|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: evolution and the extinction of dinos | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
So can a species still be transitional even if it doesn't have an ancestral relationship to another species?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4511 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2698 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024