dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/25/85)
>> [Dan Boskovich] >> For example, concerning the fossil record, the creation model would >> predict a sudden and abrupt appearance of highly complex forms of >> life without evidence of ancestral or transitional forms according to >> the evolutionary model. >> >> Since this is what the fossil record has produced, this would be >> scientific evidence of creation. > [Byron C. Howes] > Note the failure to discuss spermata theory (the technical name for > "little green men"-type theories) and the assertion (incorrect) that > there are no ancestral or transitional forms in the fossil record. > (Read other articles in this newsgroup to see how creationists insist > that in order to be defined as a transitional form a fossil must > have precisely the features they expect it to have...) It may have been better to say the "the fossil records produces evidence *consistent with* the prediction". Sometimes evidence fits into the framework of more than one theory (hence does not provide a crucial test). Be that as it may, evidence consistent with a theory *is* support for it. It certainly is not evidence *against* it, even if another theory also is consistent with the same evidence. As far as definitions go, for anything to fit any definition the object must have the features expected on the basis of the definition. This is hardly startling, or profound. There is not point to or value in definitions otherwise. You might not like the definition. That is another question, however. >> Now, Mr. Keebler, I challenge you to offer me any clear, sound, and >> cut and dried proof of Evolution! Tell me the mechanism for >> Evolution? Give me some examples of upward mutations which have >> resulted in transmutation. Produce some fossil evidence of >> transitional forms or even ancestors of current species. Just as you >> evolutionsts like to say, I have never seen any REAL, SOUND, >> scientific evidence of Evolution, just pseudo-scientific debunking of >> religious items that have no bearing at all on the real issues! > Now, unless G-d is a trickster (which I doubt) the overwhelming pre- > ponderance of the evidence indicates the existance of evolutionary > processes. Creationists dust of their comparatively small compendium > of erroneous and (apparantly) anomalous data in terms of evolutionary > predictions wave it about and assert that it somehow "proves" a creation. > As no scientific theory is ultimately proveable (or ultimately refutable) > reasonability leads me to go with the weight of the evidence rather > than hanging around waiting for some "cut and dried" proof on any side. A song and dance; an assertion of a large amount of evidence coupled with a failure to give any. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (04/29/85)
In article <982@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >As far as definitions go, for anything to fit any definition the >object must have the features expected on the basis of the definition. >This is hardly startling, or profound. There is not point to or value >in definitions otherwise. You might not like the definition. That is >another question, however. I think that was precisely *my* point. Creationists claim there are no transitional forms. When transitional forms are pointed out they say "Well, that isn't a transitional form..." I have, on previous occasions, tried to elicit from creationists exactly what they would expect a tran- sitional form on the reptile-bird continuum to be -- if not the sorts of things that we find in the fossil record. I have yet to get an answer, reasonable or otherwise. Methinks they expect a unicorn...(it's a whole lot safer if nothing can meet the criterion.) > >A song and dance; an assertion of a large amount of evidence coupled >with a failure to give any. > Well, unlike some I am not going to list THE CASE FOR EVOLUTION -- 1E12 classes of evidence. Come visit me. I can point you to several hundred linear feet of books that constitute evidence. Do you deny that such a volume of evidence exists or are you just playing rhetorical games? > | >Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- > | >"Danger signs, a creeping independence" | -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/29/85)
> >> [Dan Boskovich] > >> For example, concerning the fossil record, the creation model would > >> predict a sudden and abrupt appearance of highly complex forms of > >> life without evidence of ancestral or transitional forms according to > >> the evolutionary model. > >> > >> Since this is what the fossil record has produced, this would be > >> scientific evidence of creation. Actually, according to what little I know of creation theory, the creation model would predict a sudden and abrupt appearence of all species which currently exist, plus all species which have subsequently become extinct. This is contradictory to the evidence. Any explanations, creationists? -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "This here's a story 'bout Minnie the Moocher. She was a low-down hoo-oochy koocher. She was the roughest, meanest frail. But Minnie had a heart as big as a whale." - idunno (mail me if you do!)
