tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7351284695166881641..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: More Switches Than the InternetUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger213125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9629653735477188002010-11-24T02:01:07.572-08:002010-11-24T02:01:07.572-08:00Nick:
"The evidence is everywhere, and it ta...Nick:<br /><br />"The evidence is everywhere, and it takes a real ostrich act to ignore it."<br />======<br /><br />Nick, I believe your blind faith is still intact!!!Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60805125716141721272010-11-23T11:57:40.393-08:002010-11-23T11:57:40.393-08:00Science knows a great deal about how this complexi...Science knows a great deal about how this complexity evolved. We're still working on exactly how it functions, the specific mechanisms and all that, but is that so surprising? It's a complex and fascinating problem - that's why we study it. But don't take your own ignorance of science and pretend that it's general. The brain is all the more awe inspiring because it gained its breathtaking complexity gradually over millennia of minor changes and modest improvements based on simple, well-understood evolutionary principles. You can still see many of the steps along the path to human brain complexity in other species which have chosen other methods of survival and competition and are content with more ancient and rudimentary brains. The evidence is everywhere, and it takes a real ostrich act to ignore it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260593954074817910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67809791437485815052010-11-23T09:19:06.302-08:002010-11-23T09:19:06.302-08:00Eocene
In example above we do not want any rando...Eocene<br /><br />In example above we do not want any random changes in our software incremental replicator or else it doesn't work. It is logical unit made of reusable components (commands) and following protocols we may not see immediately.<br />I would even say it is irreducible if we were to obtain function in question.<br /><br />Definition :<br />A function ƒ takes an input, x, and returns an output ƒ(x). One metaphor describes the function as a "machine" or "black box" that converts the input into the output.<br /><br /><br />Another example:<br /><br />After DNA duplication in the cell we see two helices .We have to assume a copying function was performed on DNA helix. We know that copying function be it done by photocopy machine, computer or chemical assemblies is a very precise,organized and planned event. <br />It is performed by logically unified set of components regardless of the size or material those components are made of.<br /><br />Does this make sense to you?Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84632982462962016502010-11-23T07:19:49.240-08:002010-11-23T07:19:49.240-08:00deadlock said...
Really ? If a scientist tell...<i>deadlock said...<br /><br /> Really ? If a scientist tell you that 2 + 2 = 5 do you believe it ? </i><br /><br />I'd believe it even if you said it, <b>IF</b> you could provide empirical evidence for it.<br /><br />That's the part you Creationists just can't wrap your minds around. Unlike your religion, <b>science doesn't work by argument from authority.</b> Science works off the empirical evidence. That's the stuff that ToE has, and IDC doesn't.<br /><br /><i>Of course it is, because the multi-celular life that existed before cambrian were not related to the cambrian organisms</i><br /><br />And you know that exactly how? Are you saying you've suddenly developed a way to prove a negative?<br /><br /><i>So, tell us what a transitional fossil is.</i><br /><br />Read the first paragraph of the reference for once. <a href="http://www.transitionalfossils.com/" rel="nofollow">transitional fossils</a><br /><br /><i>T: "what would a non-designed animal look like?"<br /><br />It looks like it doesnt need convergent traits.</i><br /><br />Attempt at evasion noted. How does an animal "look like it doesn't need convergent traits".Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-481634352872874152010-11-23T05:52:17.304-08:002010-11-23T05:52:17.304-08:00Eugen:
""A Replicator is a Replicator&q...Eugen:<br /><br />""A Replicator is a Replicator"<br /><br />Yes I read this and similar and it looks so simple, right?<br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br />You can not buy replicator on the supermarket shelf."<br />=======<br /><br />Ah, but "Toys R Us" does sell transforners, isn't that sort of evolutionary ???<br />-------<br /><br />Eugen:<br /><br />"Certainly looks simple. But looks could be deceiving."<br />=======<br /><br />Never under estimate the power of the modern computer age and a good intelligent human programmer to rig the animation to prove his/her worldview. Cartoons can make anything happen.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20789527803791523952010-11-23T05:17:44.222-08:002010-11-23T05:17:44.222-08:00Eocene
"A Replicator is a Replicator"
