| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jabriol
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 4:27 am Post subject: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
 |
|
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
Fossils are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the earth>s
crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or
shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once
alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their
original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have infiltrated
them and have taken on their shape. Fossils give tangible evidence of the
varieties of life that existed long before man>s arrival. But they have not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began or
how new kinds got started thereafter. Commenting on the lack of transitional
fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major divisions
of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have evolved
from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. "Fish jump into the
fossil record," Hitching says, "seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously,
suddenly, full formed." Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense
this account is science fiction." |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Al Klein
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:34 am Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
posted in alt.atheism:
[quote]I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
[/quote]
You>ll have to specify which theory you>re talking about first.
[quote]Fossils are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the earth>s
crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or
shells.
[/quote]
No, those are called bones, teeth and shells. Bone that have had the
bone replaced with other mineral are fossils.
[quote]A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once
alive, such as an imprint or trail.
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote]Many fossils no longer contain their
original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have infiltrated
them and have taken on their shape.
[/quote]
ALL fossils have.
[quote]Fossils give tangible evidence of the
varieties of life that existed long before man>s arrival. But they have not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began
[/quote]
Which has nothing to do with how life that already existed changed,
which is ALL evolution is.
[quote]Commenting on the lack of transitional
fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
[/quote]
If you define "important places" as those in which there are no
fossils.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul>s place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don>t hold your breath."
- John Popelish
&
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion"
- Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, ratified by Congress
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kronk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 2:18 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
wrote:
[quote]...Fossils give tangible evidence of the
varieties of life that existed long before man>s arrival. But they have not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began or
how new kinds got started thereafter.
[/quote]
You seem to be under the impression that evolution was some fanciful
notion that was made up whole-cloth out of thin air, based on nothing
but a flight of fancy, and that now it has run afoul of the fossil
record. The reality is that the fossil record was what compelled
leading Christian paleontologists to abandon their Biblical view and
conclude evolution had to have happened. Evolution was well
established and widely accepted in the relevant sciences even before
Darwin was born.
[quote]Commenting on the lack of transitional
fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
[/quote]
The really curious thing is that "the important places" Creationists
focus on keep changing and moving about. It would appear that the
only criterion that establishes a place in the fossil record as
"important" is that a gap be located there. As soon as the gap is
filled (such as the once-crucial bird/reptile gap), it is no longer
important.
An examination of the gaps strategy:
http://home.earthlink.net/~marklowe/creationism/gaps.htm
[quote]The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major divisions
of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have evolved
from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. "Fish jump into the
fossil record," Hitching says, "seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously,
suddenly, full formed."
[/quote]
Check out Pikaia on http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~hq8y-ishm/
That>s an invertebrate, free-swimming, segmented worm. But it has a
lot of characteristics and the basic body layout that would later show
up in early vertebrate jawless fishes, including a nervous system that
runs down the central line. How is that "from nowhere"? And what
does Hitching mean by "full formed"? A fish without a jaw is full
formed?
And while you>re on that page with Pikaia, take at look at some of the
other worms on the page. Notice how a lot of them have variations on
the basic theme of bilateral symmetry and repeating segmented
construction. There are a lot of them that Creationists would count
as similar enough that they would lump them together under one
"segmented worm kind", and the reason for that similarity is that they
had only diverged from one another a few million years before. Their
differences are what a Creationist would, in modern animals, call an
example of "micro-evolution". But with hindsight, we know that those
different worms lead to increasingly different branches. Some became
mollusks, which then diverged into forms as diverse as clams and
octopuses. Some became arthropods, branching to lobsters and
dragonflies. And some became vertebrates, branching to dinosaurs and
bats. The differences between these early worms are far less dramatic
than the differences that would later be seen between many of their
descendents. It is only *because* of their descendents that we sort
them into different major taxonomic groups based on particular
distinguishing features which later turned out to be definitive of
major divisions.
[quote]Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense
this account is science fiction."
