http:\/\/www.don-lindsay-archive.org\/creation\/orbulina.html<\/a>.<\/p>\nEvidentiary and Non-Evidentiary Responses to Challenges<\/p>\n
There are two main ways in which respondents can deal with the Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge. The intellectually honest and appropriate way is with specific discussion of the fossil evidence as described and discussed in the primary literature. This is by far the least common approach taken by those who have been given the TFEC, and typically only follows after a long period of non-response, the elapsed time apparently serving as an index of the claimant’s unfamiliarity with the specific evidence.<\/p>\n
The other category of approach is to ignore, so far as possible, any mention or discussion of actual fossil evidence. These varied strategies are what I term “non-evidentiary” responses, since they are completely independent of empirical data. There are many routes to achieving this end. The simplest is non-response. The challenged person may decide that not saying anything further is the best option, sometimes in the hope that there will be no long-term penalty for this behavior, and that eventually few, if any, persons will remember the abandonment of the original claim. Another common non-evidentiary response is digression. Bringing up a different topic as if it held some relevance to the TFEC allows someone to give a semblance of a reply, even though few will be fooled by it. Yet another strategy is to discuss theoretical issues as if theory did away with the need to actually look at the empirical data. A variant of the theory strategy is the quote-mining of those people who expound theory. Usually, though, quotes reveal nothing about the specific data at hand, and often come from sources whose opposition to anti-evolutionary action is otherwise well-known. Still another variant upon the theory strategy is the definition game. One can construct connotations of “transitional” such that no real-world evidence can satisfy all the piled-on conditions. It is useful to know when an anti-evolutionist simply defines evidence out of existence, though. Another possible tactic is to dismiss the taxonomic category from which the cited example comes. A respondent can claim that they really meant no transitional fossils in some other taxonomic hierarchy, but they often seem to forget that this means that the “no transitional fossils” claim is then self-admittedly false. A particularly brazen non-evidentiary response is to play an “even if” game, as in, “Even if this is true, it doesn’t mean anything.” That ignores that if the cited sequence does contain transitional fossils, it at least means that the claim of no transitional fossils is false.<\/p>\n
The following is a short form for response to the TFEC, if a challenged person wishes to ignore the evidence and simply adopt one of the non-evidentiary tactics for their own. Simply indicate which one or more of the following Non-Evidentiary Response Items (NERI) fits what would otherwise involve a bunch of redundant typing.<\/p>\n
Non-Evidentiary Response Items:<\/p>\n
A. You have your faith; I have mine.<\/p>\n
B. I meant that no vertebrate transitional fossils exist.<\/p>\n
C. I meant that no transitional fossils above taxonomic rank ____________ (fill in the blank) exist.<\/p>\n
D. I have quotes from _______________ (give list of names) that say that no transitional fossils exist.<\/p>\n
E. My understanding of ________________ theory (fill in blank) is that transitional fossils cannot exist.<\/p>\n
F. My connotation of “transitional fossils” is ____________ (fill in blank), which means that none can exist.<\/p>\n
G. I have a cool rebuttal of ___________ (fill in blank). What were you saying about transitional fossils?<\/p>\n
H. Even if the cited example does show transitional fossils, it doesn’t mean anything.<\/p>\n
I. I cannot be bothered to support my claim, so I will not be giving you a reply.<\/p>\n
J. I promise to support my claim Real Soon Now. I will be in touch. My reply will be devastating to you and completely and utterly convincing to everyone. Just you wait. It’s in the mail.<\/p>\n