...Eocene<br /><br />"A Replicator is a Replicator"<br /><br />Yes I read this and similar and it looks so simple, right?<br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br />You can not buy replicator on the supermarket shelf. <br />Here is a lets call it " incremental replicator":<br /><br />10 a=a+1<br />20 print a;<br />30 goto 10<br /><br />Ah,they don't make them like this anymore.<br /><br />It is a functional logical unit with each element dependent on the other. Certainly looks simple. But looks could be deceiving.<br />we can examine this further if there is interest.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53863295978043388922010-11-23T01:24:05.074-08:002010-11-23T01:24:05.074-08:00Thorton Said:
===================================...Thorton Said:<br /><br />=======================================<br />Not to scientists they aren't, but I bet no one ever mistook you for a scientist.<br />=======================================<br /><br />Really ? If a scientist tell you that 2 + 2 = 5 do you believe it ? I trully say not<br />even in Israel I saw a faith like that<br /><br />======================================================<br />Then the Cambrian explosion isn't a problem for ToE. Glad we cleared that up.<br />======================================================<br /><br />Of course it is, because the multi-celular life that existed before cambrian were not <br /><br />related to the cambrian organisms<br /><br /><br />=======================================<br />No, the article didn't say that at all. I see you were too lazy to read the provided <br /><br />explanation of what 'transitional fossil' means. Why do Creationists always demand to see a <br /><br />'transitional' half-giraffe half-rutabaga?<br />========================================<br /><br />So, tell us what a transitional fossil is. What are the transitional steps between a fish <br /><br />and a amphibious ?<br /><br /><br />=========================================<br />Just what I said. 'common design' is a hand-waving excuse that explains nothing. Tell us, <br /><br />what would a non-designed animal look like?<br />=========================================<br /><br />It looks like it doesnt need convergent traits.<br /><br /><br />========================================<br />Try reading the source material instead of blindly regurgitating claims you get from <br /><br />Creationist websites. <br />=======================================<br /><br />Translating, you cant support your claim. It would be easy for you to point them if they <br /><br />existed.deadlockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06972496131431484406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25217029615023680172010-11-23T00:18:50.136-08:002010-11-23T00:18:50.136-08:00Bill Bigge:
"I think this just highlights yo...Bill Bigge:<br /><br />"I think this just highlights your total confusion about this complex and difficult topic."<br />=====<br /><br />No, I just happen to live in the real world Bill where intelligence is all around me. Where design is everywhere I look. Where information is real and not some science fictional definitions shell game found in the Netherworld of some Parallel Universe found on some Internet gaming website. <br /><br />When your side rules out intelligent causes at the beginning and mandates Evolution as a fact, then you LOSE out on discovering the true nature of reality and all the while insisting your own rigging intelligence incorporated into any experiment doesn't colour the facts. Go for it Bill, prove that non-living sterile dirt begets life.<br />----<br /><br />Bill Bigge:<br /><br />"You are stating your belief that 'you' are an imaterial being controlling some material body, then claiming that if 'you' are actually a material being in totality then you don't really exist. You don't believe that 'you' can be located anywhere inside your body so you look elsewhere, and if this elsewhere doesn't exist then neither do you."<br />=====<br /><br />First off it would behoove you to actually ask me what I believe on that as opposed to making stuff up as you go along and flat out lying. If you have an issue with the subject of "Immortality of the Soul", then perhaps you should take the conversation up with someone who actually believes in such a doctrine. <br /><br />It's incredible how an self promoting intellectual scholastic atheist will never actually do the real homework on orignal Biblical meanings of words like the Hebrew word "Nephesh" and Greek word "Psyche" and the context in which they were used to understand their true meaning. Thanks for illustrating Bill that you are no different than your average member of any Church around the world who let's their religious leaders do their religious thinking and study for them.<br />-----<br /><br />Bill Bigge:<br /><br />"I'm afraid I don't see much point continuing this conversation, I have zero faith in your ability to understand the science or philosophical foundations required to have a meaningful debate on these topics."<br />=====<br /><br />Everytime you point the finger there are three fingers pointing back at you. You have yet to even remotely deal in any reality Bill and have instead taken up a backed into corner position of definitions shell gaming. No wonder these experiments are doomed at the start and accomplish nothing but a waste of taxpayer monies.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17479999587519158152010-11-22T23:48:48.948-08:002010-11-22T23:48:48.948-08:00Bill Bigge:
