What Does the Fossil Record Show?

Creation or Evolution: Does it Really Matter What You Believe? ^ | 1998 | Various

[ml1954]

I don't understand your question,

Okay. I thought I should have been easily understood. I didn't see how your posting of srcipture supported your assertion that "This is the kind of evolution evolutionists should be passionate about." I didn't see anything about evolution in the scripture you posted.

but my point in making the statement...was that most evo's seem to be against the notion that God created man

I don't think this is true. I think your impression is mistaken.

and are more intent on finding a naturalistic explanation.

The Theory of Evolution does not say that God didn't create man.

[Coyoteman]

My interest isn't in evolution per se. But the history of science and how science advances. Not exactly free from human folly and ego. Have you read:

Sure; it was one of many texts required in grad school. I am very familiar with the theory, and agree with virtually all of it.

The theory boils down to: change comes slowly in science, and students pick up the new ideas quicker then elderly professors. When a certain critical mass is reached, the old paradigm is overturned and the new begins.

What is the new paradigm in evolution that this should be relevant?

PE, as I noted in a previous post, is an old idea, going back to Darwin.

Genetics was discovered and didn't change the overall theory, though it added some really nice details.

Dating has continued to improve, and there are more and more fossils.

So where is the sea-change in evolution that Kuhn would see as a paradigm shift?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Darwin's theory is discrete in nature.

I'm curious why do you insist on using the word "discrete" when you could just as easily used the word "continuious"? And it's a better fit to his words in cited in the article?

Continuous is a good word.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

There are posting regulations for FR. Perhaps you should reread them.

Did you also admonish the poster I was responding to for accusing me of "stinking up the thread"?

[balrog666]

Troll-on-the-prowl placemarker.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Gould's theory was discrete and eposodic. It was different than Darwins gradualism of incrementally small changes over vast time spans. Gould envisaged rapid eposodic changes followed by long periods of stasis. That's not what Darwin had in mind.

Attach any word you like. Call it banana for all I care. But they differed significantely on their understanding of evolution.

continual

adj 1: seemingly without interruption; chiefly restricted to what recurs regularly or frequently in a prolonged and closely spaced series; "the continual banging of the shutters" [ant: sporadic] 2: `continual' (meaning seemingly uninterrupted) is often used interchangeably with `continuous' (meaning without interruption)

[Fester Chugabrew]

Come to think of it, a pair of spectacles was found nearby.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

He did? And he still wrote and published his book? Perhaps he should have been more forceful in describing his 'struggle'.

His theory of gradualism was a hypotheisis. He believed the evidence of the fossil record would vindicate him.

Nothing wrong with that.

[DouglasKC]

Okay. I thought I should have been easily understood. I didn't see how your posting of srcipture supported your assertion that "This is the kind of evolution evolutionists should be passionate about." I didn't see anything about evolution in the scripture you posted.

Oh I see...the evolution I was talking about and that was referenced in scripture was the evolution of man, through Christ, into a new, spiritual creation.

The Theory of Evolution does not say that God didn't create man.

I see you found the other thread already, so we can continue there if you like.

[ml1954]

Nothing wrong with that.

If he didn't struggle much.

[ml1954]

Oh I see...the evolution I was talking about and that was referenced in scripture was the evolution of man, through Christ, into a new, spiritual creation.

Still don't see it.

I see you found the other thread already, so we can continue there if you like.

No thanks. Things can get really ugly and vicious on those Religion threads.

[Captain Rhino]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I'm kind of an odd fish here. I believe in a Creator (based on thinking through the Big Bang cycle to its ultimate beginning and reflecting on the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter) and I accept the fact that, based on reasonable interpretation of careful observation, evolution appears to be the mechanism behind how life speciated once it arose. That puts me at odds with both Evolution"ists" and Creation"ists". IMO, the One does not exclude the other.

But the how or the even if One connects to the other poses other questions and the conculsions you draw from that meditation is really a matter of personal philosophy and/or belief that can lead to many separate paths.

I take your point concerning Darwin and the reading list. Yes, his name does seem to draw a lot of fire whether it is personally deserved or not.