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (05/01/85)
> I think that was precisely *my* point. Creationists claim there are no > transitional forms. When transitional forms are pointed out they say > "Well, that isn't a transitional form..." I have, on previous occasions, > tried to elicit from creationists exactly what they would expect a tran- > sitional form on the reptile-bird continuum to be -- if not the sorts of > things that we find in the fossil record. I have yet to get an answer, > reasonable or otherwise. Methinks they expect a unicorn...(it's a whole > lot safer if nothing can meet the criterion.) It's obvious from the writings of creationsist what they think a transitional form should be: anything that would prevent an organism from surviving. If an adaptation has survival value, it's evidence for a designer. If a unicorn were discovered, it would be evidence for a designer. A transitional form is a form that bridges any two forms that we know about. If we know about it it cannot be transitional. Isn't that simple?
lmc@denelcor.UUCP (Lyle McElhaney) (05/01/85)
With respect to intermediate forms: > > >A song and dance; an assertion of a large amount of evidence coupled > >with a failure to give any. > > > > Well, unlike some I am not going to list THE CASE FOR EVOLUTION -- 1E12 classes > of evidence. Come visit me. I can point you to several hundred linear feet > of books that constitute evidence. Do you deny that such a volume of evidence > exists or are you just playing rhetorical games? One very nice reference to intermediates is contained in Ashley Montagu's collection of pro-evolution essays _Science and Creationism_ (Oxford Press, 1984). Contained therein is an essay by Roger Cuffy of Penn State University called "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution", which contains citations to approximately 170 articles in the paleontological literature, all concerning studies of various intermediate forms. In Cuffy's words, "Consequently, after carefully considering the implications of the fossil record, we must conclude that that record represents the remains of gradually and continuously evolving, ancestor-descendent lineages, uninterrupted by special creative acts, and producing succesive different species which eventually become so divergent from the initial form that they constitute new major kinds of organisms." -- Lyle McElhaney {hao, stcvax, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs} !denelcor!lmc
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (05/06/85)
>One very nice reference to intermediates is contained in Ashley Montagu's >collection of pro-evolution essays _Science and Creationism_ (Oxford Press, >1984). Contained therein is an essay by Roger Cuffy of Penn State University >called "Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution", which contains >citations to approximately 170 articles in the paleontological literature, >all concerning studies of various intermediate forms. In Cuffy's words, > >"Consequently, after carefully considering the implications of the fossil >record, we must conclude that that record represents the remains of gradually >and continuously evolving, ancestor-descendent lineages, uninterrupted >by special creative acts, and producing succesive different species which >eventually become so divergent from the initial form that they constitute >new major kinds of organisms." >-- >Lyle McElhaney >{hao, stcvax, brl-bmd, nbires, csu-cs} !denelcor!lmc If this is so, then why is it that so many evolutionists like Steven Jay Gould, etc. have abandoned gradualism for lack of evidence in in the fossils? Dan @There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact! Mark Twain
rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley) (05/08/85)
>>"Consequently, after carefully considering the implications of the fossil >>record, we must conclude that that record represents the remains of gradually >>and continuously evolving, ancestor-descendent lineages, uninterrupted >>by special creative acts, and producing succesive different species which >>eventually become so divergent from the initial form that they constitute >>new major kinds of organisms." > If this is so, then why is it that so many evolutionists like Steven > Jay Gould, etc. have abandoned gradualism for lack of evidence in > in the fossils? Do you know what is meant by "punctuated equilibrium"? It means that evolution takes place in descrete steps. These steps are SMALL however. On course time scales one still expects to see continuous change with intermediate forms etc. and there has never been any lack of evidence for this. Part of the problem some paleontologists have with P.E. is the question "What would Gould, etc. count as evidence for gradualism?". Remember that, if gradualism is true, filling in one gap in the fosil record creates two new gaps. P.E. can be proven by resolving the time scale at which discrete changes take place. It is gradualism that can only be supported by lack of evidence for P.E. not the other way around. You want unanimity? From science?! If you want unanimity join a church! Ralph Hartley rlh@cvl