Replies

The problem with that skull chart is that it's a lot like lining up cars and saying they evolved from each other.

I can't imagine a transitional series such as evolution actually predicts which cannot be dismissed as evidence by this kind of lawyering. Clearly, you will happily do this indefinitely.

Look at me, Zippy! This is important.

When you claim "The lack of transitionals is evidence against evolution," you imply that there is fossil record evidence you would willingly accept which is both reasonably expected and missing. You are lying.

You don't accept any such evidence. You intend never to do so.

Furthermore, almost as an aside, let me add that what is reasonably expected from the fossil record isn't missing. What is missing isn't reasonably expected. We have about the fossil record we would expect from what we know of evolution and geology in 2005.

I can't imagine a transitional series such as evolution actually predicts which cannot be dismissed as evidence by this kind of lawyering. Clearly, you will happily do this indefinitely.

Indeed. The anti-evolutionists seem to spend a lot of energy making such excuses. Here's my favorite, from a few days ago by another FR anti-evolutionist:

LOL. Nice rant. Doesn't pass for an argument; but, did you get it off your chest. I said it before and I'll say it again. Claiming piles of evidence doesn't make it so. Claiming something is evidence for a specific thing requires more than claiming it so. When it's evidence in support of a one or more other possibilities, it is hardly specific support. I'm saying nothing that first week logic students don't know; but, y'all sure don't act like you've ever been acquainted with it. I understand why you're reticent to just admit it's your "belief"; but, that doesn't make your endless claims any less dishonest or more scientific.

That was his entire post. Note how pristinely devoid of ANY specificity this is. The exact same rant could be used to hand-wave away evidence/arguments for/against *anything* without changing a single word -- global warming, monetary policy, the Holocaust *or* its denial, the war in Iraq, etc. etc.

It's so all-encompassing in its "you can't convince me of anything I don't want to believe" subborness that it's like an archetype of closed-mindedness.

I'd ask you to try to guess who the author was, but the sad thing is that it's pretty typical of so *many* of them...

I think one of these days I may use that exact passage in reply to one of them, just to see how it goes over...