|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 05/02/2006 : 17:22:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
(bill) So what fossil procession would you point to as empirical evidence for a family or group evolving into a completely new and different family or group?
Orohippus, Mesohippus, Miohippus, Merychippus, and Pleshippus:
On the earliest clear evolutionary ancestor of the horse, Hyracotherium: Thousands of complete, fossilized skeletons of these animals have been found in the Eocene layers of North America, mainly in the Wind River basin of Wyoming. Similar fossils of horses have also been discovered in Europe.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse
And are you going to deal with the walking whale, Bill? http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/ambulo.htm
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/02/2006 17:23:50 |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 17:29:25 [Permalink]
|
More on the Hyracotherium or "eohippus": http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fhc/hyraco1.htm
quote:
The teeth of these horses are quite primitive, like those of monkeys and other primates (e.g. humans!). The great 19th century British anatomist, Richard Owen, initially thought that this animal proved that primates once lived in England. He corrected his mistake after studying more specimens.
Oh yeah, not a transitional fossil at all.
 |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/02/2006 17:29:48 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 17:35:43 [Permalink]
|
A fish story.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 18:07:56 [Permalink]
|
You want more examples that are why I believe in evolution, Bill? Well may I present the hyrax:
The closest living relative of, believe it or not, elephants. And the second-closest elephant relative? Why, the manatee:
How do we know? Because of fossils of each of these creature's direct-line ancestors. No, we do not (yet) have the fossil of the common ancestor of all three, but we have enough things preceeding each of the tree to say where (Asia) and when (50-60 million year ago) their common ancestor lived.
http://elephant.elehost.com/About_Elephants/Stories/Evolution/evolution.html quote:
The earliest known member of the Proboscidea order are the Moeritheres. They are a pig sized creature that lived in northern Africa between 55 and 60 million years ago. A little later the Palaeomastodons, who existed between 40 to 25 million years ago. branched off and were the first know descendants of the lineage that let to the two present day species of elephants.
But don't just rely on fossils - there's DNA evidence too! http://titus.bio.uci.edu/mariana/Bio1352003/mammoth.pdf
Ooooo, and comparisons of hemoglobin sequences! http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/3/5/427
(See, that's how real scientists do research, Bill.)
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/02/2006 18:10:10 |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 18:09:16 [Permalink]
|
You're still avoiding the question Bill. Stop being such a coward and back up your assertion:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bill:
Can you go into some of this evidence? I am very interested as to how lungs and limbs, to be used on land, get developed by natural selection in the water before the critter is even on land. To me it seems like that would take forethought and design?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the first land creatures were so well "designed", why are they extinct? In fact, if you are proposing that life is designed, how do you explain the many examples of really bad design? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 18:14:44 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: quote:
To me it seems like that would take forethought and design?
If you were really curious about it, you'd read about it instead of armchair philosophizing and theorizing with nothing more than your narrow creationist beliefs and common sense, which, of course, doesn't apply to things which are not common to the human experience (You know, like all life on earth that lived before 200,000 years ago.) |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/02/2006 18:15:20 |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 18:27:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill
And as you know, you have to empirically demonstrate something before you can move it from the fairytale status to science status, which you have not.
Baloney, Bill. Once again you have failed to understand the difference between fact and theory. I ask you again: what is the difference? Specifically, what is a scientific theory?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 18:29:49 [Permalink]
|
| After all, "common sense" is a rare commodity indeed. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2006 : 19:01:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
In bio 101 you might be able to build a separation wall between ToE and it's genesis, but while defending your philosophical worldview on naturalism, no such separation wall exists. If your going to begin your defense of the naturalistic worldview with life's primordial entities already in existence, then I am going to want to know where these PE came from? If an asteroid shuttle system, bringing back the necessary components for life from mars, is the latest theory, then fine. But to draw an imaginary separation line on origins, while defending naturalism, is just a cop-out.
