- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,070
- 16,820
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
I've already noted that parsing responses into sound bites is a dishonest way of debating so I hope you'll keep that in mind in future replies.
I suppose mischaracterizing it as well as knocking down a straw man. Here's what was Blayz wrote and your response:
He picked a number at random to try and demonstrate his point (that fossils are only some of the evidence for evolution and that the greater weight is in the genetic evidences. You tried to act like this meant there was a death of evidence or conclusions we can draw from the fossils. While fossilization is rare and we'd love to have more fossils, there are, when you include invertebrates, literally mountains of them and they provide fabulous amounts of evidence. This is especially the case when determining morphology of extinct species and comparing that morphology with living species and other extinct species. To suggest the "fossil record isn't important" when it's been made clear that it is, even if it's not as compelling as the genetic evidence, is either a lie, a willful distortion or a straw man erected out of the Blayz's use of a number he pulled out of air instead of using a word like "some" or "a part".
Not really, primarily because of Occam's Razor. And no, tossing out some "couldn't it be" or "well, it could have been" is not a "theory" in any but the most loose and colloquial definition of the word.
Why does it matter? That individual was part of a population that was reproducing at the time that individual was alive. That entire population could have gone extinct, and a cousin species is the one that gave rise to projenator species. I guess you've never done geneology before huh? Just because your great-granduncle didn't have kids, that doesn't mean your great-grandfather didn't as well. In fact it's axoimatic that he did. You can still establish geneological relationships even if you don't have every single name. The same applies with evolution even if you don't have every single fossil.
It's time to drop the "did this individual reproduce" canard. It's not going anywhere.
No. We can discern how intelligent some of our ape ancestors were, especially the hominids like habilines and erectus. What you have been told repeatedly now is we cannot determine what their IQ was. And I'm sorry, but EQ is accurate and just saying it's not doesn't change that fact.
Premise 1 and 2 are flawed and there is no paucity of fossils so your conclusion is completely flawed.
Actually completely on topic. Forensics and the court cases built on the findings are an important part of our legal system and some cases are built in scant, but damning trace evidences. The same applies to some fragmentary fossil finds. We can build the case if we have the right pieces.
Creationist mythology and straw man. The Creationist claim that Neanderthals were H sapiens that suffered from rickets has long been debunked.
Creationist Arguments: Neandertals
CC051.1: Neanderthal rickets
Upvote
0
