Joined: Mar. 2007
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2007,07:53)|
|It always amazes me that some people are so awed by these “transitionals”. Here too we have varying interpretations of these creatures, yet mainstream science only allows consideration of one interpretation. Their interpretation may be absolutely correct, but then again, it may not. Our students are never allowed to consider views that conflict with these supposed whale transitionals, feathered dinosaurs, and other “transitionals“. |
Humes certainly doesn’t mention the lengths that somes scientists have gone to in order to produce a “transitional”. Hoaxes abound, and recently even the famous paleontologist, Richard Leaky, has tampered with fossils to make them appear more like transitionals.
I also find it interesting that scientists are so enamored with these supposed “transitionals”, yet to this day we have no empirical evidence of macroevolutionary changes occurring in nature. Consider the evolutionary changes that would have had to occur in order to explain different body types and the evolution of vital organs.
|I guess I still just wonder why we insist that this is a transitional versus merely an adaptation within the ape species.|
|Although Darwin expected to find many examples of these gradual, unbroken sequences of transitional fossils, they haven’t been found. So, instead of acknowledging that this is indeed a very real problem for the ToE, advocates of the theory came up with additional theories like Punctuated Equilibrium. |
|And then, of course, there is that dratted problem with all those missing links...|
But, we must not question the evolutionary “fact” that birds evolved from dinos...
"whats" "with" "all" "the" "scare" "quotes" "ftk" "?"
FTK, I don't understand how one the one hand you say you accept "transitional" fossils and yet can still say "we have no empirical evidence of macroevolutionary changes occurring in nature." Both statements cannot be true.
What do you think the transitional fossils are exactly, if not evidence of macro evolutionary changes? Evidence of the designers whims maybe?
EDIT: How can you say "No, I don't deny that transitional fossils exist" and "Our students are never allowed to consider views that conflict with these supposed whale transitionals, feathered dinosaurs, and other “transitionals“." and keep a straight face? You've just said you accept they are transitional fossils (otherwise you'd have just said "nah, they are fossils alright, but transitionals? never") so are you saying even though you accept they are transitional we should teach students otherwise?
You never cease to amaze me FTK.
Well, I guess that all depends on your definition of "transitional". It also depends on how many just so stories you're going to have to tell in order to get your students to believe that what you're telling them is a "fact".
You might also note in the first quote you mentioned that I wrote:
|Their interpretation may be absolutely correct, but then again, it may not.|
I stand by that statement in regard to most of the issues in this debate. The various interpretations of the "facts" should be allowed to be considered by everyone -- not hid under the rug due the fear of the "scientific community" of their precious theory being questioned.
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths" -forastero