Replies

Thanks for you link. I have a serious question that's raised in response to claimed transitionals. How is parentage proved?

I.e., that a species exists with certain characteristics common to two others doesn't prove it is in the line of both - only that three species existed. We may as easily be drawing a picture based on preconceptions rather than fact.

Scientists acknowledge this often. For example, the statement from your link:

"A team of fossil-finders, led by researchers at Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Natural History, suggest the answer may include one of your relatives - a distant cousin of modern mammals."

Whether they are related or not is not proven. The facts on the ground would be the same either way. I don't know how parentage could be proven - perhaps more strongly if parent and mutated child were found together.

So, I think it is a problem with many, if not all, claimed transitional species. Your response?

"I don't know how parentage could be proven - perhaps more strongly if parent and mutated child were found together."

Perhaps ?

Doesn't your statement DEFINE the parent and child ?

Whether they are related or not is not proven. The facts on the ground would be the same either way. I don't know how parentage could be proven - perhaps more strongly if parent and mutated child were found together. So, I think it is a problem with many, if not all, claimed transitional species. Your response?

Please see my post 163 for links on this issue, if you are interested.

With respect, your proposed scenario suggests you have some rather large misunderstandings about the theory of evolution. Only in the kinds of articles, such as head up this thread, does one get a suggestion of one creature giving rise to a new species (or an intermediate form) in one generation: this is an utter strawman. If you could line up all of your ancestors by generation over, say, 500,000 generations, you would not find a 'major' change between a father and his son. It's like watching the hour hand on an analogue clock. Watch it for an hour, you won't see it move--but it's pointing at a different number at the end of that span.

I know some reject evolution on the grounds it conflicts with their understanding of the Bible. I don't have a quarrel with that, choice of faith is an absolute and sacred right. I have my own Christian faith; I do not feel obliged to demand of Biblical literalists that they produce birth certificates for every one of their ancestors back to Adam and Eve in order to 'prove' their version of faith!