Push-Back Against 'Evolution' in Schools?

[NYcarbineer]

You're moving the goalposts. You claim there are no transitional fossils. I point out where you can read about transitional fossils we have found. You then claim we have no fossils showing Species A becoming Species A1.

But all of that is just window-dressing. This is the crux of the argument:

if you were convinced that the proof is not to be found in the reccord.....

....to what would you attribute same?

You don't want to see the proof because it is in conflict with your worldview, so therefore no proof can be found. Nothing will ever be good enough for you and even if it meets your criteria, you'll just reform the question to exclude the evidence in front of you.

"no transitional fossils" means a record from one species to another.

The record of transition from one species to another....the claim of Darwinian evolution...does not exist.

As my previous post giving the words of three recognized scientists, shows.


My question remains....if you could be convinced that no such pathway exists, would you be open to a new view, or "would it be in conflict with your worldview"?

You've apparently never seen the timeline of the evolutionary development of the horse.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're moving the goalposts. You claim there are no transitional fossils. I point out where you can read about transitional fossils we have found. You then claim we have no fossils showing Species A becoming Species A1.

But all of that is just window-dressing. This is the crux of the argument:

if you were convinced that the proof is not to be found in the reccord.....

....to what would you attribute same?

You don't want to see the proof because it is in conflict with your worldview, so therefore no proof can be found. Nothing will ever be good enough for you and even if it meets your criteria, you'll just reform the question to exclude the evidence in front of you.

I explained this to her the other day with the simplest of examples. The coyote and the domestic dog are separate species but they can interbreed. The result, known as a coydog, is neither wolf nor domestic dog, as far as species is concerned.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You're moving the goalposts. You claim there are no transitional fossils. I point out where you can read about transitional fossils we have found. You then claim we have no fossils showing Species A becoming Species A1.

But all of that is just window-dressing. This is the crux of the argument:

if you were convinced that the proof is not to be found in the reccord.....

....to what would you attribute same?

You don't want to see the proof because it is in conflict with your worldview, so therefore no proof can be found. Nothing will ever be good enough for you and even if it meets your criteria, you'll just reform the question to exclude the evidence in front of you.

"no transitional fossils" means a record from one species to another.

The record of transition from one species to another....the claim of Darwinian evolution...does not exist.

As my previous post giving the words of three recognized scientists, shows.


My question remains....if you could be convinced that no such pathway exists, would you be open to a new view, or "would it be in conflict with your worldview"?

Actually there are plenty of transitional fossils, PC!

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're moving the goalposts. You claim there are no transitional fossils. I point out where you can read about transitional fossils we have found. You then claim we have no fossils showing Species A becoming Species A1.

But all of that is just window-dressing. This is the crux of the argument:


You don't want to see the proof because it is in conflict with your worldview, so therefore no proof can be found. Nothing will ever be good enough for you and even if it meets your criteria, you'll just reform the question to exclude the evidence in front of you.

"no transitional fossils" means a record from one species to another.

The record of transition from one species to another....the claim of Darwinian evolution...does not exist.

As my previous post giving the words of three recognized scientists, shows.


My question remains....if you could be convinced that no such pathway exists, would you be open to a new view, or "would it be in conflict with your worldview"?

Actually there are plenty of transitional fossils, PC!

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really?

Well, then, why do noted evolutionists say just the opposite?

1. ...like Ernst Mayr, who admitted: "Naturalists have long been faced by a puzzling conflict. On one hand, there is pervasive continuity in the gradual change of the population of a species through time and space and, on the other hand, there are gaps between all species and all higher taxa. Nothing has more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record. This is the reason so many of them were supporters of saltational theories of evolution”


Saltatory, meaning the opposite of what Darwin wrote.

Mayr....perhaps the most famous of evolutionary biologists....



2. Or Stephen Gould....“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)


3. Or University of Oklahoma paleontologist Dave Kitts?
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…. (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)




And many other real evoluitonists....who propound the theory of evolution, not always Darwin's version (Gould didn't) but admit truth....the record does not support Darwinian evolution.

So....do you still want to champion it?

 

[Steven_R]

You're referring to books and papers decades old, as if nothing new has been found between then and now. If that's the standard, why have science at all?