K. Provide the fossils for the transition from X to Y, which will let me ignore these fossils that actually exist. (Courtesy of “edwin voltaire” aka “evossler” 20030210.)<\/p>\n
L. Person X says this challenge is bogus, therefore I don’t have to provide any response to actual evidence of transitional forms.<\/p>\n
The Challenged:<\/p>\n
The people whose names appear below all made a claim or implication of absence of transitional sequences, and were served up with a version of the Transitional Fossil Existence Challenge. This is a roster of who they were, when they were challenged, where they were, and how they responded to the challenge.<\/p>\n
It should be noted that the TFEC may be issued to “trolls”, people who assert nonsensical claims in an annoying fashion in a bid for attention. It is unfortunately quite difficult to distinguish a “troll” post from the usual antievolution effort.<\/p>\n
Date Name Forum\/Source Response<\/p>\n
19940228 Bruce Willis CONTROV Disappeared<\/p>\n
19940309 Michael Funk CONTROV None<\/p>\n
19940510 Johnnie Odom CONTROV None<\/p>\n
19940714 Andrew Cummins Evolution “Prove all biologists accept it”<\/p>\n
19940717 Ras Mikael Enoch t.o. None<\/p>\n
19940718 Jim Pattison CONTROV “Can’t find the reference”<\/p>\n
19940816 Charles Edward Evolution None<\/p>\n
19940917 Davey Jones Evolution None<\/p>\n
19941002 Lane P. Lester Evolution None<\/p>\n
19941030 John Shirey t.o. None<\/p>\n
19941129 Kevin Clark Evolution None<\/p>\n
19941208 Doug Wagner Evolution None<\/p>\n
19941214 Jim Loucks t.o. None<\/p>\n
19950312 Mark Russell misc.education.science None<\/p>\n
19950322 Ross Wolfle t.o. Implied recantation<\/p>\n
19950401 Scott Brian Allen t.o. None<\/p>\n
19950404 B. Schweig (?) t.o. “No time to do research”<\/p>\n
19950407 Lawrence Free Email “I only meant vertebrate transitions”<\/p>\n
19950514 Arthur Biele t.o.
\n Irrelevant re-posted criticisms of Hunt’s FAQ (19961116)
\n Irrelevant re-re-posted criticisms of Hunt’s FAQ (19990305)
\n First mention of Barnard’s paper (19990306)
\n Misquoted Barnard (19990306, M-ID
\n <19990306111112.19561.00003970@ng-fr1.aol.com>)
\n Misrepresented Barnard (19990306, M-ID
\n <7brtg0$9su$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>)
\n Claims differences are due to temperature or environment (19990306)
\n See for
\n my rebuttal (19990309)
\n Some further highly selective commentary on Barnard has been posted
\n by Biele, in which he misrepresents Barnard as disputing any
\n change at the species level or higher.<\/p>\n19950610 Tony Ermie Evolution None<\/p>\n
19960408 Jahnu Das Email “I am really not qualified to discuss
\n evolution on a technical level.”<\/p>\n
19960506 David Markwordt Evolution None<\/p>\n
19960520 Ted Holden t.o. None<\/p>\n
19960828 David Ford t.o. DF actually looked up the article, quoted
\n Barnard saying that he had transitionals across genera, but did not
\n admit existence of transitionals. Has since engaged in a great deal
\n of rhetorical excess, none of which disestablishes Barnard’s examples.<\/p>\n
19961027 Steve Sorenson t.o. “You’ve got your faith; I’ve got mine.”<\/p>\n
19961109 Tim Harwood t.o. None<\/p>\n
19961230 Karl Crawford t.o. None<\/p>\n
19970125 Herman Reimann t.o. None<\/p>\n
19970224 Darren Serhal t.o. None<\/p>\n
19970324 Eldridge t.o. “Put the paper on a WWW page.”<\/p>\n
19970412 Joe Potter t.o. None<\/p>\n
19970421 RevMike t.o. None<\/p>\n
19970423 Larry Cavender t.o. “Do you believe the Bible?”<\/p>\n
19970603 Yehuda Silver t.o. None<\/p>\n
19970701 A Pagano t.o. Didn’t understand the logic behind the challenge;
\n failed to address the evidence for over three years.
\n 2001\/01\/29: Whined that the Pearson citation was in a journal other
\n than “Science”; admitted that he was ignorant of the evidence
\n discussed by Pearson et alia.
\n 2001\/03\/01: Posted a response saying that the Pearson et alia 1997
\n sequence didn’t show “nascent structures” and “increasing diversity”,
\n neither of which appeared in Pagano’s 1997 claim.
\n 2001\/08\/04: Repost of the 2001\/03\/01 post, with some additional
\n comments about the lack of a reply from me (I’ve been writing up
\n my dissertation; Pagano is welcome to disagree with my assignment
\n of priorities.)
