Transitional Fossils

[Jose]

Creationists seem to claim that no transitional fossils have been found, thus disproving the theory of evolution. Evolutionists claim to have found very many of them. What's going on?

1. What is a transitional fossil?
2. What would one look like?
3. What are your criteria for coming to these conclusions?

I've put in the last question as an afterthought. It might help us resolve differences in our definitions.

[perfessor]

perfessor..a political agenda?

explain.

OK, since you asked: The following is the statement that the teachers were required to read to their class:

'Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.'

bolding mine.

It is interesting, first of all, that the author(s) of the statement have cleverly implied that ID is a Theory, satisfying their definition in the first paragraph. But ID is not well tested, nor does it unify a broad range of observations.

Secondly, "Darwin's view" has nothing to do with the origin of life; again, they are attempting to juxtapose a well-established theory (evolution) with a speculative one (the origin of life). Obviously, the goal is to make the TOE appear to be weak or speculative. This has no scientific merit, but it may have political capital.

Third, it is interesting that the statement refers students to one and only one source for their alternate information. Imagine, for a moment, that in some other HS class, you wanted more detail on a subject than was given in your text book. Might there not be hundreds of books at the HS or college level with extra detail on, say, the battle of Gettysburg, or orbital mechanics, or analysis of Shakespeare's sonnets? Why only one book on ID? Could it be because it's a fraud?

In short, there can be no "scientific agenda" behind the Dover travesty. The political agenda appears, to me, to be an attempt to sneak the thin end of a wedge into the curriculum, in order to promulgate a particular religious belief.

[Jose]

perfessor..a political agenda?

explain.

It's really pretty simple. If you check the Design Institute's website, you will see that their guiding principle is to have biblical creationism taught as the only scientific doctrine. They present it in the guise of intelligent design, with no designer specified, but their own documents state that biblical Truth is what they are all about. This is not science; it's a political mechanism to get biblical creationism into the schools.

It is also easy to look up the Wedge Document, in which they lay out their long-term goals of replacing science with design theory. Their beginning strategy is political: get school boards to vote for teaching "the controversy" and elect people like George Bush, who promised political rewards for their votes.

It's certainly not about science. Scientifically, there is no controversy about evolution. It is universally accepted as the only theory that fits the data, at least by scientists who actually use the methods of science to assess the actual data. There are controversies about the details of some specific issues (like the origin of sex) for which we don't have all the details, just as there are controversies about any as-yet unfinished scientific endeavors. If they really wanted to teach "the controversy," they'd have to require discussion of reproductive success in the presence and absence of parasites and diseases, vs the theory referred to as The Red Queen (you've got to run as fast as you can to stay in the same place). They certainly wouldn't be talking about religious alternatives to science.

Unfortunately, as well-trained educators teach about ID, they will demonstrate that the theory is intellectually depauperate. They would uncover the deceit that is used by its presenters (e.g. the supposedly irreducibly complex flagellum actually has been worked out evolutionarily, so it fails as an example, even though the IDers continue to use it). They would uncover the bizarre notion that ID is based upon: that God exists only where science has not yet reached. This would be very unfortunate, because it implies that, as we learn more, God will become smaller and smaller, eventually dwindling to nothing. Theistic Evolution is far better, since it envisions the God we know, who is powerful and all-knowing. Do we really want to require our teachers to teach about ID, with the certainty of undermining religion in the process?

Even with the disclaimer that teachers are supposed to read (see perfessor's post prior to this), there are issues. The dislaimer states that a theory is well-tested. Teachers will have to point out that evolution has survived 150 years of rigorous tests, while ID is inherently untestable, and thus cannot ever qualify as a theory. The disclaimer states that students should keep an open mind--but does so in the paragraph about ID, implying that students should be skeptical about ID! The disclaimer itself undermines our faith in ID.

[otseng]

We have no reason to assume that the laws of physics were different then, and therefore conclude that biology and geophysics were pretty much the same as now. That is, the mechanisms we can demonstrate now can be applied to the past as plausible mechanisms.

We can safely assume that the laws of physics are constant.