You claim to go to Columbia. Walk over to the biology department and ask any of the professors if there have been any advances or new findings in the 30+ years since Gould et al wrote what they did (assuming they wrote it in the first place and the context is exactly what you purport it to be).

 

[Derideo_Te]

"no transitional fossils" means a record from one species to another.

The record of transition from one species to another....the claim of Darwinian evolution...does not exist.

As my previous post giving the words of three recognized scientists, shows.


My question remains....if you could be convinced that no such pathway exists, would you be open to a new view, or "would it be in conflict with your worldview"?

Actually there are plenty of transitional fossils, PC!

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really?

Well, then, why do noted evolutionists say just the opposite?

1. ...like Ernst Mayr, who admitted: "Naturalists have long been faced by a puzzling conflict. On one hand, there is pervasive continuity in the gradual change of the population of a species through time and space and, on the other hand, there are gaps between all species and all higher taxa. Nothing has more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record. This is the reason so many of them were supporters of saltational theories of evolution”


Saltatory, meaning the opposite of what Darwin wrote.

Mayr....perhaps the most famous of evolutionary biologists....



2. Or Stephen Gould....“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)


3. Or University of Oklahoma paleontologist Dave Kitts?
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…. (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)




And many other real evoluitonists....who propound the theory of evolution, not always Darwin's version (Gould didn't) but admit truth....the record does not support Darwinian evolution.

So....do you still want to champion it?

The fossil record itself is hardly complete. The transitional fossil record suffers from the same problem. However there are more than sufficient transitional fossils to support the concept to evolution. Add to that the DNA evidence that can manipulate a chicken so that it has teeth and a tail similar to those of it's dinosaur ancestors and there is no doubt whatsoever that species evolve.

Turning Chickens into Dinosaurs | QUEST

After 65 million years you might think all traces of dino-DNA would be lost in birds. Surprisingly, you’d be wrong. It looks like there is still some T-rex lurking in a chicken’s DNA.

In the last decade, scientists have been able to make chickens look a bit more dinosaur-like by changing how the chickens use the genes they already have. For example, they have been able to make a chicken’s tail look a bit more like a dinosaur’s.

A big difference between birds and dinosaurs is that dinosaurs have much longer tails. But this doesn’t hold up in a chicken embryo.

At a very early stage of development, chicken embryos have what looks like a very reptilian tail with 16 vertebrae. Later in development, though, most of the vertebrae disappear until only five are left.

What this means is that if scientists can figure out how to keep the vertebrae from disappearing, they might end up with a long tailed chicken. And they’ve actually managed to sort of do this already.

By changing when certain genes are turned on or off, they have managed to create a chicken with a tail that has eight vertebrae. Not quite a dinosaur but a step in that direction.

They have also been able to create a chicken with teeth. And even a snout! All of this without fundamentally changing a chicken’s genes but instead changing how they are used.

Now they probably won’t be able to make the chicken-dinosaur transition simply by changing how chicken genes are used. There are bound to have been some significant changes in certain key genes that will have to be replicated to really make a dinosaur. And for that we’ll need to figure out what dinosaur DNA looked like.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're referring to books and papers decades old, as if nothing new has been found between then and now. If that's the standard, why have science at all?

You claim to go to Columbia. Walk over to the biology department and ask any of the professors if there have been any advances or new findings in the 30+ years since Gould et al wrote what they did (assuming they wrote it in the first place and the context is exactly what you purport it to be).

“Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” (Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.)

“What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.” (Carroll, Robert L., “Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,” in Trends in Evolution and Ecology 15(1):27-32, 2000, p. 27.)



Case closed?




You are in error, but not in doubt.

An unbeatable combination.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually there are plenty of transitional fossils, PC!

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really?

Well, then, why do noted evolutionists say just the opposite?

1. ...like Ernst Mayr, who admitted: "Naturalists have long been faced by a puzzling conflict. On one hand, there is pervasive continuity in the gradual change of the population of a species through time and space and, on the other hand, there are gaps between all species and all higher taxa. Nothing has more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record. This is the reason so many of them were supporters of saltational theories of evolution”


Saltatory, meaning the opposite of what Darwin wrote.

