1 edit
Originally posted by Jintroas yet you have not explained why the analogy is faulty, you have merely stated that it is although your statement seems certainly contradictory. The whole point of the analogy which you seem to be missing, is that only thorough the course of events can the truth be grasped at. if an argument is faulty it shall be revealed, as in a chess game, as even you yourself now seem to be admitting, while denying the analogy, although the point was very clearly made. i myself denied advocating any type of stance on the very basis that you now seek to discredit the analogy, that it is empty rhetoric and results in arguments over semantics, that to simply speak of definitions, is empty in itself. Are you really certain that you are disagreeing, for it seems to me that you are at once giving credence to the ideas contained in the analogy and denying them at the same time.
Not a trick, defining the terms is important to have a decent conversation. Also, my limititation is not arbitrary, since I reacted to your surprise about the amount of time it took to develop writing. Considering the material culture of earlier hominids, it's extremely unlikely any hominids before modern man could ever have developed writing. So you should o acknowledging the faultiness of an argument or strategy just leads to empty rethorics, IMO.
the argument with regard to the lack of fossil evidence can hardly be dismissed, as the whole basis of your stance rests upon the assumption, that there were transitory beings, and as we know from platonic philosophy, anything that rests on an assumption, is on shaky ground indeed!
Originally posted by smw6869Good point but they still are easily killed. Could it be that it was designed that way to be a part of the food chain? It would seem so.
But mice Are surviving. Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with how strong a mouse is or how big it's teeth are for protection. Survival of the fittest is about reproduction rate. A critter that reproduces at a high rate all year round is more fit for survival than an elephant that reproduces once every several years. This is how bacteria are able to ...[text shortened]... The bacteria doesn't mutate by willing itself to do so. It's how mom nature works.
GRANNY.
And yes bacteria are a perfect example of adapting to it's surroundings..but it's still bacteria. It wil never change into something it's not. No evolution here.
Originally posted by galveston75So how much adaptation would it take for a bacteria (a very vague tem in regards to taxonomy) to become something different? Even if your mouse were to develop massive size, venom, and an attitude; How long until your argument becomes, “well it might not be a mouse, but it’s still a rodent. It still has whiskers, a tail, two long incisors, and loves cheese. It hasn’t evolved, it has only adapted.”
Good point but they still are easily killed. Could it be that it was designed that way to be a part of the food chain? It would seem so.
And yes bacteria are a perfect example of adapting to it's surroundings..but it's still bacteria. It wil never change into something it's not. No evolution here.
I feel like you are enjoying the advantage of completely disregarding the fossil record. Evolution is a process that almost always happens gradually over very long periods of time. For any tangible evidence you have to look at the fossil record. However, there is observable evidence on a much smaller scale, and at a much rapid rate with bacteria, microbes, and virus’s. But you seem to simply dismiss this as “Adaptation” a term most people like to flea too whenever any observable evidence of some sort of evolution presents itself. As if “adaption” is permitted, just not over long periods of time that would lead to the altering of species that would warrant separate classification.
I’m afraid that even if you were to observe bacteria (which replicate incredibly fast) adapt multiple times over you would still reply with: “well it’s still bacteria”. In fact we’ve seen that very thing happen with bacteria evolving or adapting (which ever you prefer) into antibacterial-resistant bacteria. It’s not the case of one singular bacteria coming into contact with antibiotics or antibacterial and all of a sudden developing a resistance against it. This type of adaptation happened over millions of replications of bacteria. I would argue that while you might still classify them as both being simply bacteria, when you actually get into bacterial classifications, they are considerably different and not the same.
1 edit
Originally posted by Fischer3180Then it might be called a rat and yes it will still be a rodent. But lets see it develop wings to fly away from it's hunters. Why not..other species have supposedly done that?
So how much adaptation would it take for a bacteria (a very vague tem in regards to taxonomy) to become something different? Even if your mouse were to develop massive size, venom, and an attitude; How long until your argument becomes, “well it might not be a mouse, but it’s still a rodent. It still has whiskers, a tail, two long incisors, and loves ch ...[text shortened]... u actually get into bacterial classifications, they are considerably different and not the same.
And the fossil record is still only a dream as anyone with any eye sight can see that it doesn't exist.
In Jerry Coyne’s book, Why Evolution is True he himself states:
Taking into account all of these requirements, it’s clear that the fossil record must be incomplete. … we can estimate that we have fossil evidence of only 0.1 percent to 1 percent of all species—hardly a good sample of the history of life!
What should our “missing link” with apes look like? Remember that the “missing link” is the single ancestral species that gave rise to modern humans on the one hand and chimpanzees on the other. It’s not reasonable to expect the discovery of that critical single species, for its identification would require a complete series of ancestor-descendant fossils on both the chimp and human lineages, series that we could trace back until they intersect at the ancestor. Except for a few marine microorganisms, such complete fossil sequences don’t exist. And our early human ancestors were large, relatively few in number compared to grazers like antelopes, and inhabited a small part of Africa under dry conditions not conducive to fossilization. Their fossils, like those of all apes and monkeys, are scarce. This resembles our problem with the evolution of birds from feathered reptiles, for whom transitional fossils are also rare. We can certainly trace the evolution of birds from feathered reptiles, but we’re not sure exactly which fossil species were the direct ancestors of modern birds.