The issue, I think, is whether it is possible for one "kind" to change into another "kind." The Adam-to-us tree is all microevolution "within kind." We are all humans of the same species. As I see it, our distant ancestors also reproduced according to their kind, with mutations and genetic diversity occurring as always, but their gene pool happened to be enough different from ours that they looked different.

This is the foundational issue. I have no problem with microevolution explaining diversity within a kind. The issue that needs to be overcome by common descent is can the "kinds" be linked together? Of course, the debate can then turn into, "what is a kind"?

So, let's see here....we've established that microevolution is acceptable, that mutations can occur and give rise to genetic diversity, and that conditions can result in some degree of selection (ie, some individuals have more offspring than others). As long as we keep this within a species, there's no big problem. The issue is change from one species to another; it is here that the transitional fossil issue comes up. Do I have this right?

I can accept this summary.

(Jose, you have a great knack for summing up things. )

So, perhaps what we should be doing is leaning on the textbook publishers/writers to go into more detail on one or two specific systems, to illustrate how evolution works. The current approach is to skim the surface of what we might call "the icons," without enough detail to make any of them really clear.

The icons of evolution. Another topic for debate perhaps?

There's lots of information on eyes, flagella, wings, etc, but it's not getting into the classrooms. Hmmm....I wonder what we can do about that?

Starting here would be one good place. If people could present the latest findings on the support of evolution, then it would at least give the readers here a chance to be exposed to them.

Here comes the Wedge!

I would suggest discussions on the Wedge, ID, politics for another thread. This thread should be exclusively for transitional fossils.

[anchorman]

Jose wrote:
Creationists seem to claim that no transitional fossils have been found, thus disproving the theory of evolution. Evolutionists claim to have found very many of them. What's going on?

1. What is a transitional fossil?
2. What would one look like?
3. What are your criteria for coming to these conclusions?


My answer:

1. What is a transistional fossil- They dont exist.
2. What would one look like?- Probably Sponge Bob
3. What are your criteria for coming to these conclusions- None...see below:

Razor...Razor...Razor..."All things being equal the simplist explanation is usaully the correct one."

They dont exist.......

Patterson says one of the main reasons for his skepticism is that there are no real transitional forms anywhere in the fossil record. (Transitional fossils would be in-between forms, such as fish gradually developing arms and legs and turning into land animals. 1981, British paleontologist Colin Patterson
http://www.apologetics.org/doubts.html


"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ëseeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ëgaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.

Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, "a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Because the fossils simply do not support many small changes between kinds over a long period of time, many evolutionists have at least been honest enough to admit this and have come up with a new theory called, "punctuated equilibrium" or the "hopeful monster theory". From the fossil record, they know that change didn't take place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in quick "quantum leaps" over long periods of time. In Darwin's theory, the changes were so slow and gradual that science cannot observe the evolution
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-darwin-was-wrong.htm

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)

Francis Hitching, member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, the Prehistoric Society and the Society for Physical Research, also sees problems in using the fossil record to support Darwinism.
"There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals in the world's museums," he writes. "This compares with about 1.5 million species known to be alive on Earth today. Given the known rates of evolutionary turnover, it has been estimated that at least 100 times more fossil species have lived than have been discovered . . . But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.
http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/fossilrecord.htm

...geological research...does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required on the theory; and this is the most obvious of the many objections which may be urged against it.
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (J.M. Dent, London, 1972), p. 441.

...the fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps
T. Neville George, Science Progress, vol. 48, Jan. 1960, p. 3.

...The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change...All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.

Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard Univ.), Natural History, vol. 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.

...The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change...All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.

Dr. Leo Hickey, Director of Yale Peabody Museum

"Although there must be, from an evolutionary perspective, many transitional forms out there,the likelihood of finding any one of them is extremely low."

Dr. Vincent Sarich, Professor of Anthropology, UCB

"Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolution—from biology, biogeography,and paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (23*)

Dr. E. J. H. Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University


"Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms."(25*)

Drs. David Raup and Steven Stanley


"The facts of greatest importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions."(29*)

Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt

“As we survey the history of life since the inception of multicellular complexity in Ediacaran times, one feature stands out as most puzzling—the lack of clear order and progress through time among marine invertebrate faunas.”
[Gould, Stephen Jay, “The Ediacaran Experiment,” Natural History, vol. 93 (February 1984), p. 22.]