Mayr....perhaps the most famous of evolutionary biologists....



2. Or Stephen Gould....“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)


3. Or University of Oklahoma paleontologist Dave Kitts?
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…. (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)




And many other real evoluitonists....who propound the theory of evolution, not always Darwin's version (Gould didn't) but admit truth....the record does not support Darwinian evolution.

So....do you still want to champion it?

The fossil record itself is hardly complete. The transitional fossil record suffers from the same problem. However there are more than sufficient transitional fossils to support the concept to evolution. Add to that the DNA evidence that can manipulate a chicken so that it has teeth and a tail similar to those of it's dinosaur ancestors and there is no doubt whatsoever that species evolve.

Turning Chickens into Dinosaurs | QUEST

After 65 million years you might think all traces of dino-DNA would be lost in birds. Surprisingly, you’d be wrong. It looks like there is still some T-rex lurking in a chicken’s DNA.

In the last decade, scientists have been able to make chickens look a bit more dinosaur-like by changing how the chickens use the genes they already have. For example, they have been able to make a chicken’s tail look a bit more like a dinosaur’s.

A big difference between birds and dinosaurs is that dinosaurs have much longer tails. But this doesn’t hold up in a chicken embryo.

At a very early stage of development, chicken embryos have what looks like a very reptilian tail with 16 vertebrae. Later in development, though, most of the vertebrae disappear until only five are left.

What this means is that if scientists can figure out how to keep the vertebrae from disappearing, they might end up with a long tailed chicken. And they’ve actually managed to sort of do this already.

By changing when certain genes are turned on or off, they have managed to create a chicken with a tail that has eight vertebrae. Not quite a dinosaur but a step in that direction.

They have also been able to create a chicken with teeth. And even a snout! All of this without fundamentally changing a chicken’s genes but instead changing how they are used.

Now they probably won’t be able to make the chicken-dinosaur transition simply by changing how chicken genes are used. There are bound to have been some significant changes in certain key genes that will have to be replicated to really make a dinosaur. And for that we’ll need to figure out what dinosaur DNA looked like.

"Now they probably won’t be able to make the chicken-dinosaur transition simply by changing how chicken genes are used. There are bound to have been some significant changes in certain key genes that will have to be replicated to really make a dinosaur. And for that we’ll need to figure out what dinosaur DNA looked like."


You can't be serious. This is written for and by grade-schoolers.

Did you notice phrases such as "we'll probably...."


Why do you think phrases such as that are used?
I would have thought you were more astute.


The fact is that there is no fossil record showing one species becoming another.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

 

[PredFan]

1. Are you familiar with Francis Crick's work with DNA? Did you know that Crick observed that life appears suddenly and with complexity in the fossil record, and
confirmed the absence of any fossil evidence for transitional forms of life?


2. Then there are two scientists, Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, who proposed some weird theory about life on earth coming from outer space....(Sir Fred Hoyle, N.C. Wickramasinghe, "Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism").

Now, the theory may be strange.....but it is based on the following:
Hoyle offers that this conjecture, unlike all previous theories, finally explains the total absence of transitional forms in the fossil record. Continuing the analogy to computer programming, Hoyle states:

We saw there that intermediate forms are missing from the fossil record. Now we see why, essentially because there were no intermediate forms. When a computer is upgraded there are no intermediate forms. The new units are wheeled in beside the old computer, the electrical connections are made, the electric power is switched on, and the thing is done. p.111



In any case.....all three recognized scientists state that there are no transitional fossils in evidence.


So....how to explain the nonsense in your post?

You mean like Tiktaalik? Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil, neatly fitting between fish and land dwelling animal. Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a strange sort of coincidence that the universe seems to love, Tiktaalik was being described by the scientists at the same time as the Kitzmiller trial.

There's a whole page of transitional fossils just waiting fro you to read. List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no record of one species becoming another in the fossil record.

That is the case.


Now, I understand how important it is to you to maintain your belief in Darwin....but....arguendo, if you were convinced that the proof is not to be found in the reccord.....

....to what would you attribute same?

How to explain it?

Evolution doesn't say that one species evolves into another.

 

[Moonglow]

Who created God, or did the supreme being evolve from another state of existence?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Really?