[/quote]
Proper science fiction tells a plausible but invented story which is
bound by physical principles known to science. The genre has blurred
and spilled over into fantasy, and this is obviously the sense
Creationists have in mind here, but this is surely not the way Berrill
meant it. I expect he meant that he has developed a narrative which
has used reasonable speculation to interpolate between known fossil
samples. Paleontologists do this all the time. Creationists
criticize them for basing their speculations on evolutionary theory,
but time after time, we have found fossils that closely match the form
that interpolation predicted. Creationism, on the other hand, still
has a big zero on its prediction scoresheet. This utter failure to
generate even one, unique, successful prediction ought to be a huge
embarrassment to Creationists, but I>ve seen no hint of any such
mortification. Faith may not be able to conquer all, but it can
certainly conquer humility.
Kronk
[quote]
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jabriol
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 5:11 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:bjtttd$bj8$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu...
[quote]sci. groups dropped.
In article <ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>,
jabriol@Neogenesis.net
wrote...
I am done with the creative days
Which was a load of nonsense, as far as I can tell.
lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
You undoubtedly don>t know of any real "holes".
Fossils are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the earth>s
crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or
shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once
alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their
original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have
infiltrated
them and have taken on their shape. Fossils give tangible evidence of
the
varieties of life that existed long before man>s arrival.
And? They do all that, and more.
But they have not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began
or
how new kinds got started thereafter.
Absolutely wrong. Wrong both about the "expected backing" [a strawman]
and what the fossil record does indeed show and is able to show.
Commenting on the lack of transitional
fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes:
Hitching doesn>t know anything about fossils or gaps. He>s just an
antievolutionist writer without scientific training:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html
[/quote]
your faqs call him an evolutuionist...just one that does not follow
mainstreams ideas.. get it straight.
[quote]
Why should anyone find Hitching any more of a credible authority
on biology than say, you?
[/quote]
he wrote a book.. I did not.
[quote]"The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
And he>s absolutely wrong. Not that he>d ever know whether or not
there are any gaps where he says there are.
[/quote]
where is he wrong?
[quote]
Got anything at all to show us but mined quotes? Of course you don>t.
The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major
divisions
of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have
evolved
from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. "Fish jump into the
fossil record," Hitching says, "seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously,
suddenly, full formed."
And he>s wrong again.
[/quote]
easy to say he is wrong.. proving it is another matter...
[quote]
Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense
this account is science fiction."
What account, where? What was it, exactly? Where did this quote come
from? What were the preceding and the following sentences in the
original document? Do you even know? Of course not.
The Origin of Vertebrates, by N. J. Berrill, 1955, p. 10[/quote]
now then.. maybe you should do some research...
Snip the rest of useless banter.. do the research.. or a you dependent on
the
Talk.origins Faq>s like a creationist is dependent on the literal
interpretation of genesis in the english language...
is this is why you snip the science groups...??? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jabriol
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 5:19 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:5b05mvkdv4f4ltvjv48rb9vlo1uprssq5i@Pern.rk...
[quote]On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net
posted in alt.atheism:
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the
evolutionary
theory
You>ll have to specify which theory you>re talking about first.
[/quote]
How many theories are there?
is it like christian denominations? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jabriol
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 5:37 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
"Kronk" <void@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3f62cde4.143601037@news.gvtc.com...
[quote]On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net
wrote:
...Fossils give tangible evidence of the
varieties of life that existed long before man>s arrival. But they have
not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began
or
how new kinds got started thereafter.
You seem to be under the impression that evolution was some fanciful
notion that was made up whole-cloth out of thin air, based on nothing
but a flight of fancy, and that now it has run afoul of the fossil
record. The reality is that the fossil record was what compelled
leading Christian paleontologists to abandon their Biblical view and
conclude evolution had to have happened. Evolution was well
established and widely accepted in the relevant sciences even before
Darwin was born.
[/quote]
tell me something I don>t know...