Back the hell up, Bill. Who said I was defending some "philosophical worldview on naturalism?" I don't even know what you mean by that phrase. If you're talking about philosophical naturalism, I couldn't be called a defender of such a worldview, but more of a pragmatist.
And so, if you want to talk about the evolution of life here on Earth, and particularly transitional fossils, then it doesn't matter one whit where Darwin's "primordial entities" came from in order to have that discussion. If you'd prefer to have a conversation about naturalism in general (both philosophical and pragmatic), then start a new thread (in which I'm sure you will be asked to describe any form of functional non-naturalistic science).quote:
As a man of science who seeks the truth wherever that might lead, do any of these accusations concern you on the validity of bird evolution and relying on the fossil record for clues into the discipline?
Nope, because the fossils are only one small part of the story now. Science progresses, Bill. Go ahead and assume that all the fossils are fake, for all I care. It won't change the status of the theory much at all anymore. It might have made a big difference 140 years ago, but now it's too little, too late.quote:
quote:
By assuming that Feduccia hasn't revised his opinion on the matter one iota, you're simply guessing that he's as dogmatic in his opinions as you are.
LOL. By assuming that AF must have revised his opinion, but offering up nothing to validate this, you are projecting yourself as the dogmatic master of semantics. So what has changed in AF's conclusions since then?
Show me that I ever assumed that Feduccia's views have changed. I never assumed any such thing. My point (which you simply brushed off) was that you should actually check what Feduccia's opinions are now, before claiming that his ten-year-old writings are still his position.quote:
Why do naturalist always revert to Bible questions or attacks when ToE, or any other naturalistic philosophy, is being scrutinized?
Because you refuse to examine the Bible with the same ridiculously high standards with which you "examine" evolution. If you were to critically question the Bible with the same zealous and absurd demands with which you attack the cornerstone of biology, I don't doubt you'd be an atheist, Bill. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 02:47:43 [Permalink]
|
Transitionals, transitionals. There are so many of them!
A whale of a tale.
Bill's problem, indeed the problem suffered by most if not all creationists, is that he expects the Theory of Evolution to simply be laid out like a book and read page by page, chapter by chapter, dog-ear the corners of the pages to keep place, and return it to the library when finished. It all has to be there, every fossil of every animal that ever lived, and all of it documented extensively and instantly. It must never change as as new information comes forth. In fact, there can be no new info because, like the Babble Bible, it must be complete in and of itself.
What utter nonsense!
In science, there is no final word on anything. The book is never finished, never gets beyond the working manuscript stage. No theory is ever proven. Indeed, the only final proofs demanded by science are in the fields of mathematics and whiskey. And why is this? Very simple: there always remains a chance that new information will change or even refute parts or even all of the theory. Thus, the theory must adapt to fit the facts, although creationists often go at it t'other way 'round, as a visit to the archives of AiG, et al, will demonstrate. They bend the facts to fit their preconceptions, and that ain't science; that's bullshit.
New info has changed all but the basic premise of the ToE many times; so many in fact that the esteemed Darwin would scarcely recognize it as his own. And it will continue to change as genetic information becomes better understood and methods of it's study become ever more precise. But it will never be set in stone. If you must have "set in stone," I suggest camping out in front of Roy's Rock, wherever that eyesore might happen be at the moment. It won't tell you a hell of a lot, but then again, neither will it disturb your rose-tinted tranquility by causing you to think.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 05/03/2006 02:56:52 |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 06:06:50 [Permalink]
|
Well, I see that Bill is being his usual cement-headed self...
The best analogy I've heard regarding fossils and piecing together evolution was given by an anthropology professor I once had. He said that each fossil was like a frame in a movie. Since we can't have every frame, we try to figure out the plot of a movie by a frame here and a frame there. Of course, since there are 24 frames a second in a movie this is next to impossible to be correct. Like wise with evolution - with hundreds of millions of years and the spotty circumstances of fossilization and geological upheaval, either a new fossil supports the corrently "known plot" or the anthropologists, biologists, et.al., need to figure out the new plot.
