| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gammon" |
| Date: |
27 Jul 2003 03:58:24 PM |
| Object: |
"Intermediate species" |
It seems to be a common anti-evolution argument that no evidence has been
found of an intermediate or transitional species from a common ancestor to a
modern species.
I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some good
resources to use against this type of argument.
Perhaps this isn't the most appropriate NG to use, but I wasn't sure where
to post it and I figured someone here would know.
Thanks.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
27 Jul 2003 10:26:46 PM |
|
|
"Gammon" <gammonb2@charter.net> wrote
It seems to be a common anti-evolution argument that
no evidence has been found of an intermediate or
transitional species from a common ancestor to a
modern species.
That would be weird, considering the last I heard there
were too many such species. The biggest problem at
this point is figuring are our direct ancestors and which
are evolutionary dead ends.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike Milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
27 Jul 2003 05:26:10 PM |
|
|
"Gammon" <gammonb2@charter.net> wrote in message
news:vi8f68bv024l0c@corp.supernews.com...
It seems to be a common anti-evolution argument that no evidence has been
found of an intermediate or transitional species from a common ancestor to
a
modern species.
I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some
good
resources to use against this type of argument.
Perhaps this isn't the most appropriate NG to use, but I wasn't sure where
to post it and I figured someone here would know.
Thanks.
As a matter of fact you're in one.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Hattan" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
27 Jul 2003 04:29:12 PM |
|
|
"Gammon" <gammonb2@charter.net> wrote:
It seems to be a common anti-evolution argument that no evidence has been
found of an intermediate or transitional species from a common ancestor to a
modern species.
I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some good
resources to use against this type of argument.
Basically the whole "gaps" argument is a red herring.
Imagine for a second that I put two pennies on a table two feet apart
representing two species. You could point between them and say "there's
a gap there". Now imagine that I put a penny between the two to
represent a transitional species with characteristics of both. Now then,
did I just close the gap, or did I just create two new gaps that must
also be explained?
Fact is, creationists will accept nothing short of an unbroken family
tree from Australopithicus to Kent Hovind as proof of evolution.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
29 Jul 2003 09:53:13 AM |
|
|
John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com> wrote in message news:<fmg8iv0tdlikjn7puddmpe2lnjtuadvrk1@4ax.com>...
Fact is, creationists will accept nothing short of an unbroken family
tree from Australopithicus to Kent Hovind as proof of evolution.
And even then you'll need videotape of each descendent being born,
otherwise they'll deny that you have any evidence of a parent-child
relationship between the the earlier individuals and the later. Just
because "B" appears immediately after "A" and has 99% of the
characteristics of "A," that doesn't mean God couldn't have created
them both, ex nihilo, as slight variations on each other. Or else
that Satan fiddled with the bones of unrelated species to make them
look similar, just to fool us. Or even that God Himself fiddled with
the bones to lay a trap for unbelievers (and it serves 'em right, too,
for having the audacity to demand verifiable evidence instead of just
relying on blind faith ;)
m
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
27 Jul 2003 04:48:41 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:29:12 -0500, John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
in news message <fmg8iv0tdlikjn7puddmpe2lnjtuadvrk1@4ax.com> wrote:
[------]
Basically the whole "gaps" argument is a red herring.
Imagine for a second that I put two pennies on a table two feet apart
representing two species. You could point between them and say "there's
a gap there". Now imagine that I put a penny between the two to
represent a transitional species with characteristics of both. Now then,
did I just close the gap, or did I just create two new gaps that must
also be explained?
Fact is, creationists will accept nothing short of an unbroken family
tree from Australopithicus to Kent Hovind as proof of evolution.
I believe that can be done in less than two steps.
Liz #658 BAAWA
One of the principal differences between science and religion
is that science acknowledges that it is the creation of humankind
and, thus, welcomes correction. Religion does not and cannot. --
George Ricker
.
|
|
|
| User: "An Evil Meme" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
27 Jul 2003 08:50:33 PM |
|
|
Going from Australopithicus to Kent Hovind would be de-evolution!!!
(Sorry, I couldn't resist the cheap shot)
- meme
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
29 Jul 2003 08:23:32 PM |
|
|
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote
news:<7fh8iv4gkqjriqg2ilh3sn5nsuk6tu562q@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:29:12 -0500, John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
in news message <fmg8iv0tdlikjn7puddmpe2lnjtuadvrk1@4ax.com> wrote:
[snip]
Fact is, creationists will accept nothing short of an unbroken family
tree from Australopithicus to Kent Hovind as proof of evolution.
I believe that can be done in less than two steps.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Now *that* line needs to be nominated for *something*. I laughed my
***** off when I read it. Thanks!
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ichimusai" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
29 Jul 2003 08:52:28 PM |
|
|
(Budikka) writes:
Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote
news:<7fh8iv4gkqjriqg2ilh3sn5nsuk6tu562q@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:29:12 -0500, John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
in news message <fmg8iv0tdlikjn7puddmpe2lnjtuadvrk1@4ax.com> wrote:
[snip]
Fact is, creationists will accept nothing short of an unbroken family
tree from Australopithicus to Kent Hovind as proof of evolution.
I believe that can be done in less than two steps.
Now *that* line needs to be nominated for *something*. I laughed my
***** off when I read it. Thanks!
Alright then, for what it is worth I found it funny too, so I second
any nomination you care to make :)
--
Ichimusai - Tolerated by two cats. ICQ: 1645566 Yahoo: Ichimusai
IRC: Ichimusai#AmigaSWE@IRCnet URI: http://www.ichimusai.org/
"He can compress the most words into the smallest idea of any man I
know."
-- Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan C. Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
29 Jul 2003 04:11:51 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 21:48:41 GMT, Liz <ehuth1@donotspam.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 16:29:12 -0500, John Hattan <john@thecodezone.com>
in news message <fmg8iv0tdlikjn7puddmpe2lnjtuadvrk1@4ax.com> wrote:
[------]
Basically the whole "gaps" argument is a red herring.
Imagine for a second that I put two pennies on a table two feet apart
representing two species. You could point between them and say "there's
a gap there". Now imagine that I put a penny between the two to
represent a transitional species with characteristics of both. Now then,
did I just close the gap, or did I just create two new gaps that must
also be explained?
Fact is, creationists will accept nothing short of an unbroken family
tree from Australopithicus to Kent Hovind as proof of evolution.
I believe that can be done in less than two steps.
In which direction?
Think globally, act locally.
Susan
--
=============== Remove what you find annoying in my address ==============
"Gadfly is what they call you when you are no longer | Seditious libel
dangerous. I much prefer troublemaker, malcontent, | for fun and
desperado." -- Harlan Ellison | profit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Indefual" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
27 Jul 2003 07:27:43 PM |
|
|
Gammon wrote:
I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some
good resources to use against this type of argument.
On top of everything that has already been suggested, I like the evolution
/creationism section of http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/ .
Perhaps this isn't the most appropriate NG to use, but I wasn't sure where
to post it and I figured someone here would know.
talk.origins is an excellent newsgroup for this question.
-Shawn P. 'Indefual' Conroy
--
"When I die, I'm donating my body to science fiction."
-Steven Wright
http://www.Indefual.Net/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
27 Jul 2003 03:56:05 PM |
|
|
Gammon wrote:
It seems to be a common anti-evolution argument that no evidence has been
found of an intermediate or transitional species from a common ancestor to
a modern species.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some
good resources to use against this type of argument.
Perhaps this isn't the most appropriate NG to use, but I wasn't sure where
to post it and I figured someone here would know.
talk.origins is the place.
Thanks.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
28 Jul 2003 12:41:30 AM |
|
|
In article <vi8f68bv024l0c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gammon" <gammonb2@charter.net> wrote:
It seems to be a common anti-evolution argument that no evidence has been
found of an intermediate or transitional species from a common ancestor to a
modern species.
I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some good
resources to use against this type of argument.
Perhaps this isn't the most appropriate NG to use, but I wasn't sure where
to post it and I figured someone here would know.
Evolution is a continuous process so all species may be considered
'transitional'. A good place to learn more is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "ImpBush" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
28 Jul 2003 10:01:21 AM |
|
|
Here's a nice chart:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/time_scale_of_Earth.htm
"johac" <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-28F077.22413027072003@news-central.giganews.com...
In article <vi8f68bv024l0c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gammon" <gammonb2@charter.net> wrote:
It seems to be a common anti-evolution argument that no evidence has
been
found of an intermediate or transitional species from a common ancestor
to a
modern species.
I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some
good
resources to use against this type of argument.
Perhaps this isn't the most appropriate NG to use, but I wasn't sure
where
to post it and I figured someone here would know.
Evolution is a continuous process so all species may be considered
'transitional'. A good place to learn more is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
29 Jul 2003 12:26:06 AM |
|
|
In article <5VaVa.140274$o86.136340@news1.central.cox.net>,
"ImpBush" <spam@nospam.cox.net> wrote:
Here's a nice chart:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/time_scale_of_Earth.htm
That's a nice handy one. Thanks.
"johac" <jhachm@remove.ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:jhachm-28F077.22413027072003@news-central.giganews.com...
In article <vi8f68bv024l0c@corp.supernews.com>,
"Gammon" <gammonb2@charter.net> wrote:
It seems to be a common anti-evolution argument that no evidence has
been
found of an intermediate or transitional species from a common ancestor
to a
modern species.
I was just wondering if anyone could point me in the direction of some
good
resources to use against this type of argument.
Perhaps this isn't the most appropriate NG to use, but I wasn't sure
where
to post it and I figured someone here would know.
Evolution is a continuous process so all species may be considered
'transitional'. A good place to learn more is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
"In those parts of the world where learning and science has prevailed,
miracles ceased; but in those parts that are barbarous and ignorant,
miracles are still in vogue." -Letters of Ethan Allen to Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: "Intermediate species" |
28 Jul 2003 02:28:27 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jul 2003, "Gammon" <gammonb2@charter.net> screwed up his
face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:vi8f68bv024l0c@corp.supernews.com:
Very simply:
There are a lot of missing links in the evolutionary history.
However, the preservation of a fossil is a very rare event. The
vast majority of dead organisms will simply decay -- it takes
certain very unlikely events to preserve it as a fossil, for
example, an organism may leave a fossil if it dies in a tarpit --
but if it were killed by a sabertooth tiger on an open plain (a
far more likely curcumstance given the rarity of open tarpits),
it would simply decay into dust and leave no evidence of its
existence. The whole argument about "missing links" disproving
evolution completely ignores the fact that the creation of
fossils only allows for brief "snapshots" of the history of
evolution. We have reasonable numbers of fossils for certain
species that either survived for a very long time or lived in an
area where fossil-making circumstances were unusually common
(like, for example, an ecosystem near a tarpit that remained open
for many years).
You might as well say that Homer didn't exist because we only
know bits and pieces about his life -- yet the bits and pieces we
DO know about seem to provide pretty convincing evidence that he
lived.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I
suddenly realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