[quote]Commenting on the lack of transitional
fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
The really curious thing is that "the important places" Creationists
focus on keep changing and moving about. It would appear that the
only criterion that establishes a place in the fossil record as
"important" is that a gap be located there. As soon as the gap is
filled (such as the once-crucial bird/reptile gap), it is no longer
important.
[/quote]
[quote]
An examination of the gaps strategy:
http://home.earthlink.net/~marklowe/creationism/gaps.htm
[/quote]
started to read it.. then wham it went into quoating talk.origins faq which
I have read, and they are not peered review articles...
I did read:
Perhaps the most famous transitional fossil is Archaeopteryx, which
possesses characteristics of both dinosaurs (believed to be the ancestors of
birds) and modern birds. But Moore, for one, dismisses this as a
transitional fossil "because it apparently had a bird-like skull, perching
feet, and fully developed wings with feathers"...
But afterward... may scientist believe that dinosaurs were more birdlike..
some artists with their imagination paint them with feathers and colors..
etc..
and there much debate on the issue..
Archaeopteryx has fallen to forgotfullnes.
[quote]
The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major
divisions
of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have
evolved
from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. "Fish jump into the
fossil record," Hitching says, "seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously,
suddenly, full formed."
Check out Pikaia on http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~hq8y-ishm/
[/quote]
where do you want me to read?
I got a menu of stuff..
[quote]
[/quote]
w
[quote]That>s an invertebrate, free-swimming, segmented worm. But it has a
lot of characteristics and the basic body layout that would later show
up in early vertebrate jawless fishes, including a nervous system that
runs down the central line. How is that "from nowhere"? And what
does Hitching mean by "full formed"? A fish without a jaw is full
formed?
And while you>re on that page with Pikaia, take at look at some of the
other worms on the page.
[/quote]
on the page.. only a menu....
[quote]Notice how a lot of them have variations on
the basic theme of bilateral symmetry and repeating segmented
construction.
[/quote]
where???
There are a lot of them that Creationists would count
[quote]as similar enough that they would lump them together under one
"segmented worm kind", and the reason for that similarity is that they
had only diverged from one another a few million years before. Their
differences are what a Creationist would, in modern animals, call an
example of "micro-evolution". But with hindsight, we know that those
different worms lead to increasingly different branches. Some became
mollusks, which then diverged into forms as diverse as clams and
octopuses. Some became arthropods, branching to lobsters and
dragonflies. And some became vertebrates, branching to dinosaurs and
bats. The differences between these early worms are far less dramatic
than the differences that would later be seen between many of their
descendents. It is only *because* of their descendents that we sort
them into different major taxonomic groups based on particular
distinguishing features which later turned out to be definitive of
major divisions.
[/quote]
well Im not a creationist... and when you give me the right url, I will look
at it..
[quote]Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense
this account is science fiction."
Proper science fiction tells a plausible but invented story which is
bound by physical principles known to science.
[/quote]
I agree, I am an avid SF reader... which prove to some I do read outside my
religious afiliation...
[quote]The genre has blurred
and spilled over into fantasy,
[/quote]
there are many hard sf writter outthere... I am intriguied on the biotech
concet of the New Jedi series... even though, some writer have done this
before.
Jack kirby comes to mind in his Komandi series and Omac series..
Babylon 5 as well.. and ofcourse the now dead series Farscape.. just to name
a few.
and this is obviously the sense
[quote]Creationists have in mind here,
[/quote]
me not creationist.ugh ugh
[quote]but this is surely not the way Berrill
meant it. I expect he meant that he has developed a narrative which
has used reasonable speculation to interpolate between known fossil
samples. Paleontologists do this all the time.
[/quote]
agreed
[quote]Creationists
criticize them for basing their speculations on evolutionary theory,
but time after time, we have found fossils that closely match the form
that interpolation predicted.
[/quote]
the problem here is.. evolution as the origin of man, is taught as a
bonafide fact, not speculation..
Creationism, on the other hand, still
[quote]has a big zero on its prediction scoresheet. This utter failure to
generate even one, unique, successful prediction ought to be a huge
embarrassment to Creationists, but I>ve seen no hint of any such
mortification. Faith may not be able to conquer all, but it can
certainly conquer humility.
