Re: "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of ourfastest-growing controversial minorities
- From: Raymond Griffith <tiffirgrReverse@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 21:11:25 -0500
in article 1131174058.053373.251700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Skeets at
skillet3232@xxxxxxxxx wrote on 11/5/05 2:00 AM:
>>> You mean evidence?<<
>
> no EVIDENCE.
>
> show one set of clear cut and undisputable fossil data that could only
> lead to the conclusion that macro-evolution occurred. just one. i've
> never seen one - and i've looked very hard. btw, between us, i know
> why you just settle for making a statement of fact yet don't back it
> up. ;-)
>
>>> How does Creationism explain the plantaris tendon?<<
>
> i guess you have figured out that it is easier to create creation
> questions than it is to provide answers to macroevolutionary
> questions...
>
> like...
>
> 1. where is a single, continuous fossil record whent there should be
> 100s OF MILLIONS, if not a BILLION opportunities for JUST ONE to show
> up? darwin predicted it... he was WRONG. yeah, better go develop a
> question B/C YOU HAVE NO ANSWER.
So Darwin predicted it? So what? Darwin didn't know everything. I am, of
course, accepting your word that he predicted it, for I do not have that
knowledge for myself.
But geology has progressed a long way since Darwin. We know a lot of things
about the earth and how things work.
For example, most animals when they die are not buried, but eaten. Usually
after a time there is next to nothing left. And when things are buried,
there is not usually the type of burial which leads to fossilization. Most
things that are buried continue to decay, some parts faster than others.
But this idea of burial is interesting. After all, where does the dirt and
mud and sand come from to bury something? It has to come from somewhere else
-- which means that as much as there is a burial process going on in the
earth, there is a scouring process that removes material. You must remove
material from one place to put it into another. And that means that much of
which has been buried becomes exposed and may further decay under erosive
forces.
We see this all the time. Fossilization is a chancy process. Your idea that
there are billions of opportunities for fossilization to occur is dead on.
And of those opportunities, only a small fraction get a hit, much less to
the first base, to use an analogy. Even a great many of those things that
are fossilized will be destroyed by natural forces.
For example, the earthquake in Pakistan must of necessity have destroyed a
lot of fossils along with the other damage it did. It could hardly have
helped doing so. And so those fossils which were destroyed will now not be
found by us.
Fortunately, we have enough fossils to make a pretty clear picture of what
happened. And also fortunately, we continue to discover more and more
fossils. What is even better is that fossils are not the most significant
evidence -- the genetic record supplies evidence of relationships that is
pretty hard to dispute without actually ignoring the evidence to begin with.
But we never will have enough fossils to make a "single, continuous fossil
record." Why the idea is ludicrous! That denies the reality of what life is
and what life does.
Do you think that for your convenience an entire line of animals would do
nothing but plan that their remains be accessible to you to prove their
lineage?
And frankly, if we were to find such a lineage, that would be so unusual,
given all we know about how geology and life work, that we would be forced
to rethink what we knew about the processes.
Your demand does one thing, however. It demonstrates that your interest is
in demanding that the world and all that in it is conforms to your
expectations. You are not interested in "reality" or in discovering what you
do not know.
And that is unfortunate.
>
> 2. how does an ear halfway between a land animal and a sea dwelling
> animal provide an "advantage?" common sense says it is a disadvantage
> - both while on land and in sea...
And in point of fact, you may be right. But it is hardly an argument against
evolution.
There are several features of the human body which do not confer advantages,
but disadvantages only. Yet we survive.
So a physiological feature which is not advantageous may not override the
ability of the organism to survive and reproduce.
Really now, in talking about evolutionary theory, you are in desperate need
of a "gestalt". Picking apart the minutiae is easy. We do it ourselves. But
the whole actually turns out to be greater than the sum of its parts!
Have you ever heard of the Nannopterum harrisi in the Galapagos Islands? It
is a flightless cormorant. This bird has stunted feathers. It is awkward on
land. It definitely doesn't have the advantages of flight. Yet it is a
cormorant! It fits in its environmental niche.
http://www.rit.edu/~rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/Cormorant.html
If we were discussing Intelligent Design, the flightless cormorant would not
be a good species to invoke to extoll the intelligence of the designer. The
species has survived, if marginally.
So your objections regarding advantages or disadvantages are really
objections based on a misinterpretation of what evolutionary theory says.
That is rather typical, you know. You would do better to try to learn the
theory you are dismissing so blithely.
>
> 3. where is the fossil that shows this half ear? uh, haven't found it
> yet? i shouldn't there be MILLIONS of examples, each with a chance to
> fossilize? oh, that's right, bad luck.