Given all this, we can’t expect to find the single particular species that represents the “missing link” between humans and other apes. We can hope only to find its evolutionary cousins. Remember also that this common ancestor was not a chimpanzee, and probably didn’t look like either modern chimps or humans. Nevertheless, it’s likely that the “missing link” was closer in appearance to modern chimps than to modern humans. We are the odd man out in the evolution of modern apes, who all resemble one another far more than they resemble us.
Keep digging......
Originally posted by Fischer3180not so, for the fossil record clearly does not show a gradual transmutation of species, on the contrary, there are periods where entire species appear without precedent as in the cambrian period, when fossils of the major groups of invertebrates appear spectacularly and unconnected to any evolutionary ancestors, thus, as you are no doubt aware, the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium', was invented to address this seeming anomaly. Even Darwin himself states,
So how much adaptation would it take for a bacteria (a very vague tem in regards to taxonomy) to become something different? Even if your mouse were to develop massive size, venom, and an attitude; How long until your argument becomes, “well it might not be a mouse, but it’s still a rodent. It still has whiskers, a tail, two long incisors, and loves ch ...[text shortened]... u actually get into bacterial classifications, they are considerably different and not the same.
'To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer', - The origin of the species, page 233 in my copy, under chapter 'imperfection of the fossil record', differs in other publications.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75sn't it obvious? Because not every species will adapt in every single possible way simply to please you! Your argument seems to be "unless every species adapts like I tell it too then I won't believe in evolution!". You sound like a spoiled child.
Then it might be called a rat and yes it will still be a rodent. But lets see it develop wings to fly away from it's hunters. Why not..other species have supposedly done that?
And the fossil record is still only a dream as anyone with any eye sight can see that it doesn't exist.
You haven't seen a fossil before? I have. They exist, I can assure you.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy do you have to insult? It doesn't help your case for evolution being something to respect.
sn't it obvious? Because not every species will adapt in every single possible way simply to please you! Your argument seems to be "unless every species adapts like I tell it too then I won't believe in evolution!". You sound like a spoiled child.
[b]And the fossil record is still only a dream as anyone with any eye sight can see that it doesn't exist.
You haven't seen a fossil before? I have. They exist, I can assure you.[/b]
And did I say there are no fossils? I said the fossil record does not support evolution....................
Originally posted by galveston75You actually did write : "And the fossil record is still only a dream as anyone with any eye sight can see that it doesn't exist." You were quite clear on this.
Why do you have to insult? It doesn't help your case for evolution being something to respect.
And did I say there are no fossils? I said the fossil record does not support evolution....................
Originally posted by FabianFnasi think you guys are being pedantic, anyone who has followed the thread can easily infer that Galvo was referring to the fossil record and its support of the evolutionary theory as being an unreality, thus his use of the term 'dream'. He was not disputing that fossils exist, simply that they do not support the theory and these petty attempts to interpret as anything other than that, indeed do the case no good in my opinion and may even be indicative as lack of an argument to the contrary.
You actually did write : "And the [b]fossil record is still only a dream as anyone with any eye sight can see that it doesn't exist." You were quite clear on this.[/b]
Originally posted by galveston75I didn't insult you. I pointed out that your demands that something must evolve before your very eyes to your exact dictates is ridiculous. You have made the same demand or variations of it a number of times in this thread.
Why do you have to insult?
It doesn't help your case for evolution being something to respect.
I do not own the Theory of evolution and anything I say or do should not reflect one way or another on said theory. Judge it on its merits not on the behavior of its advocates.
And did I say there are no fossils? I said the fossil record does not support evolution....................
You said, and I quote:"And the fossil record is still only a dream as anyone with any eye sight can see that it doesn't exist."
By 'fossil record' we mean 'all fossils and what they tell us about the past'. Now if fossils exist, then so does the fossil record. You essentially denied its existence which means you deny the existence of fossils.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf he had said "your interpretation of the fossil record is a dream" I might have been more forgiving, but his actual statement was outright wrong.
i think you guys are being pedantic, anyone who has followed the thread can easily infer that Galvo was referring to the fossil record and its support of the evolutionary theory as being an unreality, thus his use of the term 'dream'. He was not disputing that fossils exist, simply that they do not support the theory and these petty attempts to inte ...[text shortened]... case no good in my opinion and may even be indicative as lack of an argument to the contrary.
The fact is that there are a lot of fossils which provide a very detailed record of the past. If he wishes to dispute the current interpretation then he should say so, instead he chose to essentially dismiss the entire record as being a dream - essentially insulting every paleontologist and anyone who has ever seen a fossil (including myself), then he has the nerve to accuse me of insulting him.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadi shall repeat it, you know very well what he meant, otherwise your powers of interpretation must be very scant indeed? less than mine, for i was able to interpret what Galvo meant, why were you not? This naturally begs the question, do you take everything literally leaving no room for artistic license or personal expression.
If he had said "your interpretation of the fossil record is a dream" I might have been more forgiving, but his actual statement was outright wrong.
The fact is that there are a lot of fossils which provide a very detailed record of the past. If he wishes to dispute the current interpretation then he should say so, instead he chose to essentially dismiss ...[text shortened]... as ever seen a fossil (including myself), then he has the nerve to accuse me of insulting him.