tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post4985988541369116068..comments2023-05-11T04:38:06.086-04:00Comments on Analysis of the Post-chareidi Phenomenon : Q & A on the Young Earth Model of CreationUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger85125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-48757694704698715932010-11-05T16:39:04.425-04:002010-11-05T16:39:04.425-04:00Ari -
Are we done? Just when we were getting int...Ari - <br /><br />Are we done? Just when we were getting into the thick of things...<br /><br />Best wishes...<br /><br />SimchaSimcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-9199387355907617742010-11-01T01:43:18.976-04:002010-11-01T01:43:18.976-04:00Ari - October 25, 2010 12:11 PM
However as far ...Ari - October 25, 2010 12:11 PM <br /><br /><i>However as far as the fossil record there are transitional fossils between land mammals and whales, dinos and birds, fish and tetrapods land mammals to manatees and more. <br /><br />There arn't many sequences but that is too be expected because fossilization is a rare event-the chances of a particular sequence being perserved is just too small however there are plenty of single transitional fossils.</i><br /><br />If there aren't any sequences, how do you know that these "single" fossils are transitional? Here's the point Ari. Scientists have very few fossils linking the millions of known species together. If it weren't for the theory, we wouldn't say that these fossil forms were transitional. We would say that they are individual, well defined, isolated species. It is only because evolutionists need transitions that these fossils are identified as such. In order for fossils to constitute positive <i>evidence</i> for evolution, you need to find a sequence of fossils, and a long one! Thousands of links. After all, you don’t imagine that a creature with a dinosaur’s physiology could have morphed into a creature with a bird’s physiology in merely fifty stages, right? <br /><br />So, the fact that you find, say, a fully avian creature, with feathers and all the internal and external limbs required to support avian existence, and this creature happens to possess a few features – such as claws on its wings, teeth in its beak, and a bony tail – which happens to match the features of the class of animal you <b>want</b> it to evolve from, doesn’t mean that it actually represents evidence for a transition from dino to bird.<br /><br />Not to mention the fact that if Archaeopteryx is transitional, how about currently living species of birds, such as Hoatzin and Turaco? They also have claws on their wings and they are fully classified as birds, not some “transitional form” between birds and reptiles. <br /><br />As you know, I believe that the fossil record actually disconfirms Darwin’s predictions and any subsequent theory, such as Gould’s and Eldredge’s PE is merely an apologetic for the paucity of fossils. But I am not ready to force the issue with you quite yet. Right now what I’d like to see is a concession that the fossil record does not constitute <b>positive evidence</b> for evolution. I think I am making a reasonable request. What sayeth thee?Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-72471008071860864572010-10-31T23:56:48.240-04:002010-10-31T23:56:48.240-04:00Ari -
Hi!!! I was giving up on you! I'm sorr...Ari - <br /><br />Hi!!! I was giving up on you! I'm sorry your comments didn't post. We are in the process of reviewing our policy on the Blog re time limitations on comments. I'm in the middle of something but I will respond to you shortly. I'm so glad you're back!Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-39453019408337488762010-10-30T21:47:37.883-04:002010-10-30T21:47:37.883-04:00HELLLLLOOOO
Why didnt any of my responses post?
...HELLLLLOOOO <br /><br />Why didnt any of my responses post?<br /><br />AriF.U.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11174550538150251117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-37388697521993469202010-10-27T17:53:10.701-04:002010-10-27T17:53:10.701-04:00you said
"Not sure what you mean. The geneti...you said<br /><br />"Not sure what you mean. The genetic code of a reptile is radically different than the genetic code of a bird. One possesses instructions for scales and terrestrial limbs, the other for feathers and avian limbs. What are you saying?" <br /><br /><br /><br />What I mean is simple. You don't have to add new information to changes somthing into somthing very diffrent then it is now. You can do that by slowly changing around (via small mutations) the genetic information that you have.<br /><br />As far as adding new info I explained how that can happen in the second part of my postF.U.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11174550538150251117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-79444054825111426172010-10-27T14:58:26.153-04:002010-10-27T14:58:26.153-04:00Sc,
Hi!