"Robotics and Artificial Intelli...Bill Bigge:<br /><br />"Robotics and Artificial Intelligence are my specialty, my education in this field has coverd evolution, neuroscience, cognitive science and philosophy of mind, and artificial life, and many other topics."<br />=====<br /><br />"Artificial Intelligence" is nothing more than the Atheist's version of Heaven. Having one's brain downloaded into a supercomputer at the time of one's death.<br />-----<br /><br />Bill Bigge:<br /><br />"A Replicator is a Replicator"<br />=====<br /><br />My how profound and informative. Perhaps you're refering to that Sci-Fi flick "Stargate SG1" where artificial intelligent spider looking machines called Replicators were trying to take over the Universe ??? Come back down to earth and deal with reality Bill. Sci-Fi flicks, cartoon animations and the myths they create are not hardcore naturalistic science.<br />------<br /><br />Bill Bigge:<br /><br />"Nope. Research into evolution indicates common ancestors to all life today."<br />======<br /><br />The Evolutionary Tree is nothing more than a materialist religious icon and is equal to Christendom's Cross, the Taoist Ying & Yang symbol, a VooDoo Doll, etc<br />------<br /><br />Bill Bigge:<br /><br />"Current knowledge of chemistry indicates that chemical replicators could form under the right circumstances. We have an hypothesis - that, under certain conditions, replicators can form."<br />======<br /><br />With regards the subject of biology this is called "FAITH" Bill and is every equal to any other religious concept or dogma to have ever existed down to the present.<br />------<br /><br />Bill Bigge:<br /><br />" . . it is a question to be answered and which is best investigated with the scientific method."<br />======<br /><br />Unfortunately most evolutionists hate the "Scientific Method", and this is why metaphysics are of great importance to their religious propaganda campaigns. Your position is not only unscientific, but actually anti-science by definition.Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-60614240872836347432010-11-22T23:26:34.188-08:002010-11-22T23:26:34.188-08:00Eugen:
"Big billy
you know, you are not the...Eugen:<br /><br />"Big billy<br /><br />you know, you are not the brightest ligtbulb in the hardware store either.<br /><br />You are struggling with most basic concepts."<br />======<br /><br />Count on this degenerative reasoning and thinking to get worse before it's all over. Now maybe you understand why the bible says that such degenerative thinking and behavior actually has it's complete effect no only on human society, but also the natural world across the globe, <br /><br />Romans 8:22 (New International Version, ©2010)<br /><br /> 22 "We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-19802199309559406522010-11-22T23:18:57.613-08:002010-11-22T23:18:57.613-08:00Bill Bigge:
"I have no objection to the idea...Bill Bigge:<br /><br />"I have no objection to the idea of this imaterial information, I just want you to provide evidence for its existance and some formal description of its properties - like how it interacts with matter. Without that it is just some idea you have, nothing more, and <br />"NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN INCORPOATE INTO EXPERIMENTAL WORK."<br />======<br /><br />That's the very point Bill, you're a materialist and grasping such a simple concept goes right over your head. Yet when convenient to your side's doctrinal cause, you'll have no problem dumping naturalistic explanations and using metaphysical explanations if you see it propping up your religious dogma, then later coming back and denying that you even did that. But then lying(which doesn't even exist since Evo-World is Ammoral anyway) is a necessary evil for promoting the true religion, right Bill ???<br />------<br /><br />Bill Bigge:<br /><br />"As I have already pointed out, your claim that thinking is evidence of its existance is actually just a statement without evidence - you believe that thoughts are imaterial - that belief of yours is not evidence."<br />======<br /><br />KNOCK-KNOCK , HELLO-HELLO , ****THINK**** MCFLY ****THINK****<br />What would happen if you turned in your research paper claiming the handwriting signature on it did not originate from your consciousness, but rather was nothing more than some abstract mindless "changing blood flow, electrical signals and chemical activity" bouncing around inside your skull ??? You'd be a laughing stock and probably get fired.<br />YOU WOULDN'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN NOW WOULD YOU ??? - WELL WOULD YOU ???Eocenehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08897350463133321355noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-80431168298339271692010-11-22T20:02:46.871-08:002010-11-22T20:02:46.871-08:00Wow lots of reading!