Of course, Bill already knows the plot so any frame that doesn't fit is ignored. He argues that the fifty years ago, the archaeologists didn't know that "Darth Vader was Luke's father" so how can they be correct now?
I expect that it's time that Bill came in from screaming the Lord's Gospel at the nearest street corner and he's going to try and "save" us... |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 06:16:57 [Permalink]
|
filthy - picture B has a bunch of question marks, I'm sure Bill will take notice.
And Marf, you don't have enough fossils. You need to account for every second of every day from now to 60 million years ago with a fossil before Bill will accept the theory.
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 05/03/2006 06:18:54 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 06:46:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
filthy - picture B has a bunch of question marks, I'm sure Bill will take notice.
And Marf, you don't have enough fossils. You need to account for every second of every day from now to 60 million years ago with a fossil before Bill will accept the theory.
That's one of the reasons that I chose this article over a couple of others of equal worth. That drawing nicely emphasises the fact that science doesn't make unfounded claims, only conjectures where needed and represents them as such.
I'm still tryin' to find that talkin' snake -- did that incredible if noisy animal die out in the Flood; tossed out with the Heavenly Dishwater, as it were? Can't seem to find reference to it anywhere else.....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 07:02:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
You did read the link! Excellent! Apologies all around....
I do not consider the monotremes a link between reptiles and mammals. Rather I think that they are a side branch that split off and a mere couple, the platypus and the echinas, managed to survive in isolation largely unchanged, as did the coelacanth (one species of lobefin remaining out of probably thousands); as did H. neandertalesis (who failed to survive). Just thoughts of my own suggested by the known record and the writings and references of the scholars that study it.
As stated, the monotreme fossil record is sparse, and that's good. Thus might Creationists speculate endlessly upon God's intentions when he antied them into the pot. He might have been bluffing.....
quote:
You did read the link! Excellent! Apologies all around....
(bill) First off I can't fully read, or even breifly examine, every link that is tossed in my direction. I simply don't have the time to investagte every single one. Second, I find it rather boring and beside the point to have a discussion that breaks down to passing links back and forth. My understanding was that this was a forum where the ideas and thinking on these various topics were discussed amongst the particapents. IMO tossing 35 links back and forth is just having someone else do your talking for you. It's not very personal and can become annoying at times which is why I just pass over many links if that is all the poster has to say. If I wanted an endless supply of links to various topics I would be hanging out at goggle, or some other search engine, rather then a forum. I am not saying no one should ever offer a link. I am just saying let's show some restraint every now and then.
quote:
I do not consider the monotremes a link between reptiles and mammals. Rather I think that they are a side branch that split off and a mere couple, the platypus and the echinas, managed to survive in isolation largely unchanged, as did the coelacanth (one species of lobefin remaining out of probably thousands); as did H. neandertalesis (who failed to survive). Just thoughts of my own suggested by the known record and the writings and references of the scholars that study it.
(bill) Can you go a little deeper into this "known record"? Basicly what know record are you refering to? And what did the writings of these scholars have to say in regurads to this known record?
quote:
As stated, the monotreme fossil record is sparse, and that's good. Thus might Creationists speculate endlessly upon God's intentions when he antied them into the pot. He might have been bluffing.....
(bill) Of course even a sparse fossil record will never hinder the naturalist from making all kinds of wild specualtions and coming up with some bizare stories on how it was all just so...
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2006 : 07:18:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
In bio 101 you might be able to build a separation wall between ToE and it's genesis, but while defending your philosophical worldview on naturalism, no such separation wall exists. If your going to begin your defense of the naturalistic worldview with life's primordial entities already in existence, then I am going to want to know where these PE came from? If an asteroid shuttle system, bringing back the necessary components for life from mars, is the latest theory, then fine. But to draw an imaginary separation line on origins, while defending naturalism, is just a cop-out.
