based on faith.

As you learned, we can directly observe macroevolution; speciation has been repeatedly observed. Even many creationists admit this fact.

More bait-and-switch. Macroevolution has never been observed, nor is it even possible.

What we can't directly observe are things like common descent, the battle of Gettysburg, and the like. However, we can use evidence to know about them through inference.

False! You use mere men's interpretations of data to INFER proof of your worldview. But inference is never proof. That is why it is called inference.

These silly word-games are nauseating. Do you have proof of macroevolution, or not? We know you do not, or you would have presented it by now.

Now that you realize that "inference" means "conclusions based on evidence", we can go on.

There is no evidence, only data. To believe it is "evidence" requires faith, since it is wholly unprovable. Therefore, evolutionism is faith-based historical philosophy -- a religion.

Who was it that said, "I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution"? Same here.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Yep. [The platypus is] warm-blooded and has a primitive kind of nursing for the young. It has a single bone in the lower jaw, with the other bones incorporated into the middle ear. All these are mammalian traits.

But it has a soft bill like some therapsid reptiles, a sprawling reptilian stance, the reptilian shoulder, a reptilian cloaca and it lays reptilian eggs. So transitional between therapsid reptiles and eutherian mammals.

There is absolutely no proof of that. But if you want to believe it -- if your faith demands it -- by all means, believe it!

Yep. It's a transitional. Even your fellow creationists have admitted that much.

Baloney. Creationists believe macroevolution is a cruel hoax intended to destroy children's (and man's) faith in the Word of God.

Remember when you learned the definition of "transitional?" Think about it. Here's a simplified version that might be easier to remember:
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

Show us proof that macroevolution is possible, or we have no alternative but to chalk it up as just another old-earth'er fairy tale.

The platypus is just another transitional form between mammal-like reptiles and more advanced mammals. Just as Archaeopteryx is transitional between dinosaurs and birds, without being the direct ancestor of birds, so monotremes are transitional between reptiles and eutherian mammals without being the direct ancestor of such mammals.

Baloney. The platypus is a strange mosaic, and the Archaeopteryx was a perching bird. And you have no proof whatsoever that I am wrong.

As you learned, Archaeopteryx has more dinosaur characteristics than avian ones. In other words, the definition of a transitional.

More baloney.

Dan

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Yep. [The platypus is] warm-blooded and has a primitive kind of nursing for the young. It has a single bone in the lower jaw, with the other bones incorporated into the middle ear. All these are mammalian traits.

But it has a soft bill like some therapsid reptiles, a sprawling reptilian stance, the reptilian shoulder, a reptilian cloaca and it lays reptilian eggs. So transitional between therapsid reptiles and eutherian mammals.

There is absolutely no proof of that.

Sorry, you're wrong. The anatomy of the platypus is very well-documented. Everything I told you is demonstrably true. Pick one and I'll show you.

But if you want to believe it -- if your faith demands it -- by all means, believe it!

I don't think slogans are going to be an effective defense against evidence.

Barbarian observes:
Remember when you learned the definition of "transitional?" Think about it. Here's a simplified version that might be easier to remember:
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

Baloney.

Wrong again. As you now see, the characteristics of the platypus are a combination of traits found only in reptiles and others found only in mammals. By definition, transitional.

Creationists believe macroevolution is a cruel hoax intended to destroy children's (and man's) faith in the Word of God.

YE creationists put more faith in their man-made revision of scripture than they do in God's word.

Show us proof that macroevolution is possible

Perhaps you don't know what "macroevolution" means. Perhaps we should start by having you tell us what you think it means. If you can't define it, perhaps we should just chalk up your belief as another YE fairy tale.

The platypus is just another transitional form between mammal-like reptiles and more advanced mammals. Just as Archaeopteryx is transitional between dinosaurs and birds, without being the direct ancestor of birds, so monotremes are transitional between reptiles and eutherian mammals without being the direct ancestor of such mammals.

Baloney. The platypus is a strange mosaic,

Perhaps you don't know what "mosaic" means in biology. Tell us what you think it means. (Hint: find out what Gould meant when he coined the term)

and the Archaeopteryx was a perching bird.