I'm not sure if you are seeing my po...Sc,<br /><br />Hi!<br /><br />I'm not sure if you are seeing my posts anymore as a couple of mine from a few days ago havn't posted. <br /><br />My point about your qoutes on the fossil record was, The evolutionists you were qouting weren't disscussing if the fossil record contradicts evolution or not, at all. They were discussing if it fits better with the classical darwinian gradualist approach to the theory or not. All of them however beleived very firmly that the fossil record does support evolution and common ancestry and that there are enough transitional fossils to support it.F.U.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11174550538150251117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-21206229608145854552010-10-25T12:11:05.936-04:002010-10-25T12:11:05.936-04:00Hi! How are you,
Sorry about my delay in answerin...Hi! How are you,<br /><br />Sorry about my delay in answering you. I was busy over the weekend and unfortunatley am really busy now as well. I am enjoying this conversation and will continue posting, I just may be a little slow for the next couple of days! <br /><br />This is the only post I can do now but I will post more as soon as I get a chance.<br /><br />Thanks for understanding.<br /><br />You wrote (on my post with the darwin qoutes),<br /><br /><i>Very nice. But it doesn't really answer the question. True, the weaker less advantageous species would have gone extinct a lot faster. It is understandable that they are not represented in the fossil record. There simply wasn't enough time to capture them in the rocks. But the strong species did survive. They did flourish. So the question is, from the 250,000 "strong, long-lasting" species that were captured, why is it that they all fall into a tiny, well-defined system of classification? Why didn't the "strong" transitional forms get captured? Why is it that whole classes, indeed, even phyla, appear suddenly in the record with no known "strong" transitional precursors? <br />This is Darwin's basic question in Chapter Nine and essentially he hasn't really answered it in Chapter 13. That's precisely why Robert Carroll (and many others) re-state the question 150 years later.</i> <br /><br />I was primarily answering your question of "Why do animals fit into a nested hierarchal system of classification, rather than there being all kinds of chimeras? After all, if all species descended from other species gradually, the species today should represent a conglomeration of intermediate species not easily able to be classified. I already quoted this to you above?"<br /><br />However as far as the fossil record there are transitional fossils between land mammals and whales, dinos and birds, fish and tetrapods land mammals to manatees and more. <br /><br />There arn't many <i>sequences</i> but that is too be expected because fossilization is a rare event-the chances of a particular sequence being perserved is just too small however there are plenty of single transitional fossils.F.U.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11174550538150251117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-78094156442902287232010-10-24T23:09:43.081-04:002010-10-24T23:09:43.081-04:00Dear Ari,
Where do we stand here? Did I manage to...Dear Ari,<br /><br />Where do we stand here? Did I manage to convince you of anything? More specifically, did I manage to illustrate to you that the supposed lines of evidence supporting evolution are not as solid as evolutionists would like the public to believe? If not, what do you do with the quotes I supplied to you from Simpson? Don’t these quotes indicate that fossil evidence is far from conclusive?<br /><br />I await your response.<br /><br />SimchaSimcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-67384323200952223152010-10-24T23:05:21.621-04:002010-10-24T23:05:21.621-04:00Ari -
Re- micro vs macro evolution
First of all...Ari - <br /><br /><i>Re- micro vs macro evolution<br /><br />First of all you wouldn't have to necceserily add information to radicly change the species</i> <br /><br />Not sure what you mean. The genetic code of a reptile is radically different than the genetic code of a bird. One possesses instructions for scales and terrestrial limbs, the other for feathers and avian limbs. What are you saying? <br /><br /><i>Second of all,<br /><br />The kind of mutation called a 'gene duplication'... Or the second mutation can occur much later (even millions of years later) on any of the two duplicates. Either way, you now have two genes that code for different proteins, where once there was one. That is new information...Is this what you were looking for?</i><br /><br />I'm not sure. I didn't know I was looking for something. I thought you asked me to explain what I meant by an increase in information and I thought I did. <br /><br />Did I lose track here?Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-8916547620054358872010-10-24T22:49:02.324-04:002010-10-24T22:49:02.324-04:00Ari - October 21, 2010 7:55 AM