Well, then, why do noted evolutionists say just the opposite?

1. ...like Ernst Mayr, who admitted: "Naturalists have long been faced by a puzzling conflict. On one hand, there is pervasive continuity in the gradual change of the population of a species through time and space and, on the other hand, there are gaps between all species and all higher taxa. Nothing has more impressed the paleontologists than the discontinuous nature of the fossil record. This is the reason so many of them were supporters of saltational theories of evolution”


Saltatory, meaning the opposite of what Darwin wrote.

Mayr....perhaps the most famous of evolutionary biologists....



2. Or Stephen Gould....“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.” (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 189.)


3. Or University of Oklahoma paleontologist Dave Kitts?
Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them…. (Kitts, David B., "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, vol. 28, 1974, p. 467)




And many other real evoluitonists....who propound the theory of evolution, not always Darwin's version (Gould didn't) but admit truth....the record does not support Darwinian evolution.

So....do you still want to champion it?

The fossil record itself is hardly complete. The transitional fossil record suffers from the same problem. However there are more than sufficient transitional fossils to support the concept to evolution. Add to that the DNA evidence that can manipulate a chicken so that it has teeth and a tail similar to those of it's dinosaur ancestors and there is no doubt whatsoever that species evolve.

Turning Chickens into Dinosaurs | QUEST

After 65 million years you might think all traces of dino-DNA would be lost in birds. Surprisingly, you’d be wrong. It looks like there is still some T-rex lurking in a chicken’s DNA.

In the last decade, scientists have been able to make chickens look a bit more dinosaur-like by changing how the chickens use the genes they already have. For example, they have been able to make a chicken’s tail look a bit more like a dinosaur’s.

A big difference between birds and dinosaurs is that dinosaurs have much longer tails. But this doesn’t hold up in a chicken embryo.

At a very early stage of development, chicken embryos have what looks like a very reptilian tail with 16 vertebrae. Later in development, though, most of the vertebrae disappear until only five are left.

What this means is that if scientists can figure out how to keep the vertebrae from disappearing, they might end up with a long tailed chicken. And they’ve actually managed to sort of do this already.

By changing when certain genes are turned on or off, they have managed to create a chicken with a tail that has eight vertebrae. Not quite a dinosaur but a step in that direction.

They have also been able to create a chicken with teeth. And even a snout! All of this without fundamentally changing a chicken’s genes but instead changing how they are used.

Now they probably won’t be able to make the chicken-dinosaur transition simply by changing how chicken genes are used. There are bound to have been some significant changes in certain key genes that will have to be replicated to really make a dinosaur. And for that we’ll need to figure out what dinosaur DNA looked like.

"Now they probably won’t be able to make the chicken-dinosaur transition simply by changing how chicken genes are used. There are bound to have been some significant changes in certain key genes that will have to be replicated to really make a dinosaur. And for that we’ll need to figure out what dinosaur DNA looked like."


You can't be serious. This is written for and by grade-schoolers.

I was being considerate to the audience!

Did you notice phrases such as "we'll probably...."


Why do you think phrases such as that are used?
I would have thought you were more astute.


The fact is that there is no fossil record showing one species becoming another.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

That statement is almost correct, but to be accurate it should read as follows;

The fact is that there is no COMPLETE fossil record showing one species becoming another.

But we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction based upon the available evidence. There are more than enough transitional fossils with characteristics of more than one species to demonstrate that it happens. And the DNA evidence is the clincher.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You mean like Tiktaalik? Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil, neatly fitting between fish and land dwelling animal. Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a strange sort of coincidence that the universe seems to love, Tiktaalik was being described by the scientists at the same time as the Kitzmiller trial.

There's a whole page of transitional fossils just waiting fro you to read. List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no record of one species becoming another in the fossil record.

That is the case.


Now, I understand how important it is to you to maintain your belief in Darwin....but....arguendo, if you were convinced that the proof is not to be found in the reccord.....

....to what would you attribute same?

How to explain it?

Evolution doesn't say that one species evolves into another.

Of course it does.
You don't have a clear understanding of Darwin's theory.


But, I can help.


1. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)

and

b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.