I'm afraid I don't...Wow lots of reading!<br /><br /><br /><br />I'm afraid I don't see much point continuing this conversation, I have zero faith in your ability to understand the science or philosophical foundations required to have a meaningful debate on these topics. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Big billy<br /><br /> you know, you are not the brightest ligtbulb in the hardware store either.<br /><br />You are struggling with most basic concepts.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11563254417053645712010-11-22T18:17:14.223-08:002010-11-22T18:17:14.223-08:00Zachriel:
I understand that most modern birds hav...Zachriel:<br /><br />I understand that most modern birds have been found as fossils, even though they don't readily fossilize because they hvae very delicate skeletons.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49794248918224294562010-11-22T07:29:13.730-08:002010-11-22T07:29:13.730-08:00Ok, not sure why those three posts came out in the...Ok, not sure why those three posts came out in the wrong order - the first post of the three above should have been the last ...Bill Biggehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597607768565143740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90606114593351753272010-11-22T07:27:57.746-08:002010-11-22T07:27:57.746-08:00Bill "You claimed that immaterial information...Bill <i>"You claimed that immaterial information exists, provided no evidence, and demanded that I incorporate it into my research. Stop evading, explain how I do this and why it is up to me to prove your claims?"</i><br /><br />Eocene: <b><i>"Yes I did and you didn't like it. It's called the thoughts and ideas of the mind (not the same as material machinery of the brain) that work independently of the brain machinery, ..."</i></b><br /><br />I have no objection to the <i>idea</i> of this imaterial information, I just want you to provide evidence for its existance and some formal description of its properties - like how it interacts with matter. Without that it is just some idea you have, nothing more, and not something you can incorporate into experimental work.<br /><br />As I have already pointed out, your claim that <i>thinking</i> is evidence of its existance is actually just a statement without evidence - you believe that thoughts are imaterial - that belief of yours is not evidence.<br /><br />I <b>don't</b> <i>believe</i> that thoughts are material but I have seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.<br /><br />Eocene: <b><i>"... otherwise we'd be robots and robots Bill apparently are your only expertise ??? Could that be the problem ???"</i></b><br /><br />We can make machines that learn from experience and solve reasonably complex problems. If imaterial information exists, can interact with matter and is required for 'thought', then we ought to be able to make machines that use it to think. If it doesn't then we ought to be able to make machines that think. If you define thought as immaterial then it may turn out that thought is impossible - at least according to your definition - if I define 'flying' as sustained passage through the air without propulsion or lift, then flying is impossible and birds must be doing something else. Defining your terms is very important in science and philosophy.<br /><br />Robotics and Artificial Intelligence are my specialty, my education in this field has coverd evolution, neuroscience, cognitive science and philosophy of mind, and artificial life, and many other topics.Bill Biggehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597607768565143740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79965269704719404182010-11-22T07:27:26.133-08:002010-11-22T07:27:26.133-08:00Eocene: "I actually love this. You know what ...Eocene: <b><i>"I actually love this. You know what this above statement is called ??? It's called "FAITH", hence it's every equal of anything else that's religious. "</i></b><br /><br />Nope. Research into evolution indicates common ancestors to all life today. Current knowledge of chemistry indicates that chemical replicators could form under the right circumstances. We have an hypothesis - that, under certain conditions, replicators can form. We are testing that hypothesis. I don't know if we will succeed, it is a question to be answered and which is best investigated with the scientific method.