I'm sorry..but...Ari - October 21, 2010 7:55 AM<br /><br /><i>I'm sorry..but i don't understand what the problem is here!</i> <br /><br />Last ditch effort. <br /><br />1) All mammals fall under one of three basic categories: monotremes, placentals, and marsupials. From an evolutionary standpoint, each one of these groups arose <b>randomly</b> and developed its own <b>distinct evolutionary history</b>, entirely independent of each other.<br /><br />2) The North American wolf and the Tasmanian wolf are morphologically identical (almost) and yet the former belongs to the placental subclass the latter to the marsupial.<br /><br />Problem (a): According to #1, these two creatures evolved from entirely different lines of descent and yet, as per #2, they are, by chance(!), morphologically identical! That’s some coincidence, wouldn’t you say?<br /><br />Problem (b): Evolutionists claim that morphological similarities demonstrate common ancestry among the species. This line of reasoning suggests a direct evolutionary link between these two wolves. Yet one is classified as placental, one as marsupial, clearly demonstrating that these two species do not possess a direct evolutionary link. (Yes Ari, ultimately they possess a link somewhere in the phylogenic hierarchy but this is irrelevant to my argument. According to evolutionists, mammals branched out, randomly, to three distinct lines of descent which took 70 million years to develop via untold numbers of random gene mutations). <br /><br />If you still don’t get it, I give up…Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-54104910028379425052010-10-24T22:40:22.461-04:002010-10-24T22:40:22.461-04:00Ari -
Re qoutes out of context,
The Reason I sa...Ari - <br /><br /><i>Re qoutes out of context,<br /><br />The Reason I said that, was because it seemed to me that you were bringing those qoutes to support what I thought was your position on transitional fossils-That there arn't any. When all he was saying was that the AMOUNT of transitionl fossils make more sense according to his way of explaining them. If I misunderstood your position I apologize and retract.</i> <br /><br />I don't understand what you are saying. Kindly re-phrase.<br /><br />For the record, I delineated those quotes in order to demonstrate that one of the greatest evolutionists of all time (perhaps the greatest) concedes that there is a marked dearth of fossil evidence demonstrating evolutionary connections between the species. <br /><br />As I mentioned in previous comments, that's all I really care about. I'd <i>like</i> to believe in the mesorah but I am troubled by evolutionary claims. If upon inspection it turns out that these claims do not have substantial evidence to back them, the issue is resolved and my troubles disappear. It's as simple as that.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-39713930363315118572010-10-24T06:31:03.567-04:002010-10-24T06:31:03.567-04:00Ari -
O.K. O.K. here is a couple of qoutes
But ...Ari - <br /><br /><i>O.K. O.K. here is a couple of qoutes<br /><br />But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994<br /><br />"The prehistoric record in Africa is now extensive, no longer the quip about fewer fossils than would cover a dining room table. By my count there are fossilized fragments of about a thousand human individuals from the early part of our evolution, and I wouldn't even try to count the number of stone tools.(Leakey R. & Lewin R., "Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human," [1992], Abacus: London, 1993, reprint, pp.80-81)"</i> <br /><br />Regarding your quote from Gould, I am sure you are aware that I can bring you a plethora of quotes from Gould as to the paucity of fossil evidence. Since you obviously know a thing or two about evolution, you are aware that Gould restructured evolution specifically to accommodate the dearth of fossil evidence. The fact that here and there Gould claims that "fair-minded" individuals should accept the tiny amount of intermediate fossil sequences evolutionists claim to possess as proof of evolution is just silly. This is not a scientific statement. It is a philosophical one. Gould is an evolutionist. He believes in evolution and will grasp at straws to support it. On the other hand, his statements in peer-reviewed paleontological journals belie his cocky assertions to the unsuspecting public. I dare you to challenge me to supply you with counter-quotes...<br /><br />As far as your quote from Leakey, he mentioned nothing about transitional fossils.<br /><br />Incidentally, you quoting the Leakey's amounts to me quoting a freaked out evangelist. The Leakey's were a bunch of fakers. They fancied themselves as Indiana Jones “fossil hunters” and did everything they could to perpetuate this image. Unfortunately, their data was found to be wrong over and over again.<br /><br />Once again, I dare you to challenge me to support my assertion…Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-56587025505008680312010-10-24T05:55:37.401-04:002010-10-24T05:55:37.401-04:00Ari -
