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?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 98 of 223 (316781)
06-01-2006 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Quetzal
05-31-2006 11:29 PM


Re: attempted save
You have to remember that creationists use (more than one) differnet definition of macroevolution. And those generally aren't clear.
I would have to say that the large visible differences in the brassicas could easily have more to do with creationist ideas of "macroevolution" than known examples of speciation, which they regularly write off as "microevolution".c

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Quetzal, posted 05-31-2006 11:29 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Quetzal, posted 06-01-2006 8:01 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 100 by Mammuthus, posted 06-01-2006 8:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 102 of 223 (316797)
06-01-2006 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Mammuthus
06-01-2006 8:17 AM


Re: attempted save
I agree that there is no definition of "kind" that is of any use to the idea that macroevolution is "evolution between kinds" and I agree that creationists are sometimes deliberately vague on this to avoid any chance of refutation.
However we must allow that the common creationist may simply be repeating claims that they do not understand and cannot see the flaws in what they are saying. Critical examination of material that supports their ideas is foreign to the typical creationist mind-set.
Because "kinds" are really a religious concept, based on a literal reading of Genesis 1, the only way to nail creationists down on the matter in any way is to use Genesis 1 as the source for identifying "kinds". Thus whales are a good example (and when I tried it I succeeded in getting a creationist to agree that whales were a "kind").

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Mammuthus, posted 06-01-2006 8:17 AM Mammuthus has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17853
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 104 of 223 (316852)
06-01-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Hyroglyphx
06-01-2006 12:14 PM


PE and Transitions
Many creationists accept a degree of evolution with closely related species regarded as the same "kind" (e.g. the canids might be accepted as the "dog-kind").
Punctuated Equilibria explains the relative rarity of direct fossil evidence for such transitions. It could not explain the absence of transitions between higher taxonomic levels i.e the fossils that represent what you would call macro-evolution.
Thus if PE and "macroevolution" were both false we should find many species level transitions and no fossils representing higher level transitions. Thus we could falsify this view on empirical grounds - if that was what we found.
If PE and "macroevolution" were both true we should find few species-level transitions and proportionately far more fossils representing higher-level transitions. And this is what is found. So the fossil evidence actually supports the combination of PE and "macroevolution".
In short creationism and PE predict the absence of DIFFERENT fossils - and it is the predictions of PE that are foudn to be empirically true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-01-2006 12:14 PM Hyroglyphx 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