<br /><br />Eocene: <b><i>"LOL, Could you expound more on replicator ??? A code for replication is not the same as some stupid blind chemcial reaction in a test tube. You clearly don't want to get this."</i></b><br /><br />A replicator is a replicator. If you establish how mollecules can form systems that generate copies of themselves then you have established how self replicating systems can form. You can then look at them and categorise elements of their construction as a code, if you like.Bill Biggehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597607768565143740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48137199842680627072010-11-22T07:21:42.333-08:002010-11-22T07:21:42.333-08:00Eocene: "... Who or what is using your brain ...Eocene: <b><i>"... Who or what is using your brain right now to argue material vrs immaterial concepts Bill, is it your consciousness or nothing more than molecules bouncing around in your skull, and if it's you, but instead nothing more than electricity and material wiring how could they even know what they are saying? ( Hurry Bill, the Jeopardy Tune is playing while YOU """THINK""" about it ) "</i></b><br /><br />I think this just highlights your total confusion about this complex and difficult topic. You are stating your belief that 'you' are an imaterial being controlling some material body, then claiming that if 'you' are actually a material being in totality then you don't really exist. You don't believe that 'you' can be located anywhere inside your body so you look elsewhere, and if this elsewhere doesn't exist then neither do you. Your last sentence is just a way of asking 'How could a machine think?' - it is an interesting question, another one that science is in the process of answering.<br /><br />I'm afraid I don't see much point continuing this conversation, I have zero <i>faith</i> in your ability to understand the science or philosophical foundations required to have a meaningful debate on these topics.Bill Biggehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597607768565143740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61089015310538351442010-11-22T06:50:53.724-08:002010-11-22T06:50:53.724-08:00natschuster: But fossils aren't rare.
Which ...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>But fossils aren't rare. </i><br /><br />Which is why no one ever finds new fossil organisms? <br /><br />Some fossils are common in the sense that nearly anyone can find some common fossils and confirm part of the geological succession. But saying that fossils are common is not the same thing as saying that every organism has left fossils. Some fossils are exceedingly rare. Some organisms rarely leave fossils, either because of their structure or their environment. <br /><br />For instance, can you find a fossil of the common sparrow? <br /><br /><b>Natschuster</b>: <i>I understand that it is estimated that there are<br />100,000,000 fossil specimins being studied in museums around the world. There are rock strata made entirely of fossils. That doesn't sound like fossils are very rare to me. </i><br /><br />Compared to the number of organisms that have ever lived, it's is a miniscule number. That's not even close to the number of mice in Hunan province today.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62260585909650575632010-11-21T21:09:56.899-08:002010-11-21T21:09:56.899-08:00natschuster said...