With a dinosaur head and teeth, and dinosaur ribs and sternum and dinosaur tail and unfused bones in the feet and hands, and dinosaur backbone and hips.

Otherwise, kinda like a bird. The first specimens found were classified as dinosaurs, since those left no feather impressions. So obviously, you've gotten this wrong, too. In fact, there are lots of dinosaurs with feathers. This particular one happened to be very close to the line that gave rise to birds, but it is almost certainly not a true bird.

And again, as your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, it's a transitional, and "strong evidence" for evolution.

No point in denying it.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Nope. You just learned what "inference" means. This is from Gould's own words (from above):

"The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason.

Obviously Gould was using the word "inference" to explain why it's foolish to assert that we can only know what we have directly observed.

LOL! You gotta be kidding? Either something is provable, or it is not.

Almost everything you know, is not provable. Logical certainty works in things like math, where we can define the rules. Science works by observing evidence and inferring the rules. You might not like that, but it's the process whereby we (for example) learned how to make computers out of dirt.

Pretending it is "secure" because it fits your world view is not science, but faith!

You've been misled about that. Mathematical inference can give us very accurate results, as it does here. As I said, almost everything you know is not provable. Would you like to see how we can know things by inference?

Therefore, Gould's use of the word "inference" is based on faith.

Mathematics. You were misled about that.

As you learned, we can directly observe macroevolution; speciation has been repeatedly observed. Even many creationists admit this fact.

Macroevolution has never been observed, nor is it even possible.

As I said,even many creationists now admit the fact of speciation. The ICR endorses a paper that says new species, genera,and families evolve. You would do better at defending your religious doctrines, if you knew more about them.

What we can't directly observe are things like common descent, the battle of Gettysburg, and the like. However, we can use evidence to know about them through inference.

False!

Sorry, you're just wrong. We can use evidence to learn about things that happened apart from our direct experience. No point in denial.

You use mere men's interpretations of data to INFER proof of your worldview.

You use mere men's revision of scripture to support your worldview. Evidence works better than unsupported belief.

But inference is never proof. That is why it is called inference.

You live your life on inferences. You count on your car to function as you use the controls to operated it. But you can't prove that it will. You accept that the sun will appear in the east each morning, but you can't prove that it will. Inference is the way we learn almost everything we know.

Do you have proof of macroevolution, or not?

It's directly observed. As I said, even many creationists now admit the fact of speciation. Again, what do you think the word means?

Let God be God, and set aside your man-made faith in YE creationism.

 

[NobleMouse]

"he wrote that transitional we're extremely rare"



This is hilarious. He is so intellectually dishonest that he will accept a blatent contradiction to reality, and so prideful that he is unable to accept that he has been misinformed.

@NobleMouse don't miss this one,^

I've not done extensive reading on Gould's beliefs about the fossil record; however, well credentialed scientists today like Kurt Wise, Todd Wood, and others do not see the fossil record as demonstrating the existence of transitional forms... as would be central to supporting macro evolution.

In contrast, the fossil record demonstrates variations of originally created kinds... many of which have gone extinct (flood). As it relates to whales (since it has recently been discussed) @Bible Research Tools has supported the position for a biblical worldview.

I would agree and add that whales are very unique from land mammals in that (naming a few):

- They have a tail with horizontal flukes
- They have skin without hair and fatty blubber
- They have flippers
- They have a large lung capacity with the nostril (blow hole) on top
- They give birth and nurse underwater
*Not the ideas of Noble Mouse. The above represents data sourced from: Refuting Evolution chapter 5: Whale evolution? - creation.com

There are numerous more very unique qualities to whales that would make their survival in a marine environment otherwise impossible.

From an evolutionary perspective all of these unique qualities must happen in concert to take a land animal about the size of a cat to arrive at a marine animal that has been seen as large as around 30 meters in length. Random mutation and natural selection have not demonstrated the ability to intelligently orchestrate all of this happening.

