Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A transitional organism is an intermediate form. You can't be intermediate between two things if the thing that comes after you doesn't exist, right?
I'm not arguing against evolution because it looks as if only one user doesn't believe in it and he's pretty much a lost cause anyways. So I'm just being picky.
It is still transitional because it transitioned from something else to be what it was when it went extinct.
Fundamentally, the entire concept of a "species" is a human construct. When do you draw a line in the sand and say "this generation is species X, but their offspring is species Y"? You can't.
Like with language - King Ethelred spoke Old English, which eventually turned to Middle English which eventually turned to Early Modern English etc. etc. - but there was never an instance of English speakers from one generation suddenly not understanding their offspring. The language evolved - and very much so, seeing as Old English isn't comprehensible to us any more - but there's no sharp demarcation to be made.
Keep in mind the evolution affects populations, not individuals. The definition of species is a population of sexually viable individuals. When a portion of a population can no longer interbreed with the rest but can breed with itself, it is said to be a new species.
Keep in mind the evolution affects populations, not individuals. The definition of species is a population of sexually viable individuals. When a portion of a population can no longer interbreed with the rest bit can breed with itself, it is said to be a new species.
Right, but again, that's a human-derived definition that doesn't really work well in the real world. Tell oak trees that they're not supposed to hybridize and produce viable offspring. What do you do about asexual organisms? And try applying this definition to microorganisms.
Humans like to put things into neat little categories, but life doesn't actually work like that. Sure, it's a good first step to understanding what a species is, but it's not the whole story.
I think they know deep down that they are wrong and creationism is on the way out, and that makes them angry and very bitter....I guess I would be too if I saw my entire world view crumbling before my eyes.
I am not the one hissing and spitting here, and sending hateful Private Messages to other posters. You are doing that, and your evolutionist friends are doing that. I don't think I have insulted anyone even once here. What deprived you of your peace? Are you angry because you hoped Nebraska Man was the missing link, and then it turned out to be just another lie, which you had believed?
Right, but again, that's a human-derived definition that doesn't really work well in the real world. Tell oak trees that they're not supposed to hybridize and produce viable offspring. What do you do about asexual organisms? And try applying this definition to microorganisms.
Humans like to put things into neat little categories, but life doesn't actually work like that. Sure, it's a good first step to understanding what a species is, but it's not the whole story.
I wasn't suggesting that it was the whole story. The argument I was addressing was that you can't define what a species is. My argument was that you can, certainly for eukaryotes and most other single-celled organisms as well. That there are possible exceptions doesn't refute the general rule.
Keep in mind the evolution affects populations, not individuals. The definition of species is a population of sexually viable individuals. When a portion of a population can no longer interbreed with the rest but can breed with itself, it is said to be a new species.
This is still pretty grey. I remember learning in grade 7 or so that the wolves around Hudson Bay could breed with the neighbouring packs, but could not produce sexually viable offspring with the packs 1000s of km away.
I am not the one hissing and spitting here, and sending hateful Private Messages to other posters.
Except possibly for the Private Messages, actually yes, you are.
But what is worse is your fundamental rhetorical dishonesty. That's what becomes hard to reconcile.
Even Jesus lost his temper. But it's not clear to me that he ever actually lied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
What deprived you of your peace?
That is often the price of choosing hard reality over comforting fantasy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Are you angry because you hoped Nebraska Man was the missing link, and then it turned out to be just another lie, which you had believed?
Let's lovingly dissect the multiple stupidities embedded in that question.
1. The Nebraska Man episode occurred between 1920 and 1925. Anybody old enough to have ever "hoped Nebraska Man was the missing link" has probably been dead for decades.
2. The scientific community never accepted that tooth belonged to "the missing link," and no scientists ever tried to "reconstruct the entire organism from one tooth." One paper was published suggesting the tooth belonged to an anthropoid ape, and five years later that paper was retracted. No lying was involved at any point along the line.
3. The famous illustration of "Nebraska Man" (along with the silly name) was the invention of a newspaper artist. The actual scientist who was studying the tooth called the illustration "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate".