\n 2002\/01\/08: Pagano posted claiming that I had never addressed six
\n specific issues he had raised. I posted on 2002\/01\/14 showing how
\n each of those topics were addressed by me in previous posts.
\n Further posts by Pagano have shown no reduction in his ignorance and
\n a considerable decline in his courtesy. It seems that each new
\n issuance of the TFEC results in a flurry of re-postings of old
\n refuted arguments by Pagano.<\/p>\n
19970816 Jonathon O’Quinn t.o. None<\/p>\n
19980717 Publius t.o. None<\/p>\n
19981006 Alal t.o. None<\/p>\n
19981110 Minor23fsu@aol.com t.o. None<\/p>\n
19990107 Teno Groppi http:\/\/www.vbe.com\/~tdg\/creation\/cedebate.html
\n “These figments of imagination are renewed constantly. It
\n used to be Archaoepteryx and the Equuine series. One they
\n were disproved, it was something else. Once that was
\n debunked it was another. Now this. How much you wanna bet
\n this is replaced by another wild claim next year?” (19990108)
\n “They are not transitions FROM anything, they are not
\n transitions TO anything. The entire claim is totally bogus and
\n a figment of your imagination. […] When did I agree to a
\n wager? Was that as one groundless as your alleged
\n transition?” (19990114)<\/p>\n
19990224 Steve Sorenson (again) t.o. None<\/p>\n
19990225 Mark Allison t.o “Worst case scenario (for me): all 100
\n of your examples are at least possible scenarios to prove you
\n completely correct. But… here are three reasons why this wouldn’t
\n prove ANYTHING:” No discussion of Barnard or the fossil evidence (19990304)<\/p>\n
19990309 Katy Moffitt atl.general None<\/p>\n
19990417 Rhett alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic None<\/p>\n
19990421 Brad Clark alt.christnet None<\/p>\n
19990505 MS Goodrich talk.origins None<\/p>\n
20000202 JerryG talk.origins None<\/p>\n
20000217 Todd talk.origins None<\/p>\n
20000815 Erik talk.origins “Sorry, your challenge, as
\n written, is impossible. Trying to prove a negative is
\n impossible. The burden of proof lies on you to prove a
\n positive.” (2000\/08\/16)
\n Erik wasn’t asked to prove his entire claim all at once.
\n Erik was asked why the specific evidence cited should not
\n be considered transitional. Erik did not address the
\n existing evidence.<\/p>\n
20001107 “Pastor Dave” Raymond alt.christnet Original
\n statement: “The fact remains, that there are no
\n transitional fossil records.”
\n Response to TFEC (2000\/11\/28): “Another faulty and false tactic.
\n It is never up to me to prove a negative. It is up to the ones
\n making the claim that something is the way they say it is, to
\n prove that it is. The fact remains, there are no transitional
\n fossils.”
\n Pastor Dave completely ignored the evidence of the fossils
\n and gave no reason to discount the cited example as
\n documenting a transitional fossil sequence.
\n 2003\/01: Pastor Dave has gone from asserting that there are
\n no species-to-species transitions to saying that there are
\n no kind-to-kind transitional fossils. What you hear is ratchet
\n noise from Dave’s furious backpedalling.<\/p>\n
20010116 Ed Finn alt.politics.bush Original statement:
\n “The most shocking fact is that the fossil record has
\n absolutely no transitional forms between species.”
\n Response: None.<\/p>\n
20010118 ‘d ocean’ talk.origins Original statement:
\n “there are NO transitional fossils, and there is NO proof
\n that the fossil record confirms macro-evolution.”
\n Response: None.<\/p>\n
20010120 John B. Williston alt.games.baldurs-gate Original
\n statement: “What would be nice would be a clear,
\n consistent and slowly gradual record of even *one* species’
\n transition. And to date, there is none to be had.”
\n Response: “More specifically, I should not have said that
\n *no* evidence for transitional forms exists; rather, I
\n should have said only that there is a startling *dearth* of
\n evidence.” (20010121)<\/p>\n
20020320 “Amy Lynn” talk.origins Original statement:
\n “There have been no transitional species. The fossil record
\n only shows fossils of different kinds. Noone can prove
\n definitively that those fossils were some kind of transitional
\n creature.” (20020320)
\n Response: None.<\/p>\n
20021212 “Doug Matulis” talk.origins Original statement:
\n “Transitional forms should be prolific. There are none.
