re: Fossils in Greece Suggest Human Ancestors Evolved in Europe, Not Africa

Did you enjoy the eclipse?

quote:

---

Sure there are. The assertion is we developed from the same organism. Where's the chronological, "endless examples" that a kingdom of taxonomy was getting ready to move from one to the next? What about phylum?

---

Found your problem. No offense, but as a previous poster said, it's clear you have a deeply flawed understanding of the theory of evolution. Species don't evolve (I use present tense because evolution is always ongoing) in a chronological straight line. We didn't evolve from monkeys into men. We share a common ancestor millions of years ago. I repeat, there is no chronological order, the theory doesn't make that claim, nor does it rest on evidence that it does.

quote:

---

Found your problem. No offense, but as a previous poster said, it's clear you have a deeply flawed understanding of the theory of evolution. Species don't evolve (I use present tense because evolution is always ongoing) in a chronological straight line. We didn't evolve from monkeys into men. We share a common ancestor millions of years ago. I repeat, there is no chronological order, the theory doesn't make that claim, nor does it rest on evidence that it does.

---

I shouldn't of said chronological. That was stupid. What I mean is like what Ernst Mayr, a famous evolutionary biologist, and many others have said because it's fact, "new species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."

When an individual asserts that there are "endless examples" of intermediary, e.g., transitional species in the fossil record, and if I would've just, "meh, googled them," he cannot be taken seriously, no offense.

quote:

---

I shouldn't of said chronological. That was stupid. What I mean is like what Ernst Mayr, a famous evolutionary biologist, and many others have said because it's fact, "new species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates."

When an individual asserts that there are "endless examples" of intermediary, e.g., transitional species in the fossil record, and if I would've just, "meh, googled them," he cannot be taken seriously, no offense.

---

Again, your understanding is quite limited, and that is readily apparent in this entire conversation.

And Mayr's work on speciation was all done before the advent of genome mapping. "Not connected by a series of intermediates" - which intermediates?

Do you think we don't have a pretty good idea on how we got to a Siberian tiger from a 500+M year old chordate ancestor?

quote:

---

Do you think we don't have a pretty good idea on how we got to a Siberian tiger from a 500+M year old chordate ancestor?

---

I don't think we do.

quote:

---

Well, I specifically didn't respond to your post referencing 'transitional species' because, having been in a few of these debates, I knew that what you were referring to as a transitional species (one species birthing another), differs from actual transitional species, and is, for lack of a better term, a straw man used by creationists.

---

Ah, now we're to the meat of you and google guy's beef with the devil's advocate.

"Nevermind those intermediary fossils that are key to the evolutionary theory, only those dirty creationists use that 'talking point'."

Gotcha.

Like I said before, get someone out of their box and they start with the labeling. I've explicitly said I'm not discounting evolution, and yet you explicitly discount a major tenet of the theory because I guess I'm a, "creationist"?

quote:

---

transitional species (one species birthing another), differs from actual transitional species, and is, for lack of a better term, a straw man used by creationists.

---

yeah so northshorebamaman can just conveniently say frick Ernst Mayr and other evolutionary biologists and paleontologists and bypass that huge hole in the theory of evolution? So we're making our own rules now?

Since we get to decide the rules and since google guy claims DNA and genetics are stalwarts of modern day evolution that are every day emphatically proving it's correct in every tenet, what about the "creationists" who are in the same camp as guys like Mayr (since the whole intermediary species thing is a creationist talking point) who say that there is no detailed Darwinian proof of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular systems that prove it? What about if it proves the opposite? That science shows random, unguided cellular processes do not build complexity, but destroy it?

I had to "google" him, but Franklin Harold asserts this scientific proof himself, if you'd like someone a bit more qualified than you or I, a "creationist's" take on it.

These guys are not "creationists." To put your faith so blindly into a theory is a religion in and of itself, but I digress: evolution in its entirety is above admonishment. I'll do more googling to clear away my "creationist" ideas, even though I begrudgingly admit, I've no problem with the theory and its compatibility with a divine creator.

quote:

---

You are claiming they don’t exist. You need proof to make such a definitive statement.

---

I need proof to claim that something that doesn't exist as far as we know it, doesn't exist?

quote:

---

Like I said before, get someone out of their box

---

I'm not out of my box, friend. I'm extremely comfortable debating this topic and have heard every argument you presented thus far many times. Hell, these are some of my favorite threads on the OT.

quote:

---

"Nevermind those intermediary fossils that are key to the evolutionary theory, only those dirty creationists use that 'talking point'."

---

I never said "dirty" but I did say "straw man" (not talking point) if you're going to use quotes. I do find it interesting that you're the one that perceives 'creationist' as an insult, though. I never even implied that.

quote:

---

yeah so northshorebamaman can just conveniently say frick Ernst Mayr and other evolutionary biologists and paleontologists and bypass that huge hole in the theory of evolution? So we're making our own rules now?

---

Please be specific on the huge hole and your definition of transitional species and we can start there.

quote:

---

I had to "google" him, but Franklin Harold asserts this scientific proof himself, if you'd like someone a bit more qualified than you or I, a "creationist's" take on it.

These guys are not "creationists." To put your faith so blindly into a theory is a religion in and of itself, but I digress: evolution in its entirety is above admonishment. I'll do more googling to clear away my "creationist" ideas,

---

Geez, man. What have you got against creationists?

I didn't use the term in a disparaging way. They're simply the ones whom most often use that straw man.

Dang! Well there go my reparashions!!

quote:

---

I didn't use the term in a disparaging way. They're simply the ones whom most often use that straw man.

---

"Straw Man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."

Explain how the fossil record being devoid of intermediary species, which should be ripe with them based on evolutionary theory and, even by Darwin himself, is admittedly devoid of them, is a "straw man."

Even though it is a point of contention with paleontologists and evolutionary biologists since the theory was proposed 160 years ago, even though it hasn't gotten any better (it's worsened, actually), tell us why that pitiful fossil record is, by your definition, a "straw man," and we will continue.