macroevolution

Originally posted by ushomefree
Who cares about the quote; I never quoted the man. I based a claim--that the fossil record contained no transitions--in regard to the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Period. Does a reason exist to harp on this? Enlight on punctuated equilibrium theory, are we to conclude that the fossil record contains transitions? Absolutely not! Who cares if Creationists (or anybody with an opinion) misquoted him? I certainly did not, and my assumption--about the fossil record--is not unfair. Do something more constructive with your time, please.

Your claim is false. You say the basis of your claim that there are no transitional fossils is asserted by the divergence theory proposed by Gould and Eldridge. One of the authors of the seminal paper proposing this divergence theory finds your misinterpretation, false and irritating, and either stupid or disingenuous.

Further its rather idiotic when transitional forms are documented.

Punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism are not mutually exclusive. And even if they were, they are "competing" divergence theories, both at most a part, and neither a sum of evolution in its entirety. Mechanistic theories, both of which are aimed at explaining how evolution occurred, neither for a minute refuting that it did.

I consider dispelling misinformation quite constructive.

So the fossil record does contain transitions?

Do you enjoy asking fatuous questions? Bold, large type doesn't validate the things you say, JIA without the color text.

My response of yes, will of course lead to the quite typical creationist/cdesign proponentsist method of trying to redefine the term "transitional" (as it applies to evolution i.e. fossils showing features of both older and more recent organisms), to mean a fossil depicting the direct descendent and antecedent of an older and more recent species, respectively.

The invisible moving goalpost of the argumentum ad ignoratiam.

Digi, thus vindicated in his perception of you.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Now quit trying to pull me into debate. You annoy me and I generally kick your ass anyway. You'd be better off preying on the fence-walkers.

If you get tired of it, there are plenty of us who have a lot of fun defending evolution.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
My response of yes, will of course lead to the quite typical creationist/cdesign proponentsist method of trying to redefine the term "transitional" (as it applies to evolution i.e. fossils showing features of both older and more recent organisms), to mean a fossil depicting the direct descendent and antecedent of an older and more recent species, respectively.

The invisible moving goalpost of the argumentum ad ignoratiam.

So what is your style then? Just saying I AM RIGHT AND DON't ARGUE WITH ME.

Science is all about definition.

Originally posted by queeq
So what is your style then? Just saying I AM RIGHT AND DON't ARGUE WITH ME.

Science is all about definition.

thats the thing though

just because YOU don't like the definitions science uses, doesn't mean there isn't a good reason scientists use them.

YOU, as someone who isn't a scientist, are better suited to ask, "Why does science use X to define Y, when I like to use Z to describe Y."

The best example of this I can think of is when people discuss intelligence. I have talked with my friends, who largely do not have science backgrounds, about intelligence, and the debates we get into normally come to "Just because I get low grades doesn't mean I'm not smart" or "IQ tests aren't measuring my intelligence because I'm smarter than that guy with a higher IQ".

These are remarkable good objections, and show clear critical thinking, but it is just due to the fact that they don't know, and are never shown, the REAL debate about intelligence. They don't realize that when a scientist refers to intelligence (which is rare, because of the ambiguity) they have an operational definition, that is MORE important than the cultural definition of the term. That Intelligence is measured by the IQ test says nothing about colloquial "smartness", it simply says that there is a personality characteristic that is fairly stable and is moderately accurately measured through the IQ test. Whatever this characteristic is, for the sake of communication, it will be measured as intelligence.

So, for a transitional fossil, if scientists have laid out very specific guideline, based on past observation, about what characteristics make something a transitional fossil, it really doesn't matter in the slightest that YOU have a different idea about what a transitional fossil is. Whether the scientific transitional fossil actually proves anything is another matter, but the definition isn't something that is apt to change because someone doesn't like it. It's not there because people "like it" there.

Besides, from a "gene's-eye-view", we are each a generational transitional fossil, you are an organism that is the transition between the genetics of your parents and your children. Evolution is that process repeated over and over.

So the fossil record contains transitions?

transition fossils are an illusion created by accumulated diversity over periods of time unfathomable to the human mind. Our natural pattern seeking neurology plays a roll in the necessity we have of categorizing things as X or Y.

