75 Theses ~ Science Against Evolution

[Guy Threepwood]

This is a well known Creationist quote mine (i.e. Breaking the 9th Commandment)

See the full quote and an explanation here...
David Raup - RationalWiki

see above, I already posted the full quote, here it is once again, you will notice there is no conflict in context.

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

I understand that Raup's findings touch a nerve with Darwinists

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not that particular museum, but yes, I have been to a few in my lifetime. By the way, where was the link? Without a link to a valid source it is still a worthless quote. He may have gone on to explain in more depth what he meant there. So without a link to the original source you have nothing.

Your problem is that you may not realize what a transitional species is. In your own words do you think that you can define one?

Well according to you one of the world's most renowned paleontologists didn't understand what a transitional species was either.. so I doubt you are going to accept any definition I give you.!

It can be argued that we are all transitions between our parents and offspring, but again I think Raup knew what he was talking about even if you don't

The point being that there are conflicts between Darwin and paleontology according to very credible sources

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well according to you one of the world's most renowned paleontologists didn't understand what a transitional species was either.. so I doubt you are going to accept any definition I give you.!

It can be argued that we are all transitions between our parents and offspring, but again I think Raup knew what he was talking about even if you don't

The point being that there are conflicts between Darwin and paleontology according to very credible sources

Hard to say since all you have is a quote mine. And since you have been shown to be dishonest and ignorant you should not accuse others of being so.

Once again. what do you think that a transitional species is? You appear to know that I am right. Running away from a simple question indicates fear. Try again.

 

[Altfish]

see above, I already posted the full quote, here it is once again, you will notice there is no conflict in context.

Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information -- what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.

Once again you miss out the context...

The paper is a discussion about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:

“”Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.
Raup later expanded on the ideas in his paper and published a book Extinction. Bad Genes or Bad Luck? (1991) which does not deny that some species go extinct by natural selection but has written that the majority of extinctions especially mass extinctions are caused by physical factors such as comets, climatic changes and catastrophes. Raup is not challenging natural selection as a cause of modification of species he just claimed that gradual change by natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution as non-gradual extinction events also have a role. Creationists however usually misrepresent Raup to make out he is denying common descent or natural selection.

I understand that Raup's findings touch a nerve with Darwinists

I think not, it has been debunked that many times, another example...
On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup

Anyway, it was a DISCUSSION PAPER, a paper written to provoke discussion and debate.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Once again you miss out the context...

The paper is a discussion about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent. From the beginning of the article:

“”Part of our conventional wisdom about evolution is that the fossil record of past life is an important cornerstone of evolutionary theory. In some ways, this is true -- but the situation is much more complicated. I will explore here a few of the complex interrelationships between fossils and darwinian theory. . . Darwin's theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true. We must distinguish between the fact of evolution -- defined as change in organisms over time -- and the explanation of this change. Darwin's contribution, through his theory of natural selection, was to suggest how the evolutionary change took place. The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be.
Raup later expanded on the ideas in his paper and published a book Extinction. Bad Genes or Bad Luck? (1991) which does not deny that some species go extinct by natural selection but has written that the majority of extinctions especially mass extinctions are caused by physical factors such as comets, climatic changes and catastrophes. Raup is not challenging natural selection as a cause of modification of species he just claimed that gradual change by natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution as non-gradual extinction events also have a role. Creationists however usually misrepresent Raup to make out he is denying common descent or natural selection.



I think not, it has been debunked that many times, another example...
On a Common Creationist Quotation of Dr. David M. Raup

Anyway, it was a DISCUSSION PAPER, a paper written to provoke discussion and debate.

a discussion about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent

^ agreed, once again, I am not disputing common descent, nor does intelligent design, I'm merely agreeing with Raup on the lack of transitional fossils, that they were not discovered in anything like the numbers or smooth patterns predicted by Darwin. It's actually not all that controversial any more, this is why we have punctuated equilibrium

ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time

^ It's a pretty unambiguous statement. Raup's opinion not mine- if you or anyone is somehow able to read 'common descent is false' from this..... who is taking this quote out of context?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

you have been shown to be dishonest and ignorant

sticks and stones

substance?

 

[Subduction Zone]

a discussion about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent

^ agreed, once again, I am not disputing common descent, nor does intelligent design, I'm merely agreeing with Raup on the lack of transitional fossils, that they were not discovered in anything like the numbers or patterns predicted by Darwin. It's actually not all that controversial

ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time

^ It's a pretty unambiguous statement. Raup's opinion not mine- if you or anyone is somehow able to read 'common descent is false' from this..... who is taking this out of context?

It is too bad that you won't allow yourself to understand what Raup was talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

sticks and stones

substance?