The obvious rebuttal: "Mouse, you seem to not understand that evolution is a very slow and gradual process that spans millions of years... this doesn't all happen instantly." This is not true as the 'Achilles heel' logical fallacy here is that if evolution is slow and takes many millions of years then guess what?? We should see many many many transitional forms (did I mention many) in the fossil record. To the chagrin of many though (again, hence the development of the PE hypothesis), the fossil record does not provide such evidence other than the few postulated fossils that are interpreted by evolutionists as being a transitional form.

See nonsense below, even here where an artist is given liberal artistic license to help aid the imagination in depicting transitions to whale, we see land animals, then SUDDENLY we're swimming, then SUDDENLY a horizontal fluke and no back legs:

Similar nonsense for humans:

Just as a side note: don't give people flak when they say "if people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" Look at the far left, what does that look like? Biblical creationists didn't draw that trash.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Well, let's take a look...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.
Stephen Gould Evolution as Fact and Theory , p. 260

That demonstrates that Gould was consistently inconsistent: from "extremely rarely" to "abundant". Gould must have been taking a lot of heat by the time he wrote that article. Did you read the entire article?

"what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape's of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours?" [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory." Stephen Jay Gould Archive, 1994]​

Lucy is Gould's idea of a transitional form? LOL!

Gould also wrote a 1997 article ("Hooking Leviathan by Its Past") praising Gingrich's work on so-called "whale evolution". Of course, that was 4 years before Thewissen found a major portion of the skeleton of the Pakicetus which revealed it was a runner -- a land animal. And that was more than a decade before the transitional nature of the Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus were proven to be highly exaggerated.

As your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise, admits, they are "strong evidence" for evolution.

I have heard the opposite from him. That must be an old quote, before he got into real science. Do you have a source?

Wait, maybe I found it in my Research Library: Wise, Kurt P. - Australopithecus ramidus and the Fossil Record - 1994
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j08_2/j08_2_160-165.pdf

Let's see if anything he said matches your statement:

"As is the case with any stratomorphic intermediate (for example, the most celebrated Archaeopteryx),9 A. ramidus is regarded as powerful evidence for macroevolutionary theory — something which did not miss the attention of Wood.10 As even more powerful evidence of macroevolutionary theory, A. ramidus is seen as the newest member of an ever-lengthening 'stratomorphic series' which is laying stratomorphic tracks between primates and man (for example — as featured in Wood's article11 — A. ramidus, A. afarensis, possibly Homo rudolfensis, H. ergaster, and H. erectus.)12" [Kurt P. Wise, "Australopithecus ramidus and the Fossil Record." Journal of Creation, 1994] ​

Close. But if you read the context, he is placing himself in the "eyes" of the evolutionist, if you will, as implied by the title: "Comfort for Evolutionists".

But in the very next section, titled, "Discomfort for Evolutionists, he writes:

"A number of universal or near-universal features can be recognised among species in the fossil record. Here, we will consider six of these universals as they apply to A. ramidus:–

(1) lack of inter-specific transitional forms,
(2) species stasis,
(3) high homoplasy,
(4) rarity of stratomorphic intermediates,
(5) rarity of stratomorphic series, and
(6) the commonness of high species diversity with stratomorphic series." ​

Dr. Wise concludes with:

"A. ramidus is both a stratomorphic intermediate and a member of a stratomorphic series. Although this may be an encouragement to macroevolutionary theorists, I would suggest that a more inclusive view of the fossil record would suggest A. ramidus may ultimately be better explained by creation theory than evolution theory . . . As for relationships, my preliminary suggestion is that A. ramidus is an ancestor of the group of apes called Australopithecines, and is in no way related to humans. I would suggest with Lubenow43 that Homo erectus morphology is human and ancestral to modern humans and unrelated to any primate (including Australopithecines)."​

I suspect evolutionists have been misapplying Wise's statement on "evidence for evolution".

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Sorry, you're wrong. The anatomy of the platypus is very well-documented. Everything I told you is demonstrably true. Pick one and I'll show you.

You took my reply out of context. This is the part where you have no proof:

"So transitional between therapsid reptiles and eutherian mammals."​

The word "transitional" implies macroevolution, of which there is no proof.