[/quote]
got to take this issue with them :-) |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Elroy Willis
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
void@isp.com (Kronk) wrote in alt.atheism
[quote]jabriol <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote:
Commenting on the lack of transitional
fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
The really curious thing is that "the important places" Creationists
focus on keep changing and moving about. It would appear that the
only criterion that establishes a place in the fossil record as
"important" is that a gap be located there. As soon as the gap is
filled (such as the once-crucial bird/reptile gap), it is no longer
important.
An examination of the gaps strategy:
http://home.earthlink.net/~marklowe/creationism/gaps.htm
[/quote]
From the above:
"These include Homo habilis, Homo erectus (Peking Man and Java Man)
and Australopithecus afarensis (the famous “Lucy” fossil), none of
which are held to be apes by reputable scientists who study hominids."
Is this true? I thought reputable scientists considered even homo
sapiens as apes, or in the ape family. I thought humans were
considered one of the "great apes."
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jabriol
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 8:44 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:nn96mvo73srvncc5lptt98kjd0753kg19b@4ax.com...
[quote]void@isp.com (Kronk) wrote in alt.atheism
jabriol <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote:
Commenting on the lack of transitional
fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
The really curious thing is that "the important places" Creationists
focus on keep changing and moving about. It would appear that the
only criterion that establishes a place in the fossil record as
"important" is that a gap be located there. As soon as the gap is
filled (such as the once-crucial bird/reptile gap), it is no longer
important.
An examination of the gaps strategy:
http://home.earthlink.net/~marklowe/creationism/gaps.htm
From the above:
"These include Homo habilis, Homo erectus (Peking Man and Java Man)
and Australopithecus afarensis (the famous "Lucy" fossil), none of
which are held to be apes by reputable scientists who study hominids."
Is this true? I thought reputable scientists considered even homo
sapiens as apes, or in the ape family. I thought humans were
considered one of the "great apes."
[/quote]
thats what is taught... beside any bone found that loke like a monkey bone,
is considred homonid if it is old enough.. poor gorrilas and chimps.. they
have no ancestors eh? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Del
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message news:<ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>...
[quote]I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the evolutionary
theory
Fossils are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the earth>s
crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or
shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once
alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their
original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have infiltrated
them and have taken on their shape. Fossils give tangible evidence of the
varieties of life that existed long before man>s arrival. But they have not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life began or
how new kinds got started thereafter.
[/quote]
First off, Goober, evolution doesn>t speak to "how life
began." That is a common straw man attack on evolution.
Second, you second claim is flatly wrong, as you might
have discovered if you investigated what science says
about evolution instead of taking the word of a TV
script writer with NO scientific credentials whatsoever.
Your pet source, Francis Hitching:
Commenting on the lack of transitional
[quote]fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes: "The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
[/quote]
.....is also a liar. He claimed to be a member
of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an
inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the
"Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing
of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him
and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that
his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon
inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis
Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a
charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe,
is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for
years."
Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan
pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on
BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors,
Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for
Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of
the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth
Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An
Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the
Supernatural and Instead of Darwin.
Hitching>s book spends much of its time attacking Darwinian
evolution, borrowing heavily and uncritically from young-
earth creationist arguments. Many of Hitching>s "references"
are lifted from young-earth creationist literature rather
than being quoted directly from their original sources. One
magazine had this to say [Creation/Evolution Newsletter, 7,
No. 5, pp. 15-16, September/October 1987]:
Speaking of the Biblical Creation Society, there was an
interesting letter in the January 1983 issue of their
journal Biblical Creation (p. 74) concerning a review of
Francis Hitching>s 1982 book The Neck of the Giraffe.