Niles Eldredge, curator in the department of invertebrates at the American Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor at the City University of New York, is another vigorous supporter of evolution. But he finds himself forced to admit that the fossil record fails to support the traditional evolutionary view.
http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/fossilrecord.htm

Francis Hitching, member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, the Prehistoric Society and the Society for Physical Research, also sees problems in using the fossil record to support Darwinism.
"There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals in the world's museums," he writes. "This compares with about 1.5 million species known to be alive on Earth today. Given the known rates of evolutionary turnover, it has been estimated that at least 100 times more fossil species have lived than have been discovered . . . But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places.
http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/fossilrecord.htm

". . . There ought to be cabinets full of intermediates-indeed, one would expect the fossils to blend so gently into one another that it would be difficult to tell where the invertebrates ended and the vertebrates began. But this isn't the case. Instead, groups of well-defined, easily classifiable fish jump into the fossil record seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously, suddenly, full-formed, and in a most un-Darwinian way. And before them are maddening, illogical gaps where their ancestors should be" (The Neck of the Giraffe: Darwin, Evolution and the New Biology, 1982, pp. 9-10, emphasis added).

How complete is the fossil record? Michael Denton is a medical doctor and biological researcher. He writes that "when estimates are made of the percentage of [now-] living forms found as fossils, the percentage turns out to be surprisingly high, suggesting that the fossil record may not be as bad as is often maintained" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 189).

In other words, almost 88 percent of the varieties of mammals, reptiles and amphibians populating earth have been found in the fossil record. How many transitional forms, then, have been found? ". . . Although each of these classes [fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and primates] is well represented in the fossil record, as of yet no one has discovered a fossil creature that is indisputably transitional between one species and another species. Not a single undisputed 'missing link' has been found in all the exposed rocks of the Earth's crust despite the most careful and extensive searches" (Milton, pp. 253-254, emphasis added).
http://www.ucg.org/booklets/EV/fossilrecord.htm

Time magazine said in a long cover story describing fossilized creatures found in Cambrian strata: "In a burst of creativity like nothing before or since, nature appears to have sketched out the blueprints for virtually the whole of the animal kingdom. This explosion of biological diversity is described by scientists as biology's Big Bang" (Madeleine Nash, "When Life Exploded," Dec. 4, 1995, p. 68).

Take Archaeopteryx, for example. Many evolutionists hail this fossil bird as an intermediate between dinosaur & bird. Yet a decent number of leading bird experts, who are themselves evolutionists, roundly dispute this claim.9 The alleged ape-man ‘Lucy’ is another example championed by many evolutionists, but disputed by other qualified evolutionist scientists. Renowned anatomist Lord Solly Zuckerman once scornfully denounced the australopithecines as nothing more than “bloody apes”!10 He became so frustrated with the claims of his fellow evolutionists that he declared there was “no science to be found in this field at all”.11
http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/artic ... lusion.htm


I could go on and on and on and on

[Jose]

The issue, I think, is whether it is possible for one "kind" to change into another "kind." The Adam-to-us tree is all microevolution "within kind." We are all humans of the same species. As I see it, our distant ancestors also reproduced according to their kind, with mutations and genetic diversity occurring as always, but their gene pool happened to be enough different from ours that they looked different.

This is the foundational issue. I have no problem with microevolution explaining diversity within a kind. The issue that needs to be overcome by common descent is can the "kinds" be linked together? Of course, the debate can then turn into, "what is a kind"?

Let's do a thought experiment. Start with a string of 26 A's. Duplicate it, but with one mutation (turn an A into a different letter). This looks pretty much like the same "kind" (mostly A's, but with a slight character difference). OK. Now duplicate the new string, but add another mutation. Do this over and over, producing "offspring" 26-letter strings. At some point, the string of letters will look different enough from the original all-A's that we'd probably call it a different "kind" of string...or would we, since it's the direct descendent of the original?

In this series, each duplication event produces "offspring" that are the same "kind" as the parents, but not 100% identical to the parents (just as with living things). Reproduction is always "within kind." But the beginning and end look so different.