Not sticks and stones. By running away from a simple question that would indicate whether or not you have a clue at all you only demonstrate that you know deep down inside that you are wrong..

Once again, in your own words, what is a transitional fossil, or a transitional species?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not getting into name calling on this or any thread, I don't take offense, it's just not very interesting to me.

'Transitional' is an inherently loose term. I've heard some Darwinists claim that every fossil is transitional, Id define it more as what Raup talks about- some proposed link between a distinctly different ancestor and descendant, but again 'significant' is entirely subjective

But semantics aside, they have proven extremely elusive relative to Darwinian predictions- Raup's point was that many examples previously thought to be transitional (regardless of the size of the gap), turned out to be of entirely different species, and this pattern has been repeated as we learn more.

As we see here this still touches a very raw nerve with many Darwinists, but it's actually not very controversial anymore within evolutionary biology itself

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not getting into name calling on this or any thread, I don't take offense, it's just not very interesting to me.

'Transitional' is an inherently loose term. I've heard some Darwinists claim that every fossil is transitional, Id define it more as what Raup talks about- some proposed link between a distinctly different ancestor and descendant, but again 'significant' is entirely subjective

But semantics aside, they have proven extremely elusive relative to Darwinian predictions- Raup's point was that many examples previously thought to be transitional (regardless of the size of the gap), turned out to be of entirely different species, and this pattern has been repeated as we learn more.

As we see here this still touches a very raw nerve with many Darwinists, but it's actually not very controversial anymore within evolutionary biology itself

A transitional fossil is one that has some of the traits of an older fossil and some of the traits of a younger one. It does not mean ancestral. Now Raup appears to have used it in the sense of ancestral for the horse, and though some species were shown to be not ancestral and could therefore be said to be "lost", even more were found that were found that appear to be ancestral. Again , there is no guarantee about any specific fossils lineage. In your family you may have a distant "bachelor uncle". You may not be descended from him, but he still is "transitional" between you and an even more distant ancestor.

This article may help:

Transitional forms

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, I don't know why there is all of this quote mining. The fossil evidence is only a very small part of the evidence that tells us we are the product of evolution. Even if the fossil record did not exist we could see our relationship to other species. DNA is a massive set of evidence for evolution. Not only the fact that we see the same nested hierarchies laid out by other lines of evidence. But we also have ERV's which are a slam dunk for the theory.

Why do creationists cling to the mythical parts of the Bible? Don't they realize that they are making the entire religion look ridiculous by doing so?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A transitional fossil is one that has some of the traits of an older fossil and some of the traits of a younger one. It does not mean ancestral. Now Raup appears to have used it in the sense of ancestral for the horse, and though some species were shown to be not ancestral and could therefore be said to be "lost", even more were found that were found that appear to be ancestral. Again , there is no guarantee about any specific fossils lineage. In your family you may have a distant "bachelor uncle". You may not be descended from him, but he still is "transitional" between you and an even more distant ancestor.

This article may help:

Transitional forms

Of course, there is no way to tell if is a fossil is the literal direct ancestor of descendant, pre-DNA remains, but it's supposed to at least represent what the transitional form between ancestral and descended forms would look like- and this is what allows for a lot of wiggle room on the catogorization

In may cases though, it can be established that the fossil once presumed to be transitional is almost certainly not, and the theoretical lineage has to be re-written

whatever the semantic definition, doesn't change the observation:

ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time

as Raup notes, enough transitional are lost /redefined that the record has become increasingly jerky, the jumps and gaps more distinct, not less- not increasingly smooth with more and more transitionals as Darwinism originally predicted. This was the original point before I prodded the Darwin hive with this particular evidence stick, and again none of this is particularly controversial anymore, it's why we have punctuated equilibrium

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course, there is no way to tell if is a fossil is the literal direct ancestor of descendant, pre-DNA remains, but it's supposed to at least represent what the transitional form between ancestral and descended forms would look like- and this is what allows for a lot of wiggle room on the catogorization

In may cases though, it can be established that the fossil once presumed to be transitional is almost certainly not, and the theoretical lineage has to be re-written

whatever the semantic definition, doesn't change the observation:

ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time

as Raup notes, enough transitional are lost /redefined that the record has become increasingly jerky, the jumps and gaps more distinct, not less- not increasingly smooth with more and more transitionals as Darwinism originally predicted. This was the original point before I prodded the Darwin hive with this particular evidence stick, and again none of this is particularly controversial anymore, it's why we have punctuated equilibrium

Back to your quote mine that you did not understand. Too bad that you can't link a valid source. Without a valid source a quote mine is worthless in a debate. He is using an incorrect definition of "transitional". What he is describing is something that is ancestral. Even if a species is not ancestral it can still give us knowledge on how a species evolved.

