|
Author
|
Topic: evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins
|
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6944 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: 01-13-2005
|
Re: quote mining
I was just supporting my conclusions with those of people who you might respect. How is it that equally qualified scientists can come to different conclusions when studying the same evidence? Why is it if I quote someone I'm quote mining? Does that mean that the quote is any less valid?
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Existing at the same time
I don't know PS, when he says "...time as horses" does he mean modern Equus where he says "horses"? In which case, your explanation doesn't touch the issue.
|
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6944 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: 01-13-2005
|
Re: still walking on misconceptions
If there were actual evidence that they were horse precursors, your argument would be valid. I have seen many of these charts, they are not backed up by actual fossil evidence.
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
Re: Fossil record
And on page 26, Raup writes
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 xevolutionist, do you still agree with Raup? Raup was asking a very simple question, "can natural selection cause the changes we see in the fossil record". The answer is NO, speciation causes the changes we see in the fossil record, which explains why very few transitions between species are seen.
|
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6944 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: 01-13-2005
|
|
Message 260 of 310 (180493)
01-25-2005 3:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 254 by CK
01-25-2005 3:33 PM
|
|
Re: Fossil record
Which misquote did you have in mind? Are you saying that Darwin never bemoaned the fact that no transitional forms were found in his lifetime? Or postulated that if his theory were true, there would be an abundance of them? Or are you saying that no evolutionists will admit to the fact that there are none.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 254 by CK, posted 01-25-2005 3:33 PM | | CK has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 264 by Loudmouth, posted 01-25-2005 3:49 PM | | xevolutionist has replied |
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
Re: still walking on misconceptions
quote:
If there were actual evidence that they were horse precursors, your argument would be valid. I have seen many of these charts, they are not backed up by actual fossil evidence.
What would a real horse ancestor look like, if these aren't it?
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
Re: quote mining
quote:
I was just supporting my conclusions with those of people who you might respect. How is it that equally qualified scientists can come to different conclusions when studying the same evidence?
So you read the paper, understand the content of the quote and it's place in the discourse? Right? You haven't just cut and paste it straight from some nutty creationist site?
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
Re: quote mining
I was just supporting my conclusions with those of people who you might respect. Use evidence instead of others' conclusions, especially conclusions taken out of context.
How is it that equally qualified scientists can come to different conclusions when studying the same evidence? Wait a moment - a few pages ago you were arguing that all scientists blindly support without question any evidence that supports evolutionary theory. Now you state that scientists have different views. Which is it? Your argument seems to be this: Scientists agree, which makes their conclusions suspect. Scientists disagree, which makes their conclusions suspect. In other words, you find all scientific conclusions suspect.
Why is it if I quote someone I'm quote mining? The quote is taken out of context to imply something the writer did not intend. See loudmouth's explanation of your first quote for an example of why what you did was "quote-mining" and not "quoting".
Does that mean that the quote is any less valid? Yes. It is taken out of context to mislead. Quotes should not be used as evidence in a scientific debate anyway, except perhaps to define historical context.
|
Loudmouth
Inactive Member
|
Re: Fossil record
quote:
Which misquote did you have in mind? Are you saying that Darwin never bemoaned the fact that no transitional forms were found in his lifetime?
He bemoaned that we there weren't more. Archaeopteryx, the transition between reptile and bird, was found in Darwin's lifetime.
|
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6944 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: 01-13-2005
|
Re: Fossil record
New sub species have appeared, not new species. If you evolutionists redefine terms every time there is a new development that exposes your past errors, it's hard for anyone to keep up. No wonder there is little agreement in evolutionist circles, other than it must have happened.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 259 by Loudmouth, posted 01-25-2005 3:46 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
|
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6944 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: 01-13-2005
|
Re: still walking on misconceptions
A real horse ancestor would be a horse, of course. Evolution didn't take place or there would be real, not speculative, evidence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 261 by Loudmouth, posted 01-25-2005 3:47 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
|
xevolutionist
Member (Idle past 6944 days) Posts: 189 From: Salem, Oregon, US Joined: 01-13-2005
|
Re: Fossil record
Archaeopteryx has been shown to be a true bird, and a true bird fossil has been found predating arch. by 50 million years.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 264 by Loudmouth, posted 01-25-2005 3:49 PM | | Loudmouth has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 269 by crashfrog, posted 01-25-2005 4:01 PM | | xevolutionist has not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
New sub species have appeared, not new species. How would you tell the difference between two populations that are subspecies of the same species, and two populations that are different species?
If you evolutionists redefine terms every time there is a new development that exposes your past errors, it's hard for anyone to keep up. Get caught up with this: species essentialism died in the 1800's. "Species" means "reproductive community." This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-25-2005 16:00 AM
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
Archaeopteryx has been shown to be a true bird "True bird"? Please. It doesn't even have a beak!
|
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6044 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: 06-10-2004
|
Re: still walking on misconceptions
If there were actual evidence that they were horse precursors, your argument would be valid. What would you expect a horse precursor to look like?
I have seen many of these charts, they are not backed up by actual fossil evidence. This seems to be your MO. You demand fossil evidence and then ignore or dismiss it when presented to you. You demand to see an "intermediate" fossil. When presented to you, you call it a "subspecies", then again demand to see an "intermediate."
|
™ Version 4.2