Racmanaz wrote:
away for a few days, so have fallen behind on this thread, but I felt that Rac's statement, above, needed factual rebuttal.
Your error, Rac, lies in your not understanding biological systematics. When we say that coelocanths are an extinct organism, the statement is based on the failure to find any members of the coelocanthiformes, which is a group of transitional species between fish and tetrapods. Notice, please, the plural of species in the previous sentence. There are at least 14 species of coelocanths (coelocanthiformes)known, but there are only 2 surviving today. The others went extinct. We do not find samples of the extant species in the fossil record, meaning that they might have made their appearance relatively recently as the group changed over many missions of years, that is, they evolved.
Your comments about Tiktalik also warrant rebuttal. Your assertions are made up of holed-cloth that you (or someone you choose to believe) have fabricated. There has been no scientific rebuttal of the putative role of Tiktalik as an example of a transitional form, and saying so is simply not true. If I have somehow missed scientific reports of this "fact" in my 40 years of teaching about evolution, please send me the references and I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion.
I don't expect you to change your mind in response to my comments - you are too deeply committed to a non-scientific world-view, and choose to believe non-scientists such as Kent Hovind over data and evidence. However, if your wild claims are allowed to remain unrebutted, others with more open minds might conclude that you are correct when, in fact, you are not.
away for a few days, so have fallen behind on this... (
show quote)
Quote:
The fact the you said " "fact" in my 40 years of teaching about evolution, please send me the references and I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion." Shows you have the strong presuposition to naturalism and therefore will turn a blind eye to any other plausible theory that challenges the Darwinian evolution religion.
No, I have a very strong aversion to people making up facts to be presented as scientific fact. You made an assertion that I doubt, and responded to my respectful request for substantiation with an "ad hominem" response. Let's see the information behind your claim. I am open-minded, but not so open that my mind falls out onto the floor.