Hillibilly "logic" from debunkers.org
Evolutionists commonly use the fossil record and evidnence for their “theory”. However fossils canNOT tell us anything about a mechanism. Therefore in any debate pertaining to a mechanism, such as ID vs. evolutionism, the fossil record is totally useless.
. The claim, or premise of the argument is that the fossil record is used to support the theory of evolution.
Commonly used. Is there anyone who doubts this claim?
The support for this claim though is supposedly refutes a much more precise claim: the fossil record cannot be used in a discussion of the mechanism of ID vs. evolution.
I will stand by that.
While the latter might be true (I’ll argue later that it isn’t depending on which aspect of ID you are talking about), that does not mean that the fossil record doesn’t support evolutionary theory.
That it can be and is used does not mean it is scientifically correct to do so.
The fossil record is used primarily as a source of evidence for speciation.
Speciation, even in all its ambiguity, isn't being debated. For example even Creationists have understood speciation takes place since the time of Karl von Linne. He was searching for the originally Created Kinds when he developed binomial nomenclature. He would eventually place the Created Kinds at the level of Genus So if what you say is true then my premise is confirmed. And seeing that much of your "argument" is based on speciation, ie trivial variations withinn a given genera, consider your BS exposed for what it is.
This is done by looking at bones found in the right section of rock, and the look to see if the bones are similar to other bones found previously. Scientists can then track changes in the dinosaurs and make inferences as to which sets of bones are related to other sets of bones.
Today science tells us that similarities can come about via both convergent and divergent "evolution".
It also totally ignores the following:
“The validity of the evolutionary interpretation of homology would have been greatly strengthened if embryological and genetic research could have shown that homologous structures were specified by homologous genes. Such homology would indeed be strongly suggestive of “true relationship; of inheritance from a common ancestor”. But it has become clear that the principle cannot be extended in this way. Homologous structures are often specified by non-homologous genetic systems and the concept of homology can seldom be extended back into embryology. The failure to find a genetic and embryological basis for homology was discussed by Sir Gavin de Beer, British embryologist and past Director of the British Museum of Natural History, in a succinct monograph Homology, a Unresolved Problem.”Michael Denton
“The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution- yet in truth we cannot explain it at all in terms of present day biological theory.”Sir Alistor Hardy
As for the use of the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolutionary theory and against ID one only has to look to Dembski’s new law of thermodynamics. That is the Law of Conservation of Information. Basically, this law asserts that new information (e.g. speciation) cannot come about purely by natural means.
Seeing that both intelligence and design are natural, I would say you don't understand the debate.
Since the fossil record indicates otherwise (i.e., it supports the purely natural theory of evolution) this is evidence against ID.
Just claiming the fossil record indicates a purely natural ToE, is not scientific and is based on your PoV.
The debate is unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes vs. intelligent, directed (goal oriented) processes.
The part I like the best is the very deceptive:
As for the notion that the fossil record is the only place that we observe evolution that is pure nonsense. Evolution is observed everytime parents reproduce.
Context- next time read Grasse and figure out the context. He was using "evolution" in the context of evolution #6. IOW your claim that "Evolution is observed everytime parents reproduce", taken in context is a flat-out lie. However it appears you are also clueless. But ignorance is not an excuse.
He also prattles on about the fossilization process- points I have already made. So what was his point?
Then we have this total BS:
This idea that the mechanisms of evolution are not observed anywhere save the fossil record is just flat out wrong.
That is not what I said nor implied. Perhaps Steve should take a reading comprehension course. What I did say was that fossils cannot tell us anything about the mechanism. Did the organisms "evolve" because they were designed to do so? Or did they "evolve" due to random mutations culled by NS? Can't tell from the fossils. And guess what? There isn't any scientific data that demonstrates RM & NS can do anything except to slightly modify an already existing organism! And the ONLY mutations that call be called "random" are point mutations caused by copying errors.
And why is it that evolutionitwits ALWAYS conflate "intermediate" with "transitional"? Is it that they do not understand the difference? Or is it that they cannot comprehend the difference?
Not only is it obvious Steve V doesn't understand what is being debated, he uses the tried and true deceptive tactics inherent in all evoltionitwits.