|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
I'll be noting any bald declarations that lack support, in other words, enforcing rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines:
Naturally I'll be enforcing all the other rules of the Forum Guidelines, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Hi Marc,
If you check the Moderator Guidelines you'll see that it advises moderators to issue warnings first, and to only take action if the behavior continues. I have so far only provided notice that I will be moderating the thread, and I stated that my main focus will be rule 4. Given Faith's behavior in other threads that was often tolerated without action or even comment, I'll be extending considerable leniency to everyone on rule 10, only getting involved when it gets in the way of discussion. If you have further concerns about discussion, please take them to Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0. You could contribute best to this thread by describing the evidence that supports your position, which I assume is at least somewhat along the same lines as Faith's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
PaulK writes: Lame excuses won't cut it Faith. Apart from contradicting yourself in the first two sentences (how can it be both a result of microevolution and no evolution at all ?) you aren't addressing the point of the order of the fossils. I concede the contradiction in the interpretation you've drawn, but I think Faith really meant something like, "Yes, there is microevolution within kinds recorded in the fossil record, but no actual evolution between kinds." Faith provided two concrete examples for her objection that evolutionary changes can occur in very short time periods: Darwin's finches, and the lizards of a Mediterranean island (she's not specific and provided no link, but that's my recollection from another thread - perhaps someone can supply the correct details and a link). The evolution side should explain how small but rapid evolutionary change is consistent with the fossil record (fossils should be the central focus of this thread) should be explained, and the creation side should explain how its consistent with the Flood scenario. I found Faith's third paragraph interesting in that it comes so close to describing actual evolution where she has change preceding adaptation. All that's missing is selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
ICANT writes: What 'you people' are you referring too? Let's not drift off-topic. If you'd like to discuss categories of people, or whether there should be categories, or something along those lines, please take it to an appropriate thread or propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Hi ICANT,
I've read through your messages from so far today, and I have these two requests:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
A good goal for participants in this thread is to avoid argument by way of refusing to acknowledge or understand simple and obvious evidence and arguments from the other side. Looking down the list of thread participants, each and every one has participated in discussions of this topic before. Feigning ignorance of familiar and oft-used evidence and arguments from the other side is something I will try to discourage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Admin in Message 109 writes: A good goal for participants in this thread is to avoid argument by way of refusing to acknowledge or understand simple and obvious evidence and arguments from the other side. Faith in reply writes: I have no idea what you're talking about... There you go again.
...but that's OK, I don't need to be on this thread anyway. Are you sure? Because your history is to use the threat of leaving as a debate tactic, so if you leave this time I'm going to hold you to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Please do not redefine existing terms. Species already has a definition. Accepting the definition is not the same as accepting that new species can form from existing species.
Please do not make empty arguments such as calling something an illusion or a fraud or mental juggling and so forth. It's just a way of ignoring evidence and arguments that people are then forced to repeat. Please do not claim you've already answered or shown or proved something. Answering or showing or proving something to your own satisfaction means nothing. You have to do it to other people's satisfaction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Faith writes: If I can't accept your assessment or comply with your request, what do you suggest? The requests boil down to debating in good faith. Don't play games with word definitions. Don't waste people's time by responding to evidence and argument with unsupported aspersions, or by claiming that you've already proved something when everyone knows that in earlier discussions you convinced no one. You should seek to respond to evidence and argument with your own evidence and argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Faith writes: When I say a particular idea is just mental juggling or the like, I believe I have just shown how it is so it isn't just an empty statement. That's a substantive argument, I SHOW how it's purely imaginative. Your declarations that something is "purely imaginative" and so forth aren't usually accompanied by arguments. Often you offer only baseless aspersions in response to someone else's argument. This forces the other person to repeat their argument or give up, which keeps the discussion from moving forward. The thread's title reflects the scientific evidence telling us the fossil record is a time ordered record of change from ancient to modern forms. If you think that evidence is wrong or misinterpreted then that's what you should be discussing.
Dr. A has said nothing substantive at all. Actually, he's calling attention to your own lack of substance.
But as I said back upthread, if you rule against my objection to the term "new species"... I didn't say you couldn't object to the term "new species." I said you couldn't redefine the word species. You had said that even if enough evolutionary change occurred to cause an inability to interbreed that it would not be a new species. But inability to interbreed is the main criteria for determining species, so this amounts to a redefinition of the word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
I think RAZD's suggestion to take the genetics discussion to the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread is a good one.
This thread is for discussing the strength of the evidence in the fossil record for evolutionary change over time. If it did happen then if it wasn't by genetics then it was by some other means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Please take genetics arguments to the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Faith writes: The first is that it IS just a theory,... Is there any framework of understanding in science that isn't a theory?
...it really has no hard evidence,... If fossils and how they are distributed among sedimentary layers are not hard evidence for evolution then this thread is your opportunity to make your case. But...
... it is built out of the very sorts of conjectures I've been talking about here, IMAGINED sequences of how evolution between two creatures COULD HAVE HAPPENED. ...calling things names like imaginary is not a way to make your case. You can accuse evolution of being imagined and the other side can accuse the flood of being imagined, and how does that settle anything? It doesn't. Please start talking about the evidence. In this thread, that would be the fossils.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Hi Faith,
I would take issue with many of your arguments, but genetics isn't the topic of this thread, and I don't want to become party to the discussion. I invite other participants to respond to your genetics arguments over at the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread. Your genetics arguments do not bear upon this thread because if we discover that genetics is not the mechanism of change over time it wouldn't prove that the fossil record is not evidence of change over time. It could mean we haven't yet identified the correct mechanism, or it could mean the fossil record really isn't a record of change over time (your position), or it could mean something else. Please take the genetics arguments to the proper thread. In this thread the topic is the fossil record. If you have an alternative explanation for the distribution of fossils through geologic time, or if you have arguments for why it isn't evidence of evolution, then this is the place to discuss them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13136 From: EvC Forum Joined:
|
Hi RAZD,
I'm hoping that Faith will eventually respond to my moderator requests and take her genetics arguments to the Evolution Requires Reduction in Genetic Diversity thread that you revived, which I thought it was a good idea. Faith's post and your response fit better over in that thread.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025