Re my last comment: As I explained, my ess...Ari - <br /><br />Re my last comment: As I explained, my essential argument was that evolution doesn't make any sense. But I'd like to re-state my argument in a modified and enhanced form such that it doesn't suffer from arbitrary restrictions. <br /><br />You wrote: <i>Again, you are making the same mistake as you made by the amniotic egg! No one is saying that one day a scaled Reptile gave birth to a feathered one! All they are saying is that for whatever reason those reptiles that had a more "feather like" scale covering their skin had a reproductive advantage over those that didn't. Its the same with flying: Those who could jump or glide a little (very little!) further with the help of their arms or feathers had a (very small in most cases! but there nevertheless) reproductive advantage over those that couldn't and they therefore became dominant.</i><br /><br />I think this (accurate) evolutionary description of the unfolding of life is absurd for many reasons, not least of which is the fundamental physiological variations in the species which evolutionary theory necessitates and which are attributed purely to chance (random mutation). This was my basic argument and we could debate its merits (and probably will) 'till the cows come home. But essentially it is really irrelevant. Why?<br /><br />Special Design has been, and continues to be, the most intuitive, least convoluted, most easily understood explanation (Occam's Razor) for the presence of highly complex, specialized, purposeful life. Our universal experience informs us that intelligence is <i>always</i> implicated in the design of highly complex, specialized phenomena. Automobiles implicate engineers. Paintings implicate artists. The list is endless. Biological systems are no different. They too are highly complex, specialized entities, indeed, endlessly more complex than man made things. Concordantly, Special Design is the most logical explanation for their existence. As Richard Dawkins famously wrote: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." (TBW page 1.) <br /><br />My point is, in order to posit an alternate theory which countermands our universal experience, one must provide evidence. Otherwise, not only does the theory possess no scientific basis, it is also philosophically untenable. In fact, it is downright irrational. Notwithstanding all my "questions" on the EM, evidence is really all I care about. So far I haven't seen any evidence. Only convenient excuses as to why there <i>isn't</i> any. <br /><br />Of course, I intend to continue responding to all your comments. But before we get lost in a sea of argumentation, I wanted to surface for air long enough to state, officially, my upmost concern with evolutionary theory.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-20211162998101601782010-10-24T02:38:21.356-04:002010-10-24T02:38:21.356-04:00Ari - October 20, 2010 7:57 PM
Of course a modern...Ari - October 20, 2010 7:57 PM<br /><br /><i>Of course a modern reptile couldn't survive without all them in place! However nobody is saying that a modern Reptile one day hatched out of an Amphibian egg. What they are saying is that the eggs (and animals) slowly became more Reptile like then their ancestors, over millions upon millions of years by extremely small changes that gave them a slight reproductive advantage over their other amphibian brethren.</i><br /><br />Yes. You're right. No one is saying that an amphibian gave birth to a reptile. What I am trying to show is that the physiological differences between amphibian and reptile are vast thus making the transition highly unlikely. To demonstrate my point, I supplied you with one tiny example, the amphibian egg. But at this point, I think I am going to retract my argument. Not that it is not a good argument against evolution per se. It most certainly is. But within the context of this specific conversation, I think your counter-response is adequate so I hereby back down.<br /><br />(Not bad Ari... I can't remember the last time someone got me to back down from an anti-evolutionary argument... kudos to you...)Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-87057613037395617032010-10-24T02:13:38.710-04:002010-10-24T02:13:38.710-04:00Ari - October 20, 2010 7:55 PM
Dear Ari,