Hitching>s book is strongly anti- Darwinist, and is
enthusiastically hailed by most creationists (though he also
pokes fun at fundamentalist creationists). The letter, by
creationist Malcolm Bowden (author of The Rise of the
Evolution Fraud), points out that Hitching simply "culled
his information from the creationist literature." This is
indeed the case: many creationist works are cited favorably
(Anderson, Coffin, Clark, Daly, Davidheiser, Dewar, Gish,
Morris, Segraves, Whitcomb, and Wysong, plus various anti-
Darwinists). Hitching does cite Bowden>s earlier book Ape-
Men -- Fact or Fallacy?, but Bowden accuses Hitching of
"lifting" several passages and illustrations from his book
without acknowledgment: in other words, plagiarism.
"Hitchin>s [sic] book is largely an exposition of the
creationists [sic] viewpoint from the beginning to almost
the end," Bowden points out.... Hitching is also a
paranormalist, an advocate of psychic evolution....
[Hitching>s book] Earth Magic is a wild, extremely
entertaining and thoroughly psychic interpretation of
megalithic structures.... Hitching also includes in his
scheme cosmic cataclysms, Atlantis, pyramidology, dowsing,
ESP, miraculous healing, and astrology.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html
[quote]
The important places he refers to are the gaps between the major divisions
of animal life. An example of this is that fish are thought to have evolved
from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. "Fish jump into the
fossil record," Hitching says, "seemingly from nowhere: mysteriously,
suddenly, full formed."
[/quote]
Nonsense.
Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
[quote]evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense
this account is science fiction."
[/quote]
One grossly out of context quote without a citation!
Boy, I>m convinced! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jabriol
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 10:13 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1902ce50.0309130827.671b6ef1@posting.google.com...
[quote]"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:<ADs8b.1049778$Bf5.150417@news.easynews.com>...
I am done with the creative days lets talk about holes in the
evolutionary
theory
Fossils are the remains of ancient forms of life preserved in the
earth>s
crust. These may be skeletons or parts of them such as bones, teeth or
shells. A fossil also may be some trace of the activity of what was once
alive, such as an imprint or trail. Many fossils no longer contain their
original material but are made up of mineral deposits that have
infiltrated
them and have taken on their shape. Fossils give tangible evidence of
the
varieties of life that existed long before man>s arrival. But they have
not
produced the expected backing for the evolutionary view of how life
began or
how new kinds got started thereafter.
First off, Goober, evolution doesn>t speak to "how life
began." That is a common straw man attack on evolution.
[/quote]
No it is not.. abiogenesis was linked, until the failures of the Miller
experiments.
you do know about this right?
[quote]Second, you second claim is flatly wrong, as you might
have discovered if you investigated what science says
about evolution instead of taking the word of a TV
script writer with NO scientific credentials whatsoever.
Your pet source, Francis Hitching:
[/quote]
snip..... we all know about the intent to discredit Hitching because he is a
non conformist evolutionist..
[quote]
Zoologist N. J. Berrill comments on his own
evolutionary explanation of how the fish arrived, by saying: "In a sense
this account is science fiction."
One grossly out of context quote without a citation!
Boy, I>m convinced!
[/quote]
If you followed the thread you know the ref was given.. but feel free to
tell us why it was out of context.. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Karl Johanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 10:31 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
All fossils of animals which had offspring are transitional, from the
parents to the offspring.
Karl Johanson |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jabriol
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:24 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
"Karl Johanson" <karljohanson@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:CvI8b.945117$ro6.18788355@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
[quote]All fossils of animals which had offspring are transitional, from the
parents to the offspring.
[/quote]
per defintion of course, but ther must be a limit eh? and since has not be
observed in the sense, that human are evolving into something else, we must
rely
on fossil records, and we see no connection unless you are a firm beliver of
Pun-eq
[quote]
Karl Johanson
[/quote] |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kronk
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:46 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:37:31 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net>
wrote:
[quote]
"Kronk" <void@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3f62cde4.143601037@news.gvtc.com...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net
wrote:
...
I did read:
Perhaps the most famous transitional fossil is Archaeopteryx, which
possesses characteristics of both dinosaurs (believed to be the ancestors of
birds) and modern birds. But Moore, for one, dismisses this as a
transitional fossil "because it apparently had a bird-like skull, perching
feet, and fully developed wings with feathers"...