I don't think slogans are going to be an effective defense against evidence.

That is why your slogans are not working. What you call evidence, any reasonable person would call faith, since there is no proof whatsoever of macroevolution.

Remember when you learned the definition of "transitional?" Think about it. Here's a simplified version that might be easier to remember:
Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants are referred to as transitional forms.

I gotta admit, that was some pretty good brainwashing. It went from a mere label to "scientific proof", in record time, and with absolutely no proof.

Wrong again. As you now see, the characteristics of the platypus are a combination of traits found only in reptiles and others found only in mammals. By definition, transitional.

Nope. Without proof of macroevolution, it just another animal.

YE creationists put more faith in their man-made revision of scripture than they do in God's word.

Now you are questioning my understanding of the Word of God. That is pretty high-minded for someone who believes in the fairy tale of macroevolution.

But I accept your challenge: prove I do not understand the scripture.

Perhaps you don't know what "macroevolution" means.

Of course I do. I was a brainwashed evolutionist for about 4 decades.

Perhaps we should start by having you tell us what you think it means. If you can't define it, perhaps we should just chalk up your belief as another YE fairy tale.

Macroevolution is the fairy tale which tricked mostly normal humans into believing there has been transformation of organisms above the species level; for example, from a chimpanzee to a human.

The platypus is just another transitional form between mammal-like reptiles and more advanced mammals.

The platypus is just another animal.

Just as Archaeopteryx is transitional between dinosaurs and birds, without being the direct ancestor of birds, so monotremes are transitional between reptiles and eutherian mammals without being the direct ancestor of such mammals.

The Archaeopteryx is an extinct perching bird.

Perhaps you don't know what "mosaic" means in biology. Tell us what you think it means. (Hint: find out what Gould meant when he coined the term)

This is getting a little too silly.

With a dinosaur head and teeth, and dinosaur ribs and sternum and dinosaur tail and unfused bones in the feet and hands, and dinosaur backbone and hips.

Otherwise, kinda like a bird. The first specimens found were classified as dinosaurs, since those left no feather impressions. So obviously, you've gotten this wrong, too. In fact, there are lots of dinosaurs with feathers. This particular one happened to be very close to the line that gave rise to birds, but it is almost certainly not a true bird.

The perching bird called the Archaeopteryx stands alone in the fossil record.

I personally believe it was one of the genetically corrupt species that God set out to destroy with the global flood. But that is another story.

And again, as your fellow YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, it's a transitional, and "strong evidence" for evolution. No point in denying it.

When are you going to provide a reference, so everyone can read it in context?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Barbarian chuckles:
Nope. You just learned what "inference" means. This is from Gould's own words (from above):

"The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason.

Obviously Gould was using the word "inference" to explain why it's foolish to assert that we can only know what we have directly observed.

I believe what you are doing is called "quote mining". But, no matter what kind of weasel words Gould used, the context of his use of the word "inference" -- no direct observation of evolution in action -- demands faith.

Almost everything you know, is not provable. Logical certainty works in things like math, where we can define the rules. Science works by observing evidence and inferring the rules. You might not like that, but it's the process whereby we (for example) learned how to make computers out of dirt.

I like science. Evolution, however, is not science, but a historical philosophy, practiced with the fervor of a faith-based religion.

You've been misled about that. Mathematical inference can give us very accurate results, as it does here. As I said, almost everything you know is not provable. Would you like to see how we can know things by inference?

Again, everything depends on context. Gould's context was faith-based.

Mathematics. You were misled about that.

Nonsense. There was nothing mathematical about Gould's use of the word inference.

As you learned, we can directly observe macroevolution; speciation has been repeatedly observed. Even many creationists admit this fact.

More bait-and-switch.

As I said,even many creationists now admit the fact of speciation. The ICR endorses a paper that says new species, genera,and families evolve. You would do better at defending your religious doctrines, if you knew more about them.

How about a reference?

What we can't directly observe are things like common descent, the battle of Gettysburg, and the like. However, we can use evidence to know about them through inference.

