Randman's challenge answered

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Even though randman's recent challenge is a worthless attempt at an argument from silence, in order to shut him up I am posting the following response to his challenge:

1. Compsognathus
2. Deinonychus
3. Archaeopteryx
4. Enantiornithes
5. Ichthyornis

Now can we please move on?

 

[randman]

Now, this is a hoot. I spent hours of listening to evolutionists admit this was impossible, and now one of you claims to have done it.
Please state where the fossils were found, as originally requested, and more info so we can evaluate the differences between the species to try and determine if these species could have indeed evolved one from another.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/mcmurry/spring98/21/justin.html

http://www.herbaria.harvard.edu/research/treeoflife/birds/

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/theropod_ancestry_of_birds.htm

http://www3.uakron.edu/biology/peter/vertzoo/11-20-98/new_bird_forster_etal.pdf

http://www.usd.edu/biol/faculty/swanson/ornith/lec1_2.html

http://www.usd.edu/biol/faculty/swanson/ornith/lec3_4.html

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I never said it was impossible, just that it was not proof that they didn't exist if one couldn't and that most of us just don't keep that info within five seconds reach.

Now what questions did you have about them and we'll see if someone can work on the answers.

Oh thanks Livefree and Thebear, I was at work and couldn't dig up the info last night.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by randman
Now, this is a hoot. I spent hours of listening to evolutionists admit this was impossible

I never said that - I said *I* couldn't do it, and that, if it weren't possible, it wouldn't diminish the relevance of archy as evidence for common descent.

 

[randman]

LOL. First of all, these are not considered the preceding and next 2 species respectively. Secondly, should I quote the words "impossible" and "unfair" that some of you are backtracking on.
Please at least be honest.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by randman
LOL. First of all, these are not considered the preceding and next 2 species respectively.

So, you admit that, in fact, you're not looking for evidence of a path, but for adjacent mileposts.

This pretty much demonstrates conclusively that you know that you have no point; you're just trying to make trouble by presenting something that looks to the ill-educated like you've found a "flaw".

 

[randman]

I admit that I am asking you to demonstrate what you claim, that Archy evolved from something and into something, and to do so by specifically documenting the species it came from and reportedly evolved into so that this evidence can be evaluated.
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.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by randman
I admit that I am asking you to demonstrate what you claim, that Archy evolved from something and into something

The claim is that Archy looks just like what one would expect to find somewhere if birds evolved from reptiles. The exact details of what it evolved from and to are irrelevant; the Bible is unambiguous on creation, and if it wasn't 6 literal days, and all the animals at once, then the story is *NOT ACTUALLY TRUE*.

At this point, unless you have a better explanation, the default explanation is, and always will be, that archy is a transitional form.

You have not offered a better explanation.

 

[randman]

I didn't know you could prove something in science (by default) by attacking the Bible, but hey, evolution isn't science, is it?

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by randman
I didn't know you could prove something in science (by default) by attacking the Bible, but hey, evolution isn't science, is it?

Not that it looks like anyone in this thread tried to prove something in science by attacking the Bible. But then again, if we didn't have your baseless accusations and non-sequitors to distract us, we might see that you have nothing.

 

[Starscream]

But then again, if we didn't have your baseless accusations and non-sequitors to distract us, we might see that you have nothing.

randman has nothing but a lousy attitude. We've dealt with his tactics before at infidels.org. He isn't fooling anyone.

 

[chickenman]

randman, you just keep moving the goalposts, but don't kid yourself that you're even interested in the evidence for evolution, its quite obvious to even the most obtuse of observers that you have made your mind up

 

[seebs]

I have to admit, I'm totally unimpressed with his arguments. Essentially, he has no counterargument, no alternative, nothing that explains the data better; he just asserts ever-higher standards of "proof" which he would require before he would accept evolution, but offers no credible alternative.

In no case is he identifying a flaw, challenge, or weakness; he's just saying "hey, but you can't prove that physical constants don't change". Well, we can't, but we have no evidence that they've ever changed, and no reason to believe that they would.

He's actually the first person I finally decided to use the "ignore" button on; he's hostile, and has not contributed a single idea or explanation yet, nor has he offered a single point of data that isn't consistent with evolution; all he's done is try to raise the possibility that something else *could* have happened, although he offers no suggestions as to what it would have been, or why we should believe it.

 

[randman]

Um, name one instance of moving the goalpost. I asked repeatedly for the exact same information.
You guys are just sore losers.

 

[Starscream]

You guys are just sore losers.

Who is calling this game? You?

Which other forum are you claiming victory on this time?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Um, name one instance of moving the goalpost. I asked repeatedly for the exact same information.
You guys are just sore losers.

You are right. You haven't moved the goalposts once. More aptly, at the beginning of the game, you took the goalposts, buried them under the fifty yard line, paved over the football field, and left, shouting over your shoulder "You can't score, and now you want to be a sore loser about it."

 

[RufusAtticus]

LOL!

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
I admit that I am asking you to demonstrate what you claim, that Archy evolved from something and into something, and to do so by specifically documenting the species it came from and reportedly evolved into so that this evidence can be evaluated.

The problem, randman, is that this is not what scientists claim. A fossil is considered transitional if it is intermediate in morphology, not because it is a direct intermediate by lineage. From talk.origins (emphasis added):

"This is a sequence of similar genera or families, linking an older group to a very different younger group. Each step in the sequence consists of some fossils that represent a certain genus or family, and the whole sequence often covers a span of tens of millions of years. A lineage like this shows obvious morphological intermediates for every major structural change, and the fossils occur roughly (but often not exactly) in the expected order. 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."

It doesn't matter what the specific ancestors and descendents of Archy were. The whole point is that it is intermediate in morphology between dinosaurs and birds.

No, I am not looking for an imginary path that I believe in regardless fo the data.

Given the above definition of "transitional", it is quite clear that Archy satisfies this definition, no imagination required. Do you agree?

I am looking for the data that shows these "transitional" fossils actually transitioned into something.

Then you best not look for that data among the birds. Their fragile bones are not the best candidates for fossilization. The fossil record for horses is much better.

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm

Obviously, the most famous "transitional" fossil may have in fact not transitioned into anything.

No scientist would dispute that.

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.

Clear like this?

"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")."

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

That would be lying. The evidence is overwhelming.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Otherwise, you are basically trying to deceive the public.

Who is trying to deceive?

 

[randman]

This is why I can't respect evolutionists for the most part. LiveFreeorDie's comments illustrate the absurdity of their rhetoric.

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."

Now, it was admitted to, and anyone that actually understands the evolutionists's position, knows that evolutionists do indeed consider species transitional even if they did not evolve at all. The reason is that if the species appears to them to be a half-way point between animal groups, then they call it transitional, and figure that if that particular species died, that another probably evolved along the same lines.
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.

Here is my post, most of it, that he is commenting on.

"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."