Gut voc...Ari - October 20, 2010 7:55 PM<br /><br />Dear Ari,<br /><br />Gut voch! Did I tell you how much I am enjoying this conversation? Maybe I did. I just wanted to make sure you didn't forget... :-)<br /><br />You wrote: <i>Darwin himself answers that kushya. Here is a couple of quotes (I apologize for the length of this post however please take the time to read it as I think it answers you question well):</i><br /><br />I read it twice. Very good response! See my comments below...<br /><br />BTY, I don't know if you noticed, but I read <i>all</i> your stuff very carefully.<br /><br />You quoted Darwin: <i>"This subject will be more fully discussed in our chapter on Geology; but it must be here alluded to from being intimately connected with natural selection. Natural selection acts solely through the preservation of variations in some way advantageous, which consequently endure... "Extinction, as we have seen in the fourth chapter, has played an important part in defining and widening the intervals between the several groups in each class... by the belief that many ancient forms of life have been utterly lost, through which the early progenitors of birds were formerly connected with the early progenitors of the other vertebrate classes... for if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear, though it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished from other groups, as all would blend together by steps as fine as those between the finest existing varieties, nevertheless a natural classification, or at least a natural arrangement, would be possible."(-Charles Darwin origin chapter 13)</i><br /><br />Very nice. But it doesn't really answer the question. True, the weaker less advantageous species would have gone extinct a lot faster. It is understandable that they are not represented in the fossil record. There simply wasn't enough time to capture them in the rocks. But the strong species <i>did</i> survive. They did flourish. So the question is, from the 250,000 "strong, long-lasting" species that <i>were</i> captured, why is it that they all fall into a tiny, well-defined system of classification? Why didn't the "strong" transitional forms get captured? Why is it that whole classes, indeed, even phyla, appear suddenly in the record with no known "strong" transitional precursors? <br /><br />This is Darwin's basic question in Chapter Nine and essentially he hasn't really answered it in Chapter 13. That's precisely why Robert Carroll (and many others) re-state the question 150 years later.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-86349373399658874062010-10-21T08:43:43.285-04:002010-10-21T08:43:43.285-04:00Re- micro vs macro evolution
First of all you wou...Re- micro vs macro evolution<br /><br />First of all you wouldn't have to necceserily add information to radicly change the species <br /><br />Second of all,<br /><br />The kind of mutation called a 'gene duplication' when coupled with another kind of mutation (of any kind) that changes the properties of one of the copies, will increase the amount of information in the genome. The second kind of mutation can occur at the same time as the gene duplication ie .a duplication that does not result in two identical copies of the original gene, but two slightly different copies.<br />Or the second mutation can occur much later (even millions of years later) on any of the two duplicates. Either way, you now have two genes that code for different proteins, where once there was one. That is new information.<br /><br />(please note we are not talking here about duplication of an entire genome which will almost always be detrimental. we are only talking about the duplication of one gene.) <br /><br />Is this what you were looking for?F.U.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11174550538150251117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-85721404081015273422010-10-21T08:29:22.298-04:002010-10-21T08:29:22.298-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.F.U.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11174550538150251117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-31515175373666097492010-10-21T08:17:52.748-04:002010-10-21T08:17:52.748-04:00Re qoutes out of context,
The Reason I said that,...Re qoutes out of context,<br /><br />The Reason I said that, was because it seemed to me that you were bringing those qoutes to support what I thought was your position on transitional fossils-That there arn't any. When all he was saying was that the AMOUNT of transitionl fossils make more sense according to his way of explaining them. If I misunderstood your position I apologize and retract. <br /><br />I am greatly enjoying this conversation as well and really appreciate you taking the time to respond to me.F.U.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11174550538150251117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-72226504964333803992010-10-21T07:55:27.908-04:002010-10-21T07:55:27.908-04:00I wrote,