[DouglasKC]

Oh I see...the evolution I was talking about and that was referenced in scripture was the evolution of man, through Christ, into a new, spiritual creation.
Still don't see it.

I can add commentary if that will help.

1Co 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

In the verse about, we're breaking into Paul's explanation of a resurrection to a spiritual state. He says we start with a natural body and is resurrected a spiritual body.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

He's comparing Adam, the first man created, to Jesus Christ (the last Adam).

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
1Co 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

We can evolve, through Christ, from a natural man to a child of God if we obey God.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

So where is the sea-change in evolution that Kuhn would see as a paradigm shift?

If we accept PE and reject neo-Darwinism than scientists can start thinking overtly of a new mechanism that can cause speciation other than the neo-Darwinian mechanism. Until this occurs there will be no paradigm shift.

I think the answer may be found in genetics. I'm a design engineer not a geneticist. But I did read somewhere that most of the genetic code is not used or redundant or not fully understood.

We designers sometimes "design in" redundant and what the untrained eye would call "useless stuff". But the designer may have a reason for this "useless stuff". He may envisage a day in the future when he can utilize this extra stuff and have a design modification on the cheap when the time warrants.

Now Gould has speculated about rapid evolution required for his PE. Speculating that "some kind of severe stress" caused the organisms to change relatively (in geological time) rapidly. Maybe these "useless" genes hold a clue.

[Coyoteman]

If we accept PE and reject neo-Darwinism than scientists can start thinking overtly of a new mechanism that can cause speciation other than the neo-Darwinian mechanism. Until this occurs there will be no paradigm shift.

There is no PE vs. neo-Darwinism that I can see. There is the theory of evolution, and within that theory scientists from a variety fields are duking it out constantly--and interpretations are changing constantly, if not dramatically. But, scientists are closing in on what really happened. Much of this is not visible to the layman because it is hidden in journals which take up whole floors in major research libraries.

If there was a need for a paradigm shift it would be in the journals. First, in the lesser journals where folks early in their careers publish, then, if the ideas catch on, in the mainstream journals. Now, with the internet, things move much more quickly, and ideas are disseminated more widely.

In spite of this I still do not see a paradigm shift in progress. There is refinement and adjustment as more data come in. A paradigm shift would be, for example, something on the order that all evolutionary interpretations of fossil man are wrong because of some new findings of genetics or radiometric dating.

That simply hasn't happened yet. PE is not even close.

[Oztrich Boy]

Normally, name calling and casting personal aspersions on the opposition is considered the last and worst tactic of the losing side during debate.

And yet it's a rare thread where a Creationist doesn't do it in the first two dozen posts. Guess anti-Darwinism really has nothing to back it up, after all.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

But, scientists are closing in on what really happened. Much of this is not visible to the layman because it is hidden in journals which take up whole floors in major research libraries.

I hope you are right. But I wish it was in the open.

[SirLinksalot]

Thank you, now for your reading pleasure...

Quoting, Misquoting, Quote-Mining

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/26

In Defense of Quoting Darwinists

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1120#more-1120

http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/quesAndAnsNCSECritiqueOfBib.pdf
( GO TO POINT NUMBER 6 ).

Truth Sheet: How the NCSE Uses False Charges of "Misquotation" to Stifle Scientific Debate

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=117

[SirLinksalot]

So your quote mines are "fake but accurate?" Is that you, Dan?

1) I am not Dan, and I am not sure what my identity has to do with the issue at hand.

2) Trying to equate this with Dan Rather shows the kind of shallow debating tactic we have to put up with.

[Deadshot Drifter]

Nonetheless, logically, there is no way to picture an omnipotent and well-meaning God creating biting flies, mosquitos, ticks, fleas, chiggers, disease vectors, and the myriad cratures of Pandora's Box.

There is if you give it some thought. Without maggots the woods, plains, and roadsides would be overflowing in dead animal corpses. Mosquitos and ticks are food for frogs, bats and birds.
Just because you can't think ahead doesn't mean God did not.

How would these "DNA/RNA manipulators of old" even know about DNA? Why haven't we found their electron microscopes or whatever? Do you think they did it with magic?

Help meeee! Help meeeeeeeee!