Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
What did it all started with?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 76256090" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>I already dealt with these points. Repetition doesn't make them more persuasive.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Again, the selective quoting; did you get a copy of the Bumper Book of Creationist Quote-mines? </p><p></p><p>Raup followed that quote with, "<em>what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic</em>".</p><p></p><p>Raup was questioning how well Darwin's mechanism of evolution by natural selection was reflected in the fossil record - he said, "We must distinguish between the <em>fact</em> of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the <em>explanation</em> of this change."</p><p></p><p>IOW what we have discovered is not the simple lineages the limited fossil record suggested, but a more complicated picture of cross-breeding and hybridisation that means we now have multiple potential routes from ancestor species to descendent species, and we can't be sure that the particular species we thought were directly transitional actually are. This is particularly true for human evolution. It just means we have less certainty of the specific relationships between descendent species or sub-species and ancestral species. But for the more recent ancestral relationships, we have a better tool than the fossil record - genetics.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 76256090, member: 241055"] I already dealt with these points. Repetition doesn't make them more persuasive. Again, the selective quoting; did you get a copy of the Bumper Book of Creationist Quote-mines? Raup followed that quote with, "[I]what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic[/I]". Raup was questioning how well Darwin's mechanism of evolution by natural selection was reflected in the fossil record - he said, "We must distinguish between the [I]fact[/I] of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the [I]explanation[/I] of this change." IOW what we have discovered is not the simple lineages the limited fossil record suggested, but a more complicated picture of cross-breeding and hybridisation that means we now have multiple potential routes from ancestor species to descendent species, and we can't be sure that the particular species we thought were directly transitional actually are. This is particularly true for human evolution. It just means we have less certainty of the specific relationships between descendent species or sub-species and ancestral species. But for the more recent ancestral relationships, we have a better tool than the fossil record - genetics. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
What did it all started with?
Top
Bottom