I understand that it is estim...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br />I understand that it is estimated that there are 100,000,000 fossil specimins being studied in museums around the world. There are rock strata made entirely of fossils. That doesn't sound like fossils are very rare to me.<br /><br /> And I know that people with PhDs who believe in evolution have to come up with things like punctuated equilibrium in order to explain why the fossil record does not show species to species change, which is evolution. That sounds like an apologetic. So is saying that the fossil record is too incomplete. Either way, the proof for evolution, which is species to species change is not there.</i><br /><br />This, in spades.<br /><br /><b>I don't think you're hearing a single thing people are telling you. People who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than you do. You've got your ignorance based pre-conceived false notions, and you aren't interested in seeing them corrected. Not even a little.</b>Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75891375395995799482010-11-21T20:19:49.544-08:002010-11-21T20:19:49.544-08:00Nat,
"I understand that it is estimated that ...Nat,<br />"I understand that it is estimated that there are<br />100,000,000 fossil specmins being studied in museums around the world."<br />Even if this is true, how do you think it compares with the number of organisms that have ever existed? And how many of those 100,000,000 are from separate species?<br /><br />"And I know that people with PhDs who believe in evolution have to come up with things like punctuated equilibrium in order to explain why the fossil record does not show species to species change, which is evolution."<br /><br />THe fossil record does show species to species transitions, as has been pointed out to you. PE explains a limited subset of the fossil record (mainly the subset Gould was studying), and fits within known and observed mechanisms of speciation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3901838865165967022010-11-21T20:12:00.854-08:002010-11-21T20:12:00.854-08:00And I know that people with PhDs who believe in ev...And I know that people with PhDs who believe in evolution have to come up with things like punctuated equilibrium in order to explain why the fossil record does not show species to species change, which is evolution. That sounds like an apologetic. So is saying that the fossil record is too incomplete. Either way, the proof for evolution, which is species to species change is not there.<br /><br />And don't scientists define new species based on single specimins all rhe time?natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-38034918767402572152010-11-21T20:06:40.679-08:002010-11-21T20:06:40.679-08:00nanobot74
I understand that it is estimated that...nanobot74<br /><br /><br />I understand that it is estimated that there are<br />100,000,000 fossil specimins being studied in museums around the world. There are rock strata made entirely of fossils. That doesn't sound like fossils are very rare to me.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78929022604751063322010-11-21T18:26:06.126-08:002010-11-21T18:26:06.126-08:00natschuster said...
But fossils aren't ra...<i>natschuster said...<br /><br /> But fossils aren't rare. There are entire rock strata full of fossils going all the way back to the Cambrian.</i><br /><br />One clueless statement after another. Fossils are <b>extremely</b> rare compared to the total number of individual animals that were once alive, and even rarer yet are complete, articulated fossils that preserve enough detail to assign them unambiguously to a specific species.<br /><br />Maybe it would help you if you realized that 'species' is a human construct used for classification purposes. Two groups are generally thought of as different species if they no longer exchange genetic material, either due to behavioral differences, physical isolation, or genetic non-interfertility. With extant species there are typically thousand to millions of individual animals to observe, and you easily determine if two groups qualify as different species.<br /><br />With the fossil record all you get in most cases are isolated ones or twos of any groups, with none of the other information. Typically for two fossils to be assigned to different species there must be a significant morphological difference between them. Most times it is impossible to tell if two similar fossils are different species or just individual variations in the same species.<br /><br />I'll say this again in the forlorn hope it will get through your cast iron skull:<br /><br /><b>The sample size of the fossil record doesn't provide enough granularity for the level of detail you are demanding.</b><br /><br /><i>My ancestors remains aren't all that common. But fossils are. Big difference.</i><br /><br />It's quality, not quantity nat. Finding a million or so specimens of the same species of animal in a catastrophe-caused bone bed doesn't tell you anything about the species immediately before of after them.<br /><br /><i>What I'm hearing sounds like apologetics. </i><br /><br />I don't think you're hearing a single thing people are telling you. People who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than you do. You've got your ignorance based pre-conceived false notions, and you aren't interested in seeing them corrected. Not even a little.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32758374870460884012010-11-21T18:22:31.389-08:002010-11-21T18:22:31.389-08:00nat,
"But fossils aren't rare"
If ...nat,<br /><br />"But fossils aren't rare"<br /><br />If there ever was one, there is now officially no reason to ever take you seriously again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-71665470175343433442010-11-21T17:46:36.140-08:002010-11-21T17:46:36.140-08:00But fossils aren't rare. There are entire rock...But fossils aren't rare. There are entire rock strata full of fossils going all the way back to the Cambrian. So I'm not sure how much of a factor recycling of the Earth's crust is. And if a signifant percentage of species gets preserved then IMHO,they provide an accurate picture of what really happened. Then if species to species change is what really happened why don't we see it in the fossil record. <br /><br />My ancestors remains aren't all that common. But fossils are. Big difference.<br /><br />What I'm hearing sounds like apologetics.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.com