RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2008,18:30   

Quote (JAM @ Feb. 09 2008,17:15)
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 09 2008,16:51)
So, what in the name of Darwin (may his name be eternally praised) does the Moyne & Neige paper have to do with              
"The gaps that exist in the continuity of forms, which we always encounter at those very points, are not to be blamed on the fossil record; they are not illusions, but the expression of a natural, primary absence of transitional forms."

The gaps are, to a large extent, blamed on the incompleteness of the fossil record in Schindewolf's day. Thus, they are largely illusory.

This negative assumption is integral to Schindewolf's thesis, and it's hooey.

Note also that to credibly assert a negative, one needs a LOT of evidence, and Daniel has zero interest in determining whether any gaps in the ammonite fossil record have been bridged in the last 50 years by new finds.

Yeah, of course you're right in principle.  And of course Schindewolf was insane to predict that transitional forms would never be found, because their existence would be "not even possible or conceivable" (page 106).

But, but , but isn't the devil in the details?  That Moyne and Neige and others have added new data is great.  But is it too much to ask you to point out how their data fill the gaps that Schindewolf made such a stink about?

"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]