Actually, we have fossils with transitional features. Regarding whales, such
things have been found, and I believe that you were pointed to a link
describing it (although I doubt you were willing to read the information!).
But to reiterate, your contention that each example of a characteristic has
a chance to fossilize is purely wrong and disregards what occurs in the real
world -- a typical creationist fallacy. That we have some examples is
fantastic. And I daresay that as time goes on, we shall collect more
examples and find more things that make you creationists uncomfortable.
Of course, you could ensure that such discoveries never happen. If you
fundamentalists finally trash the Constitution and turn the US into a
Taliban-like controlled nation, just abolish the sciences and send us back
into the stone age. Anything less than that will ensure that people keep
looking at nature and finding what is there.
>
> 4. what is the process by which life develops from death?
A strange question. Who says that it does?
Of course, you have the witness of Jesus. He said that life came out of
death. "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains
alone. But if it dies it brings forth much fruit." And of course, you
believe that humans were animated from the clay by the breath of God. There
is life from nonlife if you will.
But then, the grain of wheat doesn't really die, now does it? Really dead
wheat grains can't sprout.
But evolution is not about life coming from death, or life coming from
nonlife. Life from nonlife is abiogenesis. Life from life as it changes over
time is the province of evolution.
Really now, nonsense questions won't get you anywhere. We do not know how
the first life began. We do know that life today operates on the same
principles of chemistry that nonlife obeys. Chemistry is, well, chemistry.
We may not know all of the conditions under which something happened, but it
is the unknown that drives scientific inquiry.
>
> 5. what is the environment that BOTH allows for the creation of life
> and sustaining of life. be precise, please.
Again, you object to evolution on the basis of not knowing how it all began?
That is much like saying a bird doesn't exist because you did not see it
hatch from the egg.
Evolution occurs in the here and now. It occurred in the past, and if you
don't succeed in destroying the planet completely, it will occur on earth in
the future.
>
> 6. what advantage does an asexual enitty have by transforming into a
> sexual being?
"Entity". Learn to spell, please? Proper punctuation would also be nice.
However, the question is meaningless. Individuals do not transform or
evolve. Populations do. The offspring are different from the parents. Of
course, in one-celled populations we also find other things occurring. For
example, gene-swapping has been observed to occur. There are such entities
as bacteriophages -- viruses that infect bacteria and alter their genetic
makeup.
So we have in the microbiological world an interesting mix of things that
cause all sorts of genetic variation.
And if a creature is born different from its parent(s) in a significant sort
of way, it doesn't usually sit around pondering why it is what it is. It
simply uses what it has to survive.
See? It really is quite simple.
>
> 7. why is the world we live in so discrete? how come the world isn't a
> mish mash of still existing transitional creatures?
Actually, it is. You are a transitional creature yourself.
Every living creature is transitional between what generated it and what it
generates. Your limited use of the term demonstrates that you do not
understand what it means.
> after all, just
> b/c a creature is less adaptive to an environment doesn't necessarily
> mean it has to become extinct.
Correct. The flightless cormorant is an example.
But -- if you are somehow less suited for an environment, you will have a
harder time defending yourself against a better suited competitor or
predator.
The cormorant survives, in part, because there are no natural predators for
it, and there are no other competitors for the resources it uses.
And of course, there are the cosmic accidents which caused mass extinctions.
> no animal that exists today has the
> exact same adaptation to its environment as every other animal - yet
> they don't all go extinct, do they?
Your reasoning is fuzzy. If all animals had exactly the same adaptation to
the environment, they would be in competition for the same resources -- and
there would be a lot more extinction.
Different species are adapted to their environment in different ways, thus
focusing on other resources. As long as their is a resource underutilized,
there is a chance for something to move into that niche.
Of course, if a competitor moves in on the same resources -- or if *you* are
looked on as a resource yourself -- you might have some problems. The
predator-prey relationship is a classic problem.
>
> yeah, i can see why you prefer to pose questions... -lol-
Of course, you do as well. But are you willing to learn?
>
>>> Wouldn't your time be better spent learning?<<
>
> if so, why do you fail to try and teach? assertions are meaningless.
So are your own. But the point was well made. Your time would be better
spent on learning instead of arguing from ignorance. Please do yourself that
courtesy.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
>
> *IF* you have a point, BACK IT UP.
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Prev by Date: Re: Its amazing that that Talk.Origins is filled with so many God Haters
- Next by Date: Re: Why Harshman Cannot Prove Macroevolution
- Previous by thread: "Rise of Man" and "Before the Dinosaurs"
- Next by thread: Re: "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of ourfastest-growingcontroversial minorities
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