More bait-and-switch. You are conflating a recent, well-documented historical event, with an unprovable fairy tale.

Sorry, you're just wrong. We can use evidence to learn about things that happened apart from our direct experience. No point in denial.

With macroevolution there is no evidence to infer from; therefore, all inference associated with it must be faith-based.

You use mere men's revision of scripture to support your worldview. Evidence works better than unsupported belief.

No, you use men's revision of scripture to support your worldview, of which you have absolutely zero evidence.

You live your life on inferences. You count on your car to function as you use the controls to operated it. But you can't prove that it will. You accept that the sun will appear in the east each morning, but you can't prove that it will. Inference is the way we learn almost everything we know.

More bait-and-switch. Please stay on topic, which is (or, was) macroevolution.

It's directly observed. As I said, even many creationists now admit the fact of speciation. Again, what do you think the word means?

More bait-and-switch. Speciation is not macroevolution since it involves no new information. The topic is macroevolution. Please stay on topic.

Let God be God, and set aside your man-made faith in YE creationism.

God is always right.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

"he wrote that transitional we're extremely rare"

This is hilarious. He is so intellectually dishonest that he will accept a blatent contradiction to reality, and so prideful that he is unable to accept that he has been misinformed.

@NobleMouse don't miss this one,^

Please spare us your intellectually dishonesty and woefully inadequate scholarship, KomatiiteBIF. This is Gould's quote, in context:

"In short, Darwin argued that the geologic record was exceedingly imperfect-a book with few remaining pages, few lines on each page, and few words on each line. We do not see slow evolutionary change in the fossil record because we study only one step in thousands. Change seems to be abrupt because the intermediate steps are missing.​

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record:

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." [Darwin, Origin, 1859, p.342]
​

"Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I wish only to point out that it was never "seen" in the rocks."

[Stephen Jay Gould, The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change, "The Panda's Thumb." W. W. Norton, 1980, Chap.17, p.181]​

Since evolutionists rely so much on faith, and so little on context, I thought you might be interested in what context actually looks like.

Dan

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Nope. You just learned what "inference" means. This is from Gould's own words (from above):

"The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason.

Obviously Gould was using the word "inference" to explain why it's foolish to assert that we can only know what we have directly observed.

I believe what you are doing is called "quote mining".

Nope. I'm just disassembling your claim that Gould considered inference to be "faith." As you see, he did not. Inference is a way you can learn about the truth, even if you can't have logical certainty.

I like science.

And yet, you can't distinguish inference (which is the way science works) from faith.

Evolution, however, is not science,

Evolution, as you know, is a directly observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the science that describes it.

YE creationism is a historical philosophy, practiced with the fervor of a faith-based religion.

Nonsense. There was nothing mathematical about Gould's use of the word inference.

Inferences are steps in reasoning, moving from premises to logical consequences. Charles Sanders Peirce divided inference into three kinds: deduction, induction, and abduction. Deduction is inference deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true, with the laws of valid inference being studied in logic. Induction is inference from particular premises to a universal conclusion. Abduction is inference to the best explanation.

Statistical inference uses mathematics to draw conclusions in the presence of uncertainty. This generalizes deterministic reasoning, with the absence of uncertainty as a special case. Statistical inference uses quantitative or qualitative (categorical) data which may be subject to random variations.
Inference - Wikipedia

For example, we know that the whale Ambulocetus was a freshwater animal, because of the analysis of oxygen ratios in the fossil. The data was obtained by examining the material, after which a confidence level was obtained by statistical inference.

As I said,even many creationists now admit the fact of speciation. The ICR endorses a paper that says new species, genera,and families evolve. You would do better at defending your religious doctrines, if you knew more about them.

How about a reference?

John Woodmorappe, Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study ICR Impact

Woodmorappe assumes no more than 16,000 "kinds" on the Ark, from which all modern animals evolved. In an email discussion, Woodmorappe confirmed to me, that he believes the limit of evolution is at the family level. That would mean, for example, that all canids evolved from a single "kind", and would put humans and apes in the same "kind."

God is always right.

But YE creationists, in revising His word to fit their new faith, are not right.