But afterward... may scientist believe that dinosaurs were more birdlike..
some artists with their imagination paint them with feathers and colors..
etc..
and there much debate on the issue..
Archaeopteryx has fallen to forgotfullnes.
[/quote]
If you are saying there is no more controversy over whether
Archaeopteryx should count as a transitional fossil between bipedal
reptiles and birds, I still see plenty of controversy. If you are
trying to make some other point, what is it?
[quote]Check out Pikaia on http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~hq8y-ishm/
where do you want me to read?
I got a menu of stuff..
[/quote]
Rats. My mistake. I didn>t notice that I>d failed to load a new
address into the clipboard buffer. This is the link I had meant to
post:
http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/burgess/burgess.htm
Sorry about that.
[quote]well Im not a creationist...
[/quote]
Interesting, and again I apologize. I gathered from your original
post in this thread that you were previously discussing the "creative
days" (which I took to mean the days of creation) and now you wanted
to move on to discuss "holes in the evolutionary theory", citing gaps
in the fossil record, and using a quote that is widely circulated on
Creationist websites. I did not think it was a great leap to conclude
you were a Creationist, but apparently I was wrong about that.
Do you have an account that you find more compelling and plausible
than both special creation and evolution, or do you reject both and
leave the question unaddressed?
[quote]I am an avid SF reader... which prove to some I do read outside my
religious afiliation...
[/quote]
Does your religious affiliation have a position regarding the origin
of new species, or of man in particular? And if so, do you agree with
that position?
[quote]Creationists
criticize them for basing their speculations on evolutionary theory,
but time after time, we have found fossils that closely match the form
that interpolation predicted.
the problem here is.. evolution as the origin of man, is taught as a
bonafide fact, not speculation..
[/quote]
It depends on what you mean by that. There is much controversy over
the exact line of descent, and much question over which early
anthropoid fossils were in lines that went extinct and which were in
the lineage that led to us. Even hominids as late as Neanderthal are
not universally considered a line that went extinct. So no, the
specific course of the evolution of man isn>t established well enough
to be considered a fact, and it is generally not regarded as such.
But if you mean it is taught as fact that man originated by a process
of evolution from ancestors that were increasingly different the
further back in time you go, I don>t see a problem in that.
Kronk |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Lane Lewis
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:53 pm Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote in message
news:MXG8b.4237945$cI2.597430@news.easynews.com...
[quote]
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:nn96mvo73srvncc5lptt98kjd0753kg19b@4ax.com...
void@isp.com (Kronk) wrote in alt.atheism
jabriol <jabriol@Neogenesis.net> wrote:
Commenting on the lack of transitional
fossils to bridge the biological gaps, Francis Hitching observes:
"The
curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps:
the
fossils go missing in all the important places."
The really curious thing is that "the important places" Creationists
focus on keep changing and moving about. It would appear that the
only criterion that establishes a place in the fossil record as
"important" is that a gap be located there. As soon as the gap is
filled (such as the once-crucial bird/reptile gap), it is no longer
important.
An examination of the gaps strategy:
http://home.earthlink.net/~marklowe/creationism/gaps.htm
From the above:
"These include Homo habilis, Homo erectus (Peking Man and Java Man)
and Australopithecus afarensis (the famous "Lucy" fossil), none of
which are held to be apes by reputable scientists who study hominids."
Is this true? I thought reputable scientists considered even homo
sapiens as apes, or in the ape family. I thought humans were
considered one of the "great apes."
thats what is taught... beside any bone found that loke like a monkey
bone,
is considred homonid if it is old enough.. poor gorrilas and chimps.. they
have no ancestors eh?
[/quote]
What distinguishes hominid bones from the other apes is the bones had
the characteristics of walking upright. There are fossilized ape bones but
they are few due to the fact that apes tend to live in forest which are poor
areas for fossilization as opposed to hominids which ventured out to dryer
climates.