"What diffrence does it make for th...I wrote,<br /><br /><i>"What diffrence does it make for the purposes of this conversation how far back the common ancestor was?"</i><br /><br />You responded,<br /><br /><i>All the difference in the world! Does Darwin's Tree of Life mean anything to you? Or Linnaean classification? Mammals supposedly evolved from reptiles beginning about 250m years ago (mid-Permian) and the transitional period lasted about 70m years (into the Triassic). But during that time, three distinct lines of mammals branched off in their own directions. From a taxonomic standpoint, they are considered three distinct lines. They are: Monotremes (egg laying - very few species), Marsupials and Placentals. They are all subclasses which then branch out to their own orders, which than branch out to their own families, which then branch out to their own genus, which finally branch out to their own species.<br /><br />If you find a species which is morphologically identical to another other than the fact that one gives birth to a fully developed offspring and the other happens to possess an extra pouch lying around which it uses to carry around it's offspring in early infancy until it is sufficiently developed, this poses a serious contradiction for evolutionists. I assume you understand why...</i> <br /><br />I'm sorry..but i don't understand what the problem is here!F.U.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11174550538150251117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-21342490652154283602010-10-20T22:25:43.724-04:002010-10-20T22:25:43.724-04:00Ari -
I noticed that as I was posting you were p...Ari - <br /><br />I noticed that as I was posting you were posting too and in fact had fired off several posts before me. I am enjoying myself immensely. I never get a chance to discuss the academic element of evolution with anyone but for tonight I need to sign off and tomorrow I need to peruse the other threads and see what comments I need to respond to. Also, I was thinking of putting up a Blog entry on the akeida. So I think I will give this thread a break for 24 hours. I'll be back soon to respond to your stuff. Be well...SCSimcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-70761637478366072192010-10-20T22:12:14.912-04:002010-10-20T22:12:14.912-04:00Ari -
You wrote:
Below find a quote from ...Ari - <br /><br />You wrote: <br /><br /><i>Below find a quote from Simpson,...Certainly paleontologists have found samples of an extremely small fraction, only, of the earth's extinct species,..."In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest...Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families are also known, but are less common.-(George Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360).</i><br /><br />Wow. Talk about quoting something out of context!<br /><br />The <b>very next paragraph</b>, which you conveniently neglect to quote, reads like this.<br /><br />"<b>In spite of these examples</b>, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."<br /><br />Now, for those interested, yes, Simpson does believe that are some transitional sequences. But something crucial must be understood here. In the jargon of evolutionism, transitional simply means a creature that possesses a mosaic of characteristics some of which are shared with species A some with species B. The species in question is fully functional and uses all of the features in question but in the mind of the evolutionist, since he would like to <i>believe</i> that species A evolved into species B, this mosaic species is identified as a transitional species between A and B. But they have no <b>evidence</b> that this is in fact so. Just because you find one link, doesn't mean there was ever a chain. A supposedly mosaic creature is just as consistent with rapid Divine creation as it is with evolution.<br /><br />Now, one may ask, if so, how can evolution ever be proved? The answer is simple. If we would find a chain between, say, the reptile and the mammal, which stretched for thousands of links and showed the slow transformation over 70 million years from one insensibly fine gradation to the next beginning with class reptilian and commencing with class mammalia, this would constitute strong evidence for evolutionary theory. But we do not even begin to have anything like this for any of the countless classes, orders, families, genus or species. Yes, there are a few transitional forms but these do not constitute evidence for evolution whatsoever.<br /><br />If you are <i>midyek</i> in the paragraph you quoted from Simpson, you will notice that he does not appeal to fossil sequences as evidence for evolution. Here's what he writes. "In view of these facts, the record (meaning the vey discovery of fossils in the first place, not transitional sequences) already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by <b>controlled extrapolation</b> or on a statistical sampling basis for <b>inferences</b> as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest"<br /><br />Extrapolation and inferences is what he is talking about, not evidence. The inferences can be made because evolution is already in the mind of evolutionists so they infer what they want to infer, that's all it is! They then talk about evolution as if it is a fait accompli and use all kinds of fancy jargon to confuse the public. But once you strip away the veil, evolution is revealed as one big empty hypotheses with no basis in scientific fact or methodology at all. It resembles religion a lot more than it resembles science.