\n Some have dreamed them up, but they are either non-existent
\n or far from conclusive.” (20021212)
\n Response:
\n “First, I am sure you know this is an unfair challenge, throw a
\n highly technical paper, loaded with terms I have not idea the
\n definitions of and expect a lay person develop and rebuttal.
\n I will give it a shot and post my response under a new
\n subject.” (20021216)
\n “Dana, your points are well taken and will be acted upon.”
\n (20021219 response to Dana Tweedy, who pointed out that Doug’s
\n original claim was based upon ignorance.)
\n (No further responses.)<\/p>\n
20030206 “evossler@hotmail.com” talk.origins Original statement:
\n “But yet, evolution is STILL a theory and there are still no
\n in-transition fossils. How do you explain that?” (20030206)
\n Response:
\n “Sending a BS, trick survey is not equivilent to
\n procurring a in-transition fossil. If you have so much
\n evidence of these changes, show me a fossil of the
\n in-transit form between archeoptriches(sp) and whatever
\n dinso-form it came from.” (20030210)<\/p>\n
20030408 “Suzanne” talk.origins Original statement:
\n “Because we still have one celled organisms. They are
\n plentiful. We still have living uncomplicated lifeforms.
\n And, the question is, where are the fossils, indeed. There
\n are no living examples, and there are no dead ones
\n either. Yet there are fossils of life abundant. But in the
\n fossil record, there are not any transitionals. How can it
\n be that the solid lifeforms lasted in the record, yet the
\n transitionals all disappeared, if they ever existed, that
\n is.” (20030408)
\n Response: None.<\/p>\n
20040103 “Roy Jose Lorr” or.politics Original statement:
\n “I repeat: ‘No one has shown anything close to what
\n you claim… no “transitional fossils” and no evidence that
\n “speciation” is compatible with “evolution theory”.'”
\n (20031229)
\n Response: None.<\/p>\n
20040104 “Laurie AppIeton” talk.origins Original statement:
\n “Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one
\n transitional form has been found. All known species show up
\n abruptly in the fossil record, without intermediate forms,
\n thus contributing to the fact of special creation.”
\n (20040104)
\n Response: None.<\/p>\n
20050224 “Jeff Baldwin” http:\/\/www.worldview.org\/blog\/index.php?p=70%20rel=
\n Original statement: “This gradualism insisted upon by Darwin has
\n proved increasingly embarrassing to modern scientists. If evolution
\n occurred at an excruciatingly slow rate, then why can.t we find
\n transitional forms in the fossil record? There should be literally
\n millions of instances where a fossil manifests many of the
\n characteristics of a reptile, but some of the characteristics of a
\n bird (or vice versa).where are those fossils? Darwin dodged this lack
\n of evidential support for his theory by claiming that scientists had
\n seen only a small portion of the fossil record, and it was spotty at
\n best. Modern scientists have a much more complete picture of the
\n fossil record.but, tragically, still no transitional forms.
\n Response: Pending.<\/p>\n
No *evidentiary* response within a month causes the “Pending” to be changed to “None”. A “None” response can be changed to something else if an *evidentiary* response is eventually made, or a particularly revealing non-evidentiary response is made. Responses sent via non-public channels confer an irrevocable right of publication to Wesley R. Elsberry. I can’t have unquotable responses showing up in my incoming email or snailmail. I plan to create a web page that includes every follow-up made to the TFEC, whether the contents are relevant or not, for public documentation of all claims and counterclaims, arguments and rebuttals.
\n<\/http><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
First, have a look at the following text: This gradualism insisted upon by Darwin has proved increasingly embarrassing to modern<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-84","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antievolution","category-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/austringer.net\/wp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/austringer.net\/wp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/austringer.net\/wp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/austringer.net\/wp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/austringer.net\/wp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/austringer.net\/wp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2009,"href":"https:\/\/austringer.net\/wp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84\/revisions\/2009"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/austringer.net\/wp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/austringer.net\/wp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/austringer.net\/wp\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}