It gets worse if you have multiple "children." Try having two children at the first generation, and follow each of those--but remember that mutations occur at random. I bet you find that, even though each reproduced according to its kind, you end up with two different kinds at the end.

So, perhaps what we should be doing is leaning on the textbook publishers/writers to go into more detail on one or two specific systems, to illustrate how evolution works. The current approach is to skim the surface of what we might call "the icons," without enough detail to make any of them really clear.

The icons of evolution. Another topic for debate perhaps?

I used "the icons" to conjure up that book. I wonder, though...each argument has been rebutted by the NCSE, which might lead to a thread of URLs rather than discussion. There might be more value in evaluating the "critical analysis of evolution" lesson plan that the IDers are pushing, since it sounds innocuous, but is Wells' arguments all over again.

There's lots of information on eyes, flagella, wings, etc, but it's not getting into the classrooms. Hmmm....I wonder what we can do about that?

Starting here would be one good place. If people could present the latest findings on the support of evolution, then it would at least give the readers here a chance to be exposed to them.

An interesting thought. The stuff gets pretty technical, of course. I wonder if we'd be getting in deeper than we really want. [I think of the Polonium Haloes thread I started after encouragement from another member, and the striking lack of interest!] Still, if there's a particular topic that is of interest, let's go for it!

[gluadys]

Patterson says ...

anchorman, it does your credibility no credit at all to rely on quote mines.
Go here to find the full context and actual meaning of most of the citations you have quoted.

Please avoid this very dishonest tactic.

Mark Ridley, another evolutionist from Oxford University said in The New Scientist magazine in June 1981 p 831, "a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution stands upon. They think that the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from another in the fossil record. ...In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."

Ridley is quite right, but you have misinterpreted his meaning. What he is getting at is that there are many other lines of evidence for evolution besides the fossil record----and most of them are stronger lines of evidence!

I just received my copy of Richard Dawkin's latest book, The Ancestor's Tale. He makes much the same point:

"In spite of our fascination with fossils, it is surprising how much we would still know about our evolutionary past without them. If every fossil were magicked away, the comparative study of modern organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their genetic sequences, are distributed among species, and of how species are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate beyond all sane doubt, that our history is evolutionary, and that all living creatures are cousins. Fossils are a bonus. A welcome bonus, to be sure, but not an essential one." p. 13 (Emphasis mine)

Because the fossils simply do not support many small changes between kinds over a long period of time, many evolutionists have at least been honest enough to admit this and have come up with a new theory called, "punctuated equilibrium" or the "hopeful monster theory".

No one has ever expected the fossil record to yield a perfect record of every small transitional change. Punctuated equilibrium is not the hopeful monster theory.

From the fossil record, they know that change didn't take place in small gradual steps, so they assume that the change took place in quick "quantum leaps" over long periods of time. In Darwin's theory, the changes were so slow and gradual that science cannot observe the evolution

They know nothing of the sort and this is a horrible mangling of punk eek. PE says several things:

1.The rate of evolution can happen quickly--quickly enough that significant transitions may not be caught in the fossil record. It does not say that all evolutionary transitions are rapid however, but that both gradualistic and punctuated scenarios occur.

2. Rapid evolution is most likely to occur in small isolated populations, while large populations are more likely to remain in an equilibrium that encourages stasis.

3. When a small population which has undergone rapid evolution migrates into territory vacated by its parent species (now extinct or undergoing extinction) the fossil record will show --- in this area---the relatively sudden replacement of the parent species by its daughter species with no transitions. This, however, is a factor of replacement by migration, not of a quantum leap.

4. If one is fortunate to find the area in which the isolated population did evolve its new features, one will find the whole range of small, gradual Darwinian transitions, all in the same temporally narrow bedding plane.

Number 4 is particular important to remember. Neither Gould nor Eldredge ever renounced the Darwinian mechanisms. Rather their thesis of punctuated equilibrium shows how Darwinian change takes place in certain circumstances and how this explains some puzzling features of the fossil record.

Eldredge, whose speciality was trilobites, actually found a species of trilobite that followed exactly this pattern. It began as a small isolated population. In its region, it underwent rapid evolution---not through a single quantum leap---but through a series of small changes accumulating quickly on top of each other. Then the new species began migrating out of its niche and displacing other trilobite species. In those areas there are no examples of the transitional fossils--just an apparent leap from one species to another.

