|
GHitch -> RE: Transitional Fossils (7/15/2008 5:05:54 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
And pray tell, why on earth would a well adapted fish choose to risk it's life in trying to leave the water in the first place!?! I don't know, why don't you ask one of these guys?
So you point me to a creature that can survive out of water. What's your point? Are you telling me this is a transitional? Are you saying this species will eventually riside entirely on land?
quote:
You have quite the penchant for partaking in the fallacies you accuse others of. In this case, incredulity.
Ever heard of ridiculous credulity? That's Darwinism.
quote:
There are plenty of fish alive today that can survive on land. Take this fish for example. Organisms like these give us clues as to the possible pathways organisms might have taken when transitioning from water to land. ...possible, may have... - same old song.
So there are fish today that can survive on land? Are saying you have proof absolute that any of these fish, past or present is a transitional?
Q: If so, where is the proof that it is exactly so?
A: You don't have any? You can never have any cause it happens over gazillions of years?
There's the correct answers.
That's what I'm pointing out and that's why you can never claim anything is a transitional between major forms. Pointing to a fish that possibly adapted in some small way (or was simply created that way) is hardly macro-evo.
The ubiquitous extrapolation from micro to macro is not science either. It's conjecture.
So as Behe points out in the Edge... there are limits to what is possible in a genome.
And you all simply ignore the facts repeatedly admitted by Darwinists when they aren't being careful about what they say.
So let's read it again:
quote:
So the change happened gradually, in a way consistent with evolution via natural selection—not suddenly, as researchers once had little choice but to believe, the authors of the new study say.(Anne Minard, Odd Fish Find Contradicts Intelligent-Design Argument, National Geographic News, July 9, 2008.) Simple. "had little choice but to believe." means they knew there was no real transitional evidence.
Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for the evidence of links never found. - Lunn
If Darwinism were true, we should have found billions of links, for there had to have been billions of transitionals. There are an estimated 13 million life forms on this planet - do have any idea how many transitionals that would require? Obviously not.
How many real proveable links are there between major forms? None.
You people point me to fish that can survive on land but completely miss the fact there is no evidence whatsoever that any of these are transitionals. Any creationist will simply that God made them such and any IDist will say that as I have - no evidence that it is in fact such. And you have no basis in factual step by mutational step evidence at all to say the contrary except of course your a priori committement to materialsim! Just as Lewontin says.
Restating you assertions ad infinitum or pointing to fish alive today do nothing to support your claims. It's pure speculation and if you were honest you would admit it. As have others.
quote:
A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis. - http://www.whatislife.com/glossary/t.htm
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena;
- http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=theory compared to : quote:
"The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else." Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007
"Paleontology (study of fossils) cannot be regarded other than as a hostile witness (against evolution). "It is not possible to draw up a pedigree showing the descent of any species, living or extinct, from an ancestor belonging to a different order. The earliest know fossils of each class and order are not half-made or half-developed forms, but exhibit, fully developed, all the essential characteristics of their class or order. . . .It is not possible to arrange a genealogical series of fossils proving that any series has in the past undergone sufficient change to transform it into a member of another family.
"All the changes proved by fossils to have taken place in animals are within the limits of the family."
In the book "IS EVOLUTION PROVED?" Douglas Dewar quoted Sir J. William Dawson, F. R. S., of McGill University (Montreal), a trained geologist. Prof., Dawson said in his day: "The evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. . . .that in our day a system destitute of any shadow of proof. . . .should be accepted as a philosophy, and should enable adherents to string upon its thread of hypotheses our vast and weighty stores of knowledge is surpassing strange." - Sir J. William Dawson
quote:
"This does not mean that the profession is about to abandon Darwin forever or endorse my views publicly.
The situation remains much as it was: the inner circles are full of doubt, but the public utterances are confident. The doubts may be greater now and the confidence less serene, but it will be a long time before the public is given the full dark picture. There is still need for a dissenting voice, a devil's advocate, a skeptical whistle-blower." Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit Books, 1971), foreword.
quote:
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure that they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so. What we are to make of that fact is still open to debate, but today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots and the unorthodox neo-Sedgwickians who rate as enlightened rationalists prepared to contemplate the evidence that is plain for all to see."
-Professor Sir Edmund Leach, addressing the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
Your answers so far are just speculation on current species, added to support your speculations. Hey this fish can survive out of water therefore evolution is true! Hardly scientific. The world is still waiting for real proof - not speculation based on materialist assumptions.
|
|
|
|