The transcript of a forum discussion on the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record:
Posted by Alaric : ) on September 13, 1998 at 09:10:14:
Some scientists tell you that the lack of transitional forms is due to the low probability of finding a short-lived (geologically speaking) organism’s fossil. And that fossils are created only under very specific conditions.
Other scientists tell you that we already have many transitional fossils.
Creationists may legitimately question this apparent contradiction. And they frequently do with questions like “where are the transitional forms between X and Y ?”
ANSWER # 1 – The theory itself is an inference from the data and evidence that already exists. It is not based upon evidence that has yet to be found. – Science 3:16
This bit of information should clear things up some. More bits are on the way : )
First Response
Posted by Vijai Singh on September 13, 1998 at 09:24:06:
Vj- Why can you not infer the existence of a Supernatural force the same way?
Response to Vijai Singh
Posted by Alaric on September 13, 1998 at 13:29:23:
Good question! In fact, you can infer a supernatural force. But the scientific method requires that it’s conclusions, including its inferences, be falsifiable.
Yes, we could take all of our observations and infer a supernatural cause. But what observation could possibly contradict such an inference? In other words, for an inference to be scientific and falsifiable, there must be a way to possibly contradict it.
Again, a very good question. Thanks!
Response to Alaric
Posted by MEYER on September 13, 1998 at 15:07:39:
Good question! In fact, you can infer a supernatural force. But the scientific method requires that it’s conclusions, including it’s inferences, be falsifiable.
No it doesn’t. The scientific method is a myth, there is no such thing.
Such as accidental abiogenesis cannot be falsified using the “scientific method”, but you guys consider it science.
Response to MEYER
Posted by Alaric on September 13, 1998 at 20:00:04:
“accidental abiogenesis cannot be falsified using the “scientific method”, but you guys consider it science. “
Thank you Meyer, that is another excellent question. These questions help us all to understand the important parts of the scientific method.
Conclusions of science (inferences, for example) must be falsifiable. However, abiogenesis is not falsifiable, and need not be since it is not a conclusion of science.
The generation of life is definitely an area that scientists investigate, and any inferences or conclusions they come up with must be falsifiable. Until such conclusions exist, however, falsifiability is not applicable.
Response to Alaric
Posted by MEYER on September 13, 1998 at 21:53:51:
So, why is it that my objections with SETI teaching abiogenesis happened throughout the universe to 5th graders is considered anti-science?
Response to MEYER
Posted by Alaric on September 14, 1998 at 20:21:33:
Well, if SETI teaches that abiogenesis is scientifically provable anywhere, then you are right. Our disagreement was about whether it does or not.
Second Response
Posted by Lucas on September 13, 1998 at 09:45:11:
Some scientists tell you that the lack of transitional forms is due to the low probability of finding a short lived (geologically speaking) organism’s fossil. And that fossils are created only under very specific conditions.
Other scientists tell you that we already have many transitional fossils.
Creationists may legitimately question this apparent contradiction.
There isn’t even an apparent contradiction between the two statements. There are few transitions compared to the number of varieties of organisms which have existed. There are many transitional forms compared to the number that may conveniently be described in a single article or lecture. Creationists are, of course, free to dispute the factual veracity of either statement; but they should not regard them as contradictory.
Response to Lucas
Posted by karl on September 13, 1998 at 10:09:54:
karl: …name them
Response to karl
Posted by Frank on September 13, 1998 at 15:34:57:
You first, Karl.
Please give a definition of what you’d expect in a transitional fossil. Don’t use terms like “Beyond a doubt it’s a transitional” or other circular or twisted logic.
By the way, explain why vestigial structures would not be good evidence for a transitional.