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-46467075008913964412010-10-20T22:11:28.130-04:002010-10-20T22:11:28.130-04:00Also here is another qoute about the Fossil Record...Also here is another qoute about the Fossil Record,<br /><br />"In view of these facts, the record already acquired is amazingly good. It provides us with many detailed examples of a great variety of evolutionary phenomena on lower and intermediate levels and with rather abundant data that can be used either by controlled extrapolation or on a statistical sampling basis for inferences as to phenomena on all levels up to the highest. Among the examples are many in which, beyond the slightest doubt, a species or genus has been gradually transformed into another. Such gradual transformation is also fairly well exemplified for subfamilies and occasionally for families, as the groups are commonly ranked. Splitting and subsequent gradual divergence of species is also exemplified, although not as richly as phyletic transformation of species (no doubt because splitting of species usually involves spatial separation and paleontological samples are rarely adequate in spatial distribution).<br /><br />Splitting and gradual divergence of genera is exemplified very well and in a large variety of organisms. Complete examples for subfamilies and families are also known, but are less common.-(George Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360) . "F.U.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11174550538150251117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-3602459963971362572010-10-20T22:10:12.994-04:002010-10-20T22:10:12.994-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.F.U.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11174550538150251117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-54316595345891384982010-10-20T22:09:04.258-04:002010-10-20T22:09:04.258-04:00Ari -
Your quotes are simply out of context.
Re...Ari - <br /><br /><i>Your quotes are simply out of context.</i><br /><br />Really? So that's it. I supply you with four perfectly lucid, clear unambiguous quotes from a great evolutionist and all you have to say is that they are "clearly' out of context without even bothering to attempt to support your assertion? Why are they out of context? Do you own the book? Have you read it? Did you look up the quotes? What gives you the right to accuse me of quoting things out of context? <br /><br />I never quote out of context. If you have no response to my quotes, you have two choices; concede or remain silent. False accusations is not an option. I challenge you to demonstrate how these quotes were out of context.Simcha Cofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01243327012385531727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1999467500145167346.post-63412731380661100422010-10-20T22:05:16.139-04:002010-10-20T22:05:16.139-04:00I wrote,
"O.K. here is a list of 30 some tran...I wrote,<br /><i>"O.K. here is a list of 30 some transitional fossils if you want me to post more let me know"</i><br /><br />To which you responded,<br /><br /><i>I never requested this list. I don't need you to go onto Talk Origins or Wikipedia and copy and paste a list of supposed transitional fossils. And I'm certainly not going to write a whole megilla on each one explaining why it is not transitional. What I said is that I want you to quote the published scientific literature chapter and verse. If you want to pick one of those fossils and research it, by all means, go ahead. You might want to start with Ardipithecus ramidus. It was just highlighted in Science magazine last year. I went through the whole article with my 10 year old daughter and explained to her the problems with their reasoning. (Incidentally they had a picture of about 50 different scientists involved in the experiments. After perusing the picture my daughter commented that they looked like goof-balls...I'm thinking perhaps her tatty's attitude might be rubbing off on her... :-)<br /><br />In any case, pick one fossil and run with it. And don't forget; sources Ari, verifiable sources!"</i><br /><br />O.K. O.K. here is a couple of qoutes<br /><br />But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994<br /><br />"The prehistoric record in Africa is now extensive, no longer the quip about fewer fossils than would cover <br />a dining room table. By my count there are fossilized fragments of about a thousand human individuals <br />from the early part of our evolution, and I wouldn't even try to count the number of stone tools.(Leakey R. & <br />Lewin R., "Origins Reconsidered: In Search of What Makes Us Human," [1992], Abacus: London, 1993, <br />reprint, pp.80-81)"F.U.Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11174550538150251117noreply@blogger.com