Your penchant to just smear paleontologist without any regard to the
truth just goes to show your true character and the immorality of your
beliefs.
Lane |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
jabriol
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2003 12:42 am Post subject: Re: TOBS- The BudiKKKa Hole series: Transitional Fossils |
|
|
"Kronk" <void@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3f635671.2177571@news.gvtc.com...
[quote]On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:37:31 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net
wrote:
"Kronk" <void@isp.com> wrote in message
news:3f62cde4.143601037@news.gvtc.com...
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:27:28 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@Neogenesis.net
wrote:
...
I did read:
Perhaps the most famous transitional fossil is Archaeopteryx, which
possesses characteristics of both dinosaurs (believed to be the ancestors
of
birds) and modern birds. But Moore, for one, dismisses this as a
transitional fossil "because it apparently had a bird-like skull,
perching
feet, and fully developed wings with feathers"...
But afterward... may scientist believe that dinosaurs were more
birdlike..
some artists with their imagination paint them with feathers and colors..
etc..
and there much debate on the issue..
Archaeopteryx has fallen to forgotfullnes.
If you are saying there is no more controversy over whether
Archaeopteryx should count as a transitional fossil between bipedal
reptiles and birds, I still see plenty of controversy. If you are
trying to make some other point, what is it?
Check out Pikaia on http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~hq8y-ishm/
where do you want me to read?
I got a menu of stuff..
Rats. My mistake. I didn>t notice that I>d failed to load a new
address into the clipboard buffer. This is the link I had meant to
post:
http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/burgess/burgess.htm
Sorry about that.
[/quote]
thanks I am reading it...
[quote]well Im not a creationist...
Interesting, and again I apologize. I gathered from your original
post in this thread that you were previously discussing the "creative
days" (which I took to mean the days of creation) and now you wanted
to move on to discuss "holes in the evolutionary theory", citing gaps
in the fossil record, and using a quote that is widely circulated on
Creationist websites. I did not think it was a great leap to conclude
you were a Creationist, but apparently I was wrong about that.
[/quote]
I am not a creationist. I do belive that someone gave us a start. I belive
that the information given to us in Genesis, was a simplified version of
what went on, and occured. I am sure that given our knowledge of science of
today, we will eventually know what happen. I dislike evolution, not theory,
I know evolution exist in pure science sense, but as with all theory, there
gaps, that people wish to ignore.. I>ve presented these gap in the form
where the layman could understand, and this got me banned on talk.origins..
no matter. I am no longer restricted by their content censorship. SAP gave
me new home to present my ideas and opinion of the subject.
[quote]
Do you have an account that you find more compelling and plausible
than both special creation and evolution, or do you reject both and
leave the question unaddressed?
[/quote]
I think I reject creationism, they are about as bad as evolutionist, same
fanatics, different ways of achieving it.
[quote]
I am an avid SF reader... which prove to some I do read outside my
religious afiliation...
Does your religious affiliation have a position regarding the origin
of new species, or of man in particular?
[/quote]
yes, and they reject creationism as well.
And if so, do you agree with
[quote]that position?
[/quote]
yes..
[quote]
Creationists
criticize them for basing their speculations on evolutionary theory,
but time after time, we have found fossils that closely match the form
that interpolation predicted.
understood. but prediction can be inacurate[/quote]
[quote]the problem here is.. evolution as the origin of man, is taught as a
bonafide fact, not speculation..
It depends on what you mean by that. There is much controversy over
the exact line of descent, and much question over which early
anthropoid fossils were in lines that went extinct and which were in
the lineage that led to us. Even hominids as late as Neanderthal are
not universally considered a line that went extinct.
[/quote]
I believe that each creature was interfered with. And that without the
intervention, new creature would not exist on their own...
this was mentioned in another thread, where I bought up the manpanzee.
[quote]So no, the
specific course of the evolution of man isn>t established well enough
to be considered a fact, and it is generally not regarded as such.
[/quote]
but it is taught.. and that teaching I disagree with... |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
