Replies

You asked for a transitional species, and offered to refute the assumptions that unly its being named a transitional species.

No I didn't. What I said wasI'll tell you why the assumptions are not scientific and why they are based on speculation and presupposition(I'm actually going through the slight trouble of copying from old posts. Its really not that hard).

Boy, talk about moving the goal posts... Now you want me to Tell [you] first what makes Archaeopteryx an invalid example of a transitional species. I did what I said that I would do, that is to show that it was based on unscientific assumptions, based on the agreed premise that science is observable. I didn't ask for evidence for the intermediate species between between Archaeopteryx and reptiles, I asked for scientific evidence (in the form of an observation) of a genetic change of the same magnitude that would be required from the "intermediate" species of your choice to the Archaeopteryx/Rhodocetus, or, for that matter from the Archaeopteryx/Rhodocetus to any other species of your choice. Without the complete genome of a "long dead" organism being available, I'll lower the bar for you and ask that you provide evidence of a similar beneificial phisical change of the same magnitude. I'm trying to make this as easy as possible for you. ;-)

Since none exists, meaning scientific observations of such a change, I have at the very least now shown that the assumptions are NOT scientific. (Finished point #1)

Since point #1 is now made, without scientific evidence that these types of changes DO occur, how do pseudoscientists come to the belief that these changes MUST have occured? Well, they must first speculate that they can. There is nothing wrong with such a speculation in science. Most good scientists would call this an "hypothesis", however the fact still remains that it is still a hypothesis that is based soundly on imagination and assumptions in the total absence of observable scientific evidence.

Archaeopteryx has features intermediate between birds and reptiles, and shows changes of a degree commensurate for an intermediate between two vertebrate classes.

Presupposing of course that there is such a thing as an intermediate between two vertebrate. This statement makes the assumption that so-called intermediate forms are an indication of evolutionary history. There is no evidence to support this assumption.(yet?)

Rhodocetus is intermediate between land-living vertebrates and whales, and shows change of a degree commensurate between two mammalian families.

Same as above.

But the homologies and the genetic changes between living species are well documented, and we can infer in many cases the genetic sequence of common ancestors.

I'm sorry, but there have been no genetic changes ever observed of the magnitude required to make a leap of such biblical proportions. Homology doesn't prove ancestery any more than it proves intelligent design.

My point is not to say that evolution is wrong necessarily, only to point out that it is wrong to promote any one faith-based phylosophy in the framework of a science class. I can understand your reluctance to search for the observable evidence required to support your claims. It would indeed be a futile task. At this point in time, it would be futile for either an evolutionist, creationist or anyothernist to produce irrefutable evidence that their belief system is the only true possibility. But as long as the nature of our origins are in question, only the science belongs in the science classes. If you want to float a scientific theory or hypothesis out to the class as the "popular opinion" of the scientific organization, in the interest of intellectual integrity, at least point out the valid controversies. Currently only one side of the argument is ever presented in classrooms, and evidence against that argument is suppressed.

I asked for scientific evidence (in the form of an observation) of a genetic change of the same magnitude that would be required from the "intermediate" species of your choice to the Archaeopteryx/Rhodocetus, or, for that matter from the Archaeopteryx/Rhodocetus to any other species of your choice. Without the complete genome of a "long dead" organism being available, I'll lower the bar for you and ask that you provide evidence of a similar beneificial phisical change of the same magnitude. I'm trying to make this as easy as possible for you

I find it difficult to believe this isn't deliberate obtuseness, but I'll give it one more try.

You asked for an intermediate species. I gave you Archaeopteryx. Now you want a second intermediate species, between Archaeopteryx and something else, and you want me do demonstrate physical change between Archie and that species. Sorry, but you asked that I volunteer an intermediate species for discussion. I did so. I have no wish to come up with a second, because I know inevitably it will be followed by a demand for a third, and a fourth, and so on.

Time to put up or shut up, fish or cut bait, -- or get off the pot. Archaeopteryx has physical characteristics expected for a intermediate between reptile and bird -some distinctly reptilian, some bird like, some intermediate. Archaeopteryx lived at a time consistent with being an intermediate between reptiles and bird. Those are characteristics of an transitional species. In what way is either based on 'speculation and presupposition'? Last chance.

Presupposing of course that there is such a thing as an intermediate between two vertebrate

Of course there is. I've listed the characteristics or an intermediate above, and they depend in no way on evolutionary history.

I'm sorry, but there have been no genetic changes ever observed of the magnitude required to make a leap of such biblical proportions. Homology doesn't prove ancestery any more than it proves intelligent design.

Science doesn't deal in proof. However, application of Occams razor to, for example, the sequences of cytochrome Cs, or myoglobins, or ribosomal proteins of the vertebrates, strongly suggests common ancestry, and it counter-indicates intelligent design. There is absolutely no reason that designed sequences would show the structure of a phylogenetic tree at all, or that the tree would be broadly consistent with ancestry as derived from fossil evidence, and inconsistent with roles or ecological niches. Why are the proteins of whale-sharks like those of small, predatory sharks, and those of whale like those of hippos, when whales are more similar to whale sharks in size and lifestyle than either are to small sharks or land animals?