2. In order for Darwin's premises to be correct, as new species first began to emerge from a common ancestor, they would at first be quite similar to each other, and that large differences in the forms of life- what paleontologists call 'disparity'- would only emerge much later as a result of the accumulation of many tiny random changes.
See Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt."

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fossil record itself is hardly complete. The transitional fossil record suffers from the same problem. However there are more than sufficient transitional fossils to support the concept to evolution. Add to that the DNA evidence that can manipulate a chicken so that it has teeth and a tail similar to those of it's dinosaur ancestors and there is no doubt whatsoever that species evolve.

Turning Chickens into Dinosaurs | QUEST

"Now they probably won’t be able to make the chicken-dinosaur transition simply by changing how chicken genes are used. There are bound to have been some significant changes in certain key genes that will have to be replicated to really make a dinosaur. And for that we’ll need to figure out what dinosaur DNA looked like."


You can't be serious. This is written for and by grade-schoolers.

I was being considerate to the audience!

Did you notice phrases such as "we'll probably...."


Why do you think phrases such as that are used?
I would have thought you were more astute.


The fact is that there is no fossil record showing one species becoming another.


"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

That statement is almost correct, but to be accurate it should read as follows;

The fact is that there is no COMPLETE fossil record showing one species becoming another.

But we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction based upon the available evidence. There are more than enough transitional fossils with characteristics of more than one species to demonstrate that it happens. And the DNA evidence is the clincher.

"But we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction based upon the available evidence. There are more than enough transitional fossils with characteristics of more than one species to demonstrate that it happens. And the DNA evidence is the clincher."

Excellent!!!



Another way to say 'we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction' is to say you accept it on faith.
And that is my point exactly.


One can certainly accept it on faith, i.e., sans evidence.

You're my first convert.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"Now they probably won’t be able to make the chicken-dinosaur transition simply by changing how chicken genes are used. There are bound to have been some significant changes in certain key genes that will have to be replicated to really make a dinosaur. And for that we’ll need to figure out what dinosaur DNA looked like."


You can't be serious. This is written for and by grade-schoolers.

I was being considerate to the audience!

That statement is almost correct, but to be accurate it should read as follows;

The fact is that there is no COMPLETE fossil record showing one species becoming another.

But we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction based upon the available evidence. There are more than enough transitional fossils with characteristics of more than one species to demonstrate that it happens. And the DNA evidence is the clincher.

"But we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction based upon the available evidence. There are more than enough transitional fossils with characteristics of more than one species to demonstrate that it happens. And the DNA evidence is the clincher."

Excellent!!!



Another way to say 'we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction' is to say you accept it on faith.
And that is my point exactly.


One can certainly accept it on faith, i.e., sans evidence.

You're my first convert.

Physical evidence exists in both the fossil record and DNA. Ergo no "faith" is required to make a logical and reasoned deduction based upon the physical evidence that does exist. If you prefer you can call it a circumstantial case for evolution based upon the preponderance of physical evidence.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I was being considerate to the audience!

That statement is almost correct, but to be accurate it should read as follows;



But we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction based upon the available evidence. There are more than enough transitional fossils with characteristics of more than one species to demonstrate that it happens. And the DNA evidence is the clincher.

"But we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction based upon the available evidence. There are more than enough transitional fossils with characteristics of more than one species to demonstrate that it happens. And the DNA evidence is the clincher."

Excellent!!!



Another way to say 'we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction' is to say you accept it on faith.
And that is my point exactly.


One can certainly accept it on faith, i.e., sans evidence.

You're my first convert.

Physical evidence exists in both the fossil record and DNA. Ergo no "faith" is required to make a logical and reasoned deduction based upon the physical evidence that does exist. If you prefer you can call it a circumstantial case for evolution based upon the preponderance of physical evidence.

You've been fooled.

I understand how difficult it is for those of you haven't done the research into the matter to come to grips with the idea that there are reasons why Darwin's theory is pushed so heavily.....yet lacks the evidence necessary.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original]
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



Eventually I will construct and OP explaining why the idea of Darwin's theory has been advanced by secularists....and why it is so important that you believe it to be true.

Until then, you can mull over why you are willing to accept as true an unproven idea....

"...there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there;..."