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

Even though some of the horse fossils are not "transitional" to modern horses they are still transitional fossils, just as a distant bachelor uncle of yours is transitional. If you don't understand the proper move is to ask questions. Honest questions only please. If a question has a built in assumption, such as "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" then it is not an honest question.

 

[Altfish]

a discussion about Darwin's mechanism of natural selection and whether this mechanism is reflected in pattern of the fossil record, not whether there is a lack of evidence for common descent

^ agreed, once again, I am not disputing common descent, nor does intelligent design, I'm merely agreeing with Raup on the lack of transitional fossils, that they were not discovered in anything like the numbers or smooth patterns predicted by Darwin. It's actually not all that controversial any more, this is why we have punctuated equilibrium

ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time

^ It's a pretty unambiguous statement. Raup's opinion not mine- if you or anyone is somehow able to read 'common descent is false' from this..... who is taking this quote out of context?

OK, we are not going to agree.

 

[Altfish]

Anyway, every fossil is 'transitional'

I am transitional between my father and my son

 

[SkepticThinker]

as Raup notes, enough transitional are lost /redefined that the record has become increasingly jerky, the jumps and gaps more distinct, not less- not increasingly smooth with more and more transitionals as Darwinism originally predicted. This was the original point before I prodded the Darwin hive with this particular evidence stick, and again none of this is particularly controversial anymore, it's why we have punctuated equilibrium …

….. In contrast, the gaps have become ever more well defined, explosive, abrupt- hence the emergence of Darwinian splinter groups like punctuated equilibrium ….

“We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much... We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.
-- David M. Raup

From my link:

“ Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works. (p. 25) …

Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent (p. 26) …

The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance!”(p. 29)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Anyway, every fossil is 'transitional'

I am transitional between my father and my son

Certainly, and I made that point myself a couple of times, 'transitional' can mean practically anything.

To Raup's point though, Darwinian processes inherently require a vast number of transitional intermediates by any defintion, which have been searched for ever since Victorian times

he saw conflicts between Darwin and the the record as an extremely accomplished paleontologist, I agree with him, and you and I disagree with each other-

that's okay! this is a very interesting question, does it get any more interesting than life itself?


But I do appreciate your thoughtful dispassionate approach, getting overly excited on either side is not a great help to scientific inquiry!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Back to your quote mine that you did not understand. Too bad that you can't link a valid source. Without a valid source a quote mine is worthless in a debate. He is using an incorrect definition of "transitional". What he is describing is something that is ancestral. Even if a species is not ancestral it can still give us knowledge on how a species evolved.

Transitional fossil - Wikipedia

Even though some of the horse fossils are not "transitional" to modern horses they are still transitional fossils, just as a distant bachelor uncle of yours is transitional. If you don't understand the proper move is to ask questions. Honest questions only please. If a question has a built in assumption, such as "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" then it is not an honest question.

To let you understand Subduction, there are certain positions that are well enough known to those conversant in particular subjects, that direct sources are not generally required-

asking to back up such a well known position from such a world renowned paleontologist, is a little like asking for a source to prove that Lou Gehrig declared himself the luckiest man on the face of the earth.. it would only serve to undermine your own authority on baseball...

I'm sure you are capable of finding a source for this quote yourself, and I would encourage you to go beyond that and read more of Raup's work, he was a pretty significant contributor to the study of natural history.

Unfortunately he passed away recently, or I'm sure you could have educated him on all the mistakes he made!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

From my link:

“ Now let me take a step back from the problem and very generally discuss natural selection and what we know about it. I think it is safe to say that we know for sure that natural selection, as a process, does work. There is a mountain of experimental and observational evidence, much of it predating genetics, which shows that natural selection as a biological process works. (p. 25) …

Now with regard to the fossil record, we certainly see change. If any of us were to be put down in the Cretaceous landscape we would immediately recognize the difference. Some of the plants and animals would be familiar but most would have changed and some of the types would be totally different from those living today. . . This record of change pretty clearly demonstrates that evolution has occurred if we define evolution simply as change; but it does not tell us how this change too place, and that is really the question. If we allow that natural selection works, as we almost have to do, the fossil record doesn't tell us whether it was responsible for 90 percent of the change we see or 9 percent, or .9 percent (p. 26) …

The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance!”(p. 29)

^ very good point, and I have been accused of 'quote mining' for posting this very paragraph before

Raup recognized the conflicts between Darwin and paleontology, something that is strictly verboten in many academic and pop-science circles

 

[metis]

...recognized the conflicts between Darwin and paleontology, something that is strictly verboten in many academic and pop-science circles

Not true, as it has long been recognized that Darwin did not bat 1000, especially since he had so little info to work with.

BTW, was by no means the first person to have a basic understanding that life has evolved. Matter of fact, it's a basic teaching found in Buddhism: everything changes; nothing stays the same.