Several other paleontologists have since reported similar scenarios.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/crea ... k_eek.html

How complete is the fossil record? Michael Denton is a medical doctor and biological researcher. He writes that "when estimates are made of the percentage of [now-] living forms found as fossils, the percentage turns out to be surprisingly high, suggesting that the fossil record may not be as bad as is often maintained" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985, p. 189).

Of course, the rate of fossils for modern species is relatively high. There has not been as much time for them to be exposed to destructive forces. Just as there are more records of the births, marriages and deaths of your great-grandparents than there are of their great-grandparents. Reliable records get fewer as you go farther back in time. That is also true of the fossil record.

I could go on and on and on and on

I am sure you can. The quote mine library is very extensive but it contains nothing worth the digging.

[anchorman]

Glaudys

Why does it do my credibility "no good" when all I have done is show that countless scientists most of them evolutionists admit that the fossil record does not show the gradual changes that evolution requires in order to go from a single cell organism to life we see today? I never said that they disprove evolution

Even Gould admitted this (the most influential evolutionist of in the last 30 years). This is exactly why he developed his theory of "puncuated equilibium" I never said he or any of these scientists quoted gave up on evolution. Many are out spoken evolutionist today or many took their beliefs to the grave.

It does your credibility no good to say that I am "dishonest" When you make silly assumptions based on your own Bias.

At any rate:

Glaudys wrote:

"1.The rate of evolution can happen quickly--quickly enough that significant transitions may not be caught in the fossil record. It does not say that all evolutionary transitions are rapid however, but that both gradualistic and punctuated scenarios occur."

Define rapid transitions? Has this been observed outside of the textbook?

"2. Rapid evolution is most likely to occur in small isolated populations, while large populations are more likely to remain in an equilibrium that encourages stasis.

Again Define rapid evolution. Have you observed this outside of a textbook?



4. If one is fortunate to find the area in which the isolated population did evolve its new features, one will find the whole range of small, gradual Darwinian transitions, all in the same temporally narrow bedding plane.

Where? Give a convincing example. I want to see a whole range of these new features.

"Number 4 is particular important to remember. Neither Gould nor Eldredge ever renounced the Darwinian mechanisms. Rather their thesis of punctuated equilibrium shows how Darwinian change takes place in certain circumstances and how this explains some puzzling features of the fossil record."

my quote never said Gould or Eldredge renounced Darwinian mechanisms, they simply said that they admitted the fossil record is absent of the transitional fossils.

Eldredge, whose speciality was trilobites, actually found a species of trilobite that followed exactly this pattern. It began as a small isolated population. In its region, it underwent rapid evolution---not through a single quantum leap---but through a series of small changes accumulating quickly on top of each other. Then the new species began migrating out of its niche and displacing other trilobite species. In those areas there are no examples of the transitional fossils--just an apparent leap from one species to another.

No transitional fossils found...Hmm...I have been told by several evolutionist on this board that evolution doesnt make leaps and that modern day genetics can show that they are not necessary.

So let me get this straight. Gould says that the fossil record is inadequate to demonstrate that small gradual changes account for all of lifes diversity. So he develops a theory of "Punctuated equilibrium" where ocassionaly evolution makes a giant leap. But many say that giant leaps are no longer necessary because of new discoveries in genetics and microbiology...giant leaps are in a way sort of absurd. So if that is the case we are back to square one....An inadequate fossil record.

Gluadys....This may shock you but I do believe in evolution. Science has shown us amazing things and they will continue to show us new discoveries. Evolution has been proven and it is a wonderful process. Bacteria can evolve and become resistant to antibiotics, There are deer species and one species has 46 chromosome and the other species has only 6 or 7. These species can even breed (however their offspring is sterile). The problem I have is I dont believe for a minute that the experiments and discoveries made by science that demonstrate how small changes can occur can be extrapolated with out proof to show all life evolved from a common ancestor using minor changes as the primary mechanism. The fossil record doesnt show this and neither has experimentation. Experimentation has only given us monstrosities, minor adaptive changes and dead animals. I believe that we were created by a common creator. Life has the ability to adapt to environmental changes...science has shown this characteristic...and what a wonderful blessing from God since our environment does constantly change.