 

[Moonglow]

I would prefer a thread on how God was created.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"But we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction based upon the available evidence. There are more than enough transitional fossils with characteristics of more than one species to demonstrate that it happens. And the DNA evidence is the clincher."

Excellent!!!



Another way to say 'we don't need a complete fossil record to make a logical deduction' is to say you accept it on faith.
And that is my point exactly.


One can certainly accept it on faith, i.e., sans evidence.

You're my first convert.

Physical evidence exists in both the fossil record and DNA. Ergo no "faith" is required to make a logical and reasoned deduction based upon the physical evidence that does exist. If you prefer you can call it a circumstantial case for evolution based upon the preponderance of physical evidence.

You've been fooled.

I understand how difficult it is for those of you haven't done the research into the matter to come to grips with the idea that there are reasons why Darwin's theory is pushed so heavily.....yet lacks the evidence necessary.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original]
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



Eventually I will construct and OP explaining why the idea of Darwin's theory has been advanced by secularists....and why it is so important that you believe it to be true.

Until then, you can mull over why you are willing to accept as true an unproven idea....

"...there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there;..."

What will you do when a fossil is found "between major groups of animals", PC?

Look for another "loophole" to jump through?

In essence what is the purpose of this exercise in futility?

What are you trying to "prove" here? That the arbitrary groupings that we assign to fossils was the work of your "creator"? If that were true then why did your "creator" not specify all of these "groupings" in your religious texts? Why did he leave all of these transitional fossils lying around? Why did he bother with DNA that turns scales into corneas?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would prefer a thread on how God was created.

Good to see you back, Drop-Draws.....


...now stop your nonsense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Physical evidence exists in both the fossil record and DNA. Ergo no "faith" is required to make a logical and reasoned deduction based upon the physical evidence that does exist. If you prefer you can call it a circumstantial case for evolution based upon the preponderance of physical evidence.

You've been fooled.

I understand how difficult it is for those of you haven't done the research into the matter to come to grips with the idea that there are reasons why Darwin's theory is pushed so heavily.....yet lacks the evidence necessary.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original]
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



Eventually I will construct and OP explaining why the idea of Darwin's theory has been advanced by secularists....and why it is so important that you believe it to be true.

Until then, you can mull over why you are willing to accept as true an unproven idea....

"...there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there;..."

What will you do when a fossil is found "between major groups of animals", PC?

Look for another "loophole" to jump through?

In essence what is the purpose of this exercise in futility?

What are you trying to "prove" here? That the arbitrary groupings that we assign to fossils was the work of your "creator"? If that were true then why did your "creator" not specify all of these "groupings" in your religious texts? Why did he leave all of these transitional fossils lying around? Why did he bother with DNA that turns scales into corneas?

What 'loophole'?

I just state facts.


Now...I thought we agreed.

You can continue to support Darwin's theory, with the stipulation that the fossil record doesn't support it.


No prob.


After a while, I'll explain why believe in same is so important to so many folks....then you can agree or not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You've been fooled.

I understand how difficult it is for those of you haven't done the research into the matter to come to grips with the idea that there are reasons why Darwin's theory is pushed so heavily.....yet lacks the evidence necessary.


"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original]
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong(New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19. (See my articleThe Coelacanth, Living Fossils, and Evolution).



Eventually I will construct and OP explaining why the idea of Darwin's theory has been advanced by secularists....and why it is so important that you believe it to be true.

Until then, you can mull over why you are willing to accept as true an unproven idea....

"...there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there;..."

What will you do when a fossil is found "between major groups of animals", PC?

Look for another "loophole" to jump through?

In essence what is the purpose of this exercise in futility?

What are you trying to "prove" here? That the arbitrary groupings that we assign to fossils was the work of your "creator"? If that were true then why did your "creator" not specify all of these "groupings" in your religious texts? Why did he leave all of these transitional fossils lying around? Why did he bother with DNA that turns scales into corneas?

What 'loophole'?

I just state facts.


Now...I thought we agreed.

You can continue to support Darwin's theory, with the stipulation that the fossil record doesn't support it.


No prob.


After a while, I'll explain why believe in same is so important to so many folks....then you can agree or not.

Are your ashamed of your ulterior motive, PC?