So the fossil record is irrelevant?

where did you get that from?

Originally posted by ushomefree
So the fossil record contains transitions?

YES

There are a lot more.

Shakyamunison-

A member of this forum provided a quote by Stephen J. Gould (a number of posts ago); the quote--by Stephen J. Gould--stated that the fossil record contained no transitions. The quote entailed more:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups (bold for emphasis)."

I was attempting to get a straight answer regarding the absence of transitions in the fossil record (from xmarksthespot and inimalist). I was curious if they'd be honest enough to state, "Yes, the fossil record contains no transitions." So far, all I've recieved are post ignoring and/or sugar-coating the question.

And your posting pictures of an extinct bird and dinosaur does not help forward progress. They are not transitions.

Originally posted by queeq
Very mature...

It was a summary of ushome's tactics, so I'm not sure if that was directed at me or him. I backed up the statement though, so it's not like I was ranting without backing myself up.

Originally posted by Quark_666
If you get tired of it, there are plenty of us who have a lot of fun defending evolution.

I do, and have fun.

😉

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Digi, thus vindicated in his perception of you.

313

...

As for fossil records, fossils are hard to come by for the simple reason that not many skeletons survive to fossilization. But, relative to all of animal history, we have numerous fossils that we can carbon-date and use to form ancestry trees for the animal kingdom. The lack of every transitional form, when we do have several, is simple statistical certainty given the infrequency of fossilized remains surviving.

There's a joke that creationists love pointing out the holes in the fossil record (which they generally do). Then when a transitional form is found, they simply claim that there is twice as many holes unaccounted for on either side of the new fossil.

...not exactly hilarious, but an excellent microcosm of how frustrating and intellectually numbing it can be to debate an ID advocate.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

A member of this forum provided a quote by Stephen J. Gould (a number of posts ago); the quote--by Stephen J. Gould--stated that the fossil record contained no transitions. The quote entailed more:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that [b]the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups (bold for emphasis)."

I was attempting to get a straight answer regarding the absence of transitions in the fossil record (from xmarksthespot and inimalist). I was curious if they'd be honest enough to state, "Yes, the fossil record contains no transitions." So far, all I've recieved are post ignoring and/or sugar-coating the question.

And your posting pictures of an extinct bird and dinosaur does not help forward progress. They are not transitions. [/B]

It all depends on how you look at it. Species is something that humans have made to explain what they seen in nature. If you look at the fossil record with the idea that species exist, then you can find all kinds of transitions.

DigiMark007-

Billions of fossils have been discovered. [size=6]Billions! And to this day, the fossil record contains no transitions. It ain't propaganda, and it ain't "tactics," my friend. It's the truth. Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould admits that! Why do you even have an opinion enlight of this? Dr. Gould isn't blind.[/size] glare

Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-

Billions of fossils have been discovered. [size=6]Billions! And to this day, the fossil record contains no transitions. It ain't propaganda, and it ain't "tactics," my friend. It's the truth. Evolutionist Stephen J. Gould admits that! Why do you even have an opinion enlight of this? Dr. Gould isn't blind.[/size] glare

Did you not read my post? 🙄 It all depends on how you look at. If you believe in species, then there are a lot of transitions. Stephen J. Gould has a far more complex view and probable accurate view, but to take what he said out of context is just stupid.

Originally posted by ushomefree
A member of this forum provided a quote by Stephen J. Gould (a number of posts ago); the quote--by Stephen J. Gould--stated that the fossil record contained no transitions. The quote entailed more:

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that [b]the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups (bold for emphasis)."[/B]

The actual quote not the distorted, misrepresented and fallacious quote:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

And a link to the actual piece by Gould from which this is derived:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Originally posted by ushomefree
And your posting pictures of an extinct bird and dinosaur does not help forward progress. They are not transitions.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
YES

There are a lot more.

So how do you know these are transitions and not just extinct species? Because by that definition humans are also a transitional species. That way we can go a long way.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
It was a summary of ushome's tactics, so I'm not sure if that was directed at me or him. I backed up the statement though, so it's not like I was ranting without backing myself up.

Oh, so now it's someone else's fault?