The problem may always be that science says that we cant see big changes because it happens in millions of years. Science has not shown large changes at any level. With years of mutating bacteria, fruitflys, moths etc. Scientists have simulated millions of years of evolution and regardless of the changes to those organisms they are still left with moths, bacteria and fruitflys. This is evidence against the discovered minor changes and the mechanisms that cause those changes...being used to extrapolate outward and show how all life evolved.

[otseng]

Let's do a thought experiment. Start with a string of 26 A's. Duplicate it, but with one mutation (turn an A into a different letter).

Let me extend this thought experiment. Let's start with an entire book composed of letters. The entire book has a logical theme and is readable in one language. Let's randomly change letters in the book to create new books. Let's discard the books that does not make sense. Given sufficient time, an entirely new book will be created that has a different theme. I think this is more on the level with what evolution needs to explain.

An interesting thought. The stuff gets pretty technical, of course. I wonder if we'd be getting in deeper than we really want. [I think of the Polonium Haloes thread I started after encouragement from another member, and the striking lack of interest!] Still, if there's a particular topic that is of interest, let's go for it!

I would suggest resurrecting the The scientific method applied to the theory of Evolution thread. Also, it would be nice if the technical stuff could get simplified so that mortals could grasp the concept. I think that was the problem with the Polonium Haloes thread, it just got way too over peoples' heads too quickly. Well, at least for me it did.

[Nyril]

Why does it do my credibility "no good" when all I have done is show that countless scientists most of them evolutionists admit that the fossil record does not show the gradual changes that evolution requires in order to go from a single cell organism to life we see today? I never said that they disprove evolution

Because the way in which you've chosen to do it makes you dishonest. If I say, "There is no way that I would support the war on Iraq tomorrow if the President asked me to." What you have done is look at my statement (assume for this paragraph I'm famous) and then post on a messageboard "Hey look, this ultra-famous dude said, 'I would support the war on Iraq tomorrow if the President asked me to.'" It's just not honest.

It does your credibility no good to say that I am "dishonest" When you make silly assumptions based on your own Bias.

Glaudys said you were dishonest by quote-mining, and then produced the context from which you dishonestly extracted the quotes as evidence. Making a statement and then supporting it with evidence does not make one dishonest. If you feel that Glaudys incorrectly accused you of quote-mining, look at the evidence presented, and show how it wasn't quote mining.

[anchorman]

Nyril

Nyril wrote:
"Because the way in which you've chosen to do it makes you dishonest. If I say, "There is no way that I would support the war on Iraq tomorrow if the President asked me to." What you have done is look at my statement (assume for this paragraph I'm famous) and then post on a messageboard "Hey look, this ultra-famous dude said, 'I would support the war on Iraq tomorrow if the President asked me to.'" It's just not honest."

Did you even read my last post? Do you deny that the people I quoted have said that the fossil record essentially lacks transitional fossils? Again...all I said was that many scientists have admitted the fossil records lack several transisitional fossils. Your Bias is tainting your judgement...now you have called me dishonest. Dishonesty assumes that their was an intent to decieve. You probably assume I posted these quotes in an attempt disprove evolution. Or that in some way I was trying to say the scientists I quoted rejected evoltion. I NEVER SAID THAT

I simply quoted several scientists to make one point....the fossil record is scarce. Again...I am not saying they rejected evolution. I personally believe the fossil record lacks significant transistional fossils because we did not evolve from life forms billions of years ago. I am not saying the people I quoted believe this.

Using your war analogy...when Gould said the following:

...The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change...All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Stephen Jay Gould (Harvard Univ.), Natural History, vol. 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24

You probablly feel I cropped it from a statement from Gould like the following:

The fossil record with its abundant transistions offers support for gradual change. Paleontologists know that the fossil record contains many in the way of intermediate forms: transitions between major groups are characteristally abundant. (of course Gould didnt say this did he)

Nyril:
you have dishonestly represented what I have claimed which makes you not only dishonest but also a hypocrit.


Why so defensive?