Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Transitional fossils not proof of evolution?
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 53 of 223 (315991)
05-29-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Belfry
05-29-2006 12:37 PM


Re: Speculations
It sounds like a clearer emphasis needs to be made of what Percy mentioned above to distinguish a view which incorporates both long periods of morphological stasis and periods of morphological change (continuous or discontinuous) and one of what Dawkin's called 'Constant Speedism'.
There are undoubtedly many who believe that populations undergo gradual changes in both their genetics and morphologies which may lead to speciation amongst other things, it is highly unlikely that there are any 'Constant Speedism' adherents on the board.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Belfry, posted 05-29-2006 12:37 PM Belfry has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Belfry, posted 05-29-2006 1:19 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 195 of 223 (341053)
08-18-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Chuteleach
08-18-2006 10:31 AM


Re: That which has not evolved.
Ok, how would a creature that lived several million years ago have no random genetic changes?
Without DNA from fossilised coelacanths there is absolutely no reason to believe this is true. The fact that the extant living coelacanth is morphologically distinct from fossil coelacanths would suggest that this would not be true if we did find fossilised DNA. Indeed the different populations of modern coleacanth having a number of genetic changess between the populations givng the lie to the idea that no change has occurred (Holder et al, 1999).
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Chuteleach, posted 08-18-2006 10:31 AM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 223 of 223 (341854)
08-21-2006 4:50 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Chuteleach
08-20-2006 9:30 PM


Re: That which has not evolved.
yes because i'm sure you can prove which sources are credible and which arn't.
If you claim to have any familiarity with science then a reference to peer reviewed material in a scientific journal is always going to trump a link to a site that any monkey with a computer could produce. If you don't recognise that then you haven't the first clue what actually constitutes scientific evidence. Use a little education, it goes much further than common sense.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Chuteleach, posted 08-20-2006 9:30 PM Chuteleach has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024