4. Creationist versions of this story (such as the one you yourself presented) are the actual lies.
Except possibly for the Private Messages, actually yes, you are.
But what is worse is your fundamental rhetorical dishonesty. That's what becomes hard to reconcile.
Even Jesus lost his temper. But it's not clear to me that he ever actually lied.
Do you see me accusing others of being liars just because they disagree with me?
No, so why do you do that?
Again, what deprived you of your peace?
They tried to sell the Nebraska Man as a missing link, and claimed it was closer to man than ape. It was a pig. It was being pushed around the same time as another missing link hoax the Piltdown Man, which everyone believed to be the link for a long time (decades).
This is still pretty grey. I remember learning in grade 7 or so that the wolves around Hudson Bay could breed with the neighbouring packs, but could not produce sexually viable offspring with the packs 1000s of km away.
This is something you see often with what we call "ring species" such as Arctic Herring Gulls or Pacific Coast Salamanders. While the communities close to each other can interbreed, the communities furthest away cannot. By the classic definition, is that one species or two? It's a pickle.
Just as it should be were evolution true.
But reproductive infertility is also only one way of establishing reproductive isolation.
What (for example) about Chronospecies? Ring species are distributed over a geography, Chronospecies are distributed over time. Homo sapiens might very well have been able to produce fertile offspring with H. erectus. But if they don't exist at the same time, they are just as reproductively isolated as if they could not. Or what about populations that are genetically close enough to interbreed, but don't because of behavioral differences? Or how about the many species of snail that are otherwise genetically almost identical, but simply have differently shaped penises and so can't copulate?
Species is a useful concept for conceptualizing biological diversity. But as a real biological entity, it is so problematic that it will always be a subject of disagreement and debate.
Do you see me accusing others of being liars just because they disagree with me?
Seriously? Your core accusation is that evolutionist scientists are liars, and that all evidence for evolution is a lie. You were falsely calling Nebraska Man a "lie" just a couple of posts ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
No, so why do you do that?
Now, that's a completely different question. Whether or not you are liar does not depend one whit on whether or not you called anybody else one. It derives entirely from your behavior. You have been called out several times for quote mining. Quote mining is a lie. QED: You have earned the sobriquet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Again, what deprived you of your peace?
Asked and answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
They tried to sell the Nebraska Man as a missing link, and claimed it was closer to man than ape.
No. They (if by "they" you mean scientists) never tried to "sell" it as anything. They described a tooth and speculated (quite reasonably) that it came from an anthropoid ape. The term "missing link" was never applied to it by anybody from the sceintific community.
If by "they" you mean some random British newspaper... who really cares? They were selling papers, not doing science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
It was a pig.
Yes. It was. Once again, science proves to be self correcting... while Creationism does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
It was being pushed around the same time as another missing link hoax the Piltdown Man, which everyone believed to be the link for a long time (decades).
And that one was a hoax (though not "another hoax" as it stands quite distinctly alone), which yet again was corrected by scientists... not by creationists.
But Java Man is not a hoax. Neither are the tens of thousand of other fossil hominids that have been discovered and that demonstrate in detail the evolution of human beings from our apelike ancestors.
PS. While science is self correcting, creationism is not. Many creationists still wax eloquently about the "Paluxy Tracks" which supposedly show men and dinosaurs coexisting, even though they were admitted hoaxes by the fakers as far back as the 1930s.
And I once had a conversation with famous creationist Walter T. Brown where he was insisting that he could prove the oceans were younger than 6000 years by the amounts of certain elements in sea water. I explained that this was because elements actually precipitate out of seawater after some time, so his "clock" was worthless. He challenged me to prove that this was true, and gave me a list of five elements, challenging me to show him the mechanisms by which they precipitated out. When I easily did so, he admitted he was wrong. But then when asked him if that meant he would stop using the argument, he answered, "No. I'm just going to find myself some different elements."
Last edited by HistorianDude; 11-12-2013 at 04:35 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