Back the hell up, Bill. Who said I was defending some "philosophical worldview on naturalism?" I don't even know what you mean by that phrase. If you're talking about philosophical naturalism, I couldn't be called a defender of such a worldview, but more of a pragmatist.
And so, if you want to talk about the evolution of life here on Earth, and particularly transitional fossils, then it doesn't matter one whit where Darwin's "primordial entities" came from in order to have that discussion. If you'd prefer to have a conversation about naturalism in general (both philosophical and pragmatic), then start a new thread (in which I'm sure you will be asked to describe any form of functional non-naturalistic science).quote:
As a man of science who seeks the truth wherever that might lead, do any of these accusations concern you on the validity of bird evolution and relying on the fossil record for clues into the discipline?
Nope, because the fossils are only one small part of the story now. Science progresses, Bill. Go ahead and assume that all the fossils are fake, for all I care. It won't change the status of the theory much at all anymore. It might have made a big difference 140 years ago, but now it's too little, too late.quote:
quote:
By assuming that Feduccia hasn't revised his opinion on the matter one iota, you're simply guessing that he's as dogmatic in his opinions as you are.
LOL. By assuming that AF must have revised his opinion, but offering up nothing to validate this, you are projecting yourself as the dogmatic master of semantics. So what has changed in AF's conclusions since then?
Show me that I ever assumed that Feduccia's views have changed. I never assumed any such thing. My point (which you simply brushed off) was that you should actually check what Feduccia's opinions are now, before claiming that his ten-year-old writings are still his position.quote:
Why do naturalist always revert to Bible questions or attacks when ToE, or any other naturalistic philosophy, is being scrutinized?
Because you refuse to examine the Bible with the same ridiculously high standards with which you "examine" evolution. If you were to critically question the Bible with the same zealous and absurd demands with which you attack the cornerstone of biology, I don't doubt you'd be an atheist, Bill.
quote:
If you'd prefer to have a conversation about naturalism in general (both philosophical and pragmatic), then start a new thread (in which I'm sure you will be asked to describe any form of functional non-naturalistic science).
(bill) I have already had this discussion and the conclusion was that nobody has a clue as to where the primorial entities came from. But the latest hypothesis was that a asteroid shuttle system operating between here and Mars may have had something to do with it. So I see no need to hash that out all over again simple on a new thread this time. I am still waiting on the abiogenesis report that trogdor promised he was going to post real soon. Maybe once he does this we can start that conversation back up.
quote:
quote:
As a man of science who seeks the truth wherever that might lead, do any of these accusations concern you on the validity of bird evolution and relying on the fossil record for clues into the discipline?
Nope,
(bill) Really? So Filthy advances microraptor as a TF, of which you supported and then I offer information that this fossil came from the same area as a previously faked fossil, as well as quoting a expert and life long devotee to bird evolution, who says that it is beyond doubt that many other fakes exist and they are often hard to spot, even for experts, and this does not concern you at all? I am not making the statement that micro is fake or real. I am making the statement that, based off the eyewitness testimony of a bird evolution expert and the fact that it has all ready been discovered to have happened at least once, that it has to be considered a possibility. And the fact that you just dismiss this as a possibility, with nothing more then a hand wave, is one reason that I accuse you of rubber stamping anything you want as a TF.
quote:
because the fossils are only one small part of the story now.
(bill) So tell me what we would have known about Archaeoraptor, Archaeopteryx, or Microraptor without any fossils?
quote:
Science progresses, Bill. Go ahead and assume that all the fossils are fake, for all I care.
(bill) I never said any such thing. I simply hold the position that, based on the eyewitness testimony of a leading bird evolutionist expert and the fact that it all ready has happened, that it must be considered in the realm of possibility. And I hold the position that it is absurd for you to dismiss, with a hand wave, the expert and the fact that it has already happened, and assume that none are fake and say that it does not even concern you. This is why I accuse you of rubber stamping your exampl |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
