Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   evolution and the extinction of dinos
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 16 of 93 (607381)
03-03-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Dr Adequate
03-03-2011 11:16 AM


Re: The fossil record
So can a species still be transitional even if it doesn't have an ancestral relationship to another species?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 11:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 12:13 PM Peter has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 17 of 93 (607385)
03-03-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Peter
03-03-2011 12:04 PM


Re: The fossil record
So can a species still be transitional even if it doesn't have an ancestral relationship to another species?
This is exactly why I avoid using the word "transitional". Even if something was direct ancestor, we'd probably never actually know. And most of them probably aren't, because the odds aren't in our favor there.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 03-03-2011 12:04 PM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by fearandloathing, posted 03-03-2011 12:36 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 22 by Peter, posted 03-04-2011 5:43 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 18 of 93 (607387)
03-03-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
03-03-2011 12:13 PM


Re: The fossil record
Please tell me if my line of thinking is way off. Wouldn't all species be transitional to some extent. Evolution and natural selection processes always are causing change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 12:13 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-03-2011 8:41 PM fearandloathing has not replied
 Message 21 by Peter, posted 03-04-2011 5:41 AM fearandloathing has not replied

  
ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 19 of 93 (607461)
03-03-2011 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by fearandloathing
03-03-2011 12:36 PM


Re: The fossil record
fearandloathing writes:
Please tell me if my line of thinking is way off. Wouldn't all species be transitional to some extent. Evolution and natural selection processes always are causing change.
In a word, yes.

I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by fearandloathing, posted 03-03-2011 12:36 PM fearandloathing has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by arachnophilia, posted 03-03-2011 8:53 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 20 of 93 (607463)
03-03-2011 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by ZenMonkey
03-03-2011 8:41 PM


Re: The fossil record
ZenMonkey writes:
fearandloathing writes:
Please tell me if my line of thinking is way off. Wouldn't all species be transitional to some extent. Evolution and natural selection processes always are causing change.
In a word, yes.
some of them go extinct.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by ZenMonkey, posted 03-03-2011 8:41 PM ZenMonkey has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 21 of 93 (607490)
03-04-2011 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by fearandloathing
03-03-2011 12:36 PM


Re: The fossil record
fearandloathing writes:
Please tell me if my line of thinking is way off. Wouldn't all species be transitional to some extent. Evolution and natural selection processes always are causing change.
That's what I think too .... except for the dead-ends.
Edited by Peter, : Added the dead ends bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by fearandloathing, posted 03-03-2011 12:36 PM fearandloathing has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 22 of 93 (607491)
03-04-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Dr Adequate
03-03-2011 12:13 PM


Re: The fossil record
Dr Adequate writes:
So can a species still be transitional even if it doesn't have an ancestral relationship to another species?
This is exactly why I avoid using the word "transitional". Even if something was direct ancestor, we'd probably never actually know. And most of them probably aren't, because the odds aren't in our favor there.
So we are really talking about species which show a potential for being intermediary, but are not necessarily direct decendants/antecedants?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-03-2011 12:13 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 03-04-2011 9:52 AM Peter has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 23 of 93 (607506)
03-04-2011 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Peter
03-04-2011 5:43 AM


Re: The fossil record
Peter writes:
Dr Adequate writes:
So can a species still be transitional even if it doesn't have an ancestral relationship to another species?
This is exactly why I avoid using the word "transitional". Even if something was direct ancestor, we'd probably never actually know. And most of them probably aren't, because the odds aren't in our favor there.
So we are really talking about species which show a potential for being intermediary, but are not necessarily direct decendants/antecedants?
Not actually a potential, more a fact. They do show traits that are intermediary.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Peter, posted 03-04-2011 5:43 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Peter, posted 03-08-2011 8:52 AM jar has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 93 (607612)
03-05-2011 9:09 AM


Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
A read of this dino/ice age page is a read of a lot of lack of evidence. Speculation and conjecture by ice age advocates is all I see here. That sort of thing is disallowed in flood and Exodus threads where solid empirical evidence is an absolute requirement.
What is attributed to the alleged ice ages has been argued by creationists as explainable by the Noaic flood, of course, also involving some aspects of speculation and conjecture. Due to lack of empirical evidence, the anti-floodists claim that it has been absolutely falsified.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 03-05-2011 9:21 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 03-05-2011 9:33 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 03-05-2011 10:02 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 25 of 93 (607614)
03-05-2011 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
03-05-2011 9:09 AM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
Buzsaw writes:
A read of this dino/ice age page is a read of a lot of lack of evidence. Speculation and conjecture by ice age advocates is all I see here. That sort of thing is disallowed in flood and Exodus threads where solid empirical evidence is an absolute requirement.
What is attributed to the alleged ice ages has been argued by creationists as explainable by the Noaic flood, of course, also involving some aspects of speculation and conjecture. Due to lack of empirical evidence, the anti-floodists claim that it has been absolutely falsified.
Once again Buz you are simply posting falsehoods.
First, the Biblical Flood has been refuted. Period. Anyone that claims there was a Biblical Flood is simply wrong.
Second, no one has ever explained how the Biblical Flood could produce the evidence we see related to glaciers.
Are you actually going to present some evidence in this case?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 9:09 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 3:42 PM jar has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 93 (607615)
03-05-2011 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
03-05-2011 9:09 AM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
Buzsaw writes:
That sort of thing is disallowed in flood and Exodus threads where solid empirical evidence is an absolute requirement.
If you've read the thread, you've no doubt noticed that the thread is primarily discussion rather than debate. While some evidence has been cited, there is understandably less citing than would be expected in a debate thread. Speculation is entirely appropriate here.
It would be perfectly acceptable for you start a debate by challenging one of the posters to put up some evidence on something said here. But you won't bother. You are merely objecting to the fact that others are even having this discussion. I'd enjoy being proven wrong about that.
Buzsaw writes:
Due to lack of empirical evidence, the anti-floodists claim that it has been absolutely falsified.
I think that's a mischaracterization of the past discussions. Evidence has been presented that a global flood did not occur. It has not been a simple matter of pointing out that your own claims are unsupported by evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 9:09 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 3:35 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 27 of 93 (607619)
03-05-2011 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Buzsaw
03-05-2011 9:09 AM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
Hi, Buz.
Did I miss something here?
What have the ice ages got to do with dinosaurs?
Dinosaur extinction: 65 million years ago.
Pleistocene ice ages: within the last 3 million years.
You do realize that 65 and 3 are two very different numbers, right?
I've lost track of how many times you've been corrected on this.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 9:09 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Buzsaw, posted 03-05-2011 3:30 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 93 (607639)
03-05-2011 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Blue Jay
03-05-2011 10:02 AM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
Bluejay writes:
Hi, Buz.
Did I miss something here?
What have the ice ages got to do with dinosaurs?
Dinosaur extinction: 65 million years ago.
Pleistocene ice ages: within the last 3 million years.
You do realize that 65 and 3 are two very different numbers, right?
I've lost track of how many times you've been corrected on this.
Message 7 was what I had in mind about the ice ages. Since it was off topic, I should have stuck to the asteroid assumption relative to dinos.
My point was that there is always a lot of assuption, implication and conjecture relative to both, whereas no assumption, implication or conjecture has been permissible in flood or Exodus threads.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Blue Jay, posted 03-05-2011 10:02 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 93 (607640)
03-05-2011 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by NoNukes
03-05-2011 9:33 AM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
NoNukes writes:
Buzsaw writes:
That sort of thing is disallowed in flood and Exodus threads where solid empirical evidence is an absolute requirement.
If you've read the thread, you've no doubt noticed that the thread is primarily discussion rather than debate. While some evidence has been cited, there is understandably less citing than would be expected in a debate thread. Speculation is entirely appropriate here.
It would be perfectly acceptable for you start a debate by challenging one of the posters to put up some evidence on something said here. But you won't bother. You are merely objecting to the fact that others are even having this discussion. I'd enjoy being proven wrong about that.
Buzsaw writes:
Due to lack of empirical evidence, the anti-floodists claim that it has been absolutely falsified.
I think that's a mischaracterization of the past discussions. Evidence has been presented that a global flood did not occur. It has not been a simple matter of pointing out that your own claims are unsupported by evidence.
Mmm, now, there's a novel idea. We can have a discussion flood thread where empirical evidence is not a requirement. I never thought of that.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 03-05-2011 9:33 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NoNukes, posted 03-05-2011 5:16 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 93 (607641)
03-05-2011 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
03-05-2011 9:21 AM


Re: Ice Age Speculation & Conjecture
jar writes:
Are you actually going to present some evidence in this case?
No. Mine would require empirical evidence, whereas yours does not.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by jar, posted 03-05-2011 9:21 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 03-05-2011 3:56 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 33 by frako, posted 03-05-2011 4:15 PM Buzsaw 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