Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Aquinasfan
So, do you not understand what he said or what you said?

Your 288: I think Darwin thoroughly refuted himself a century and a half ago when he said that the theory of evolution would be disproved if the fossil record did not, in the century to come, show itself to be replete with transitional forms.

Darwin:

The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed...
What would be the problem with admitting that Darwin didn't say what you reported he said instead of all this dancing around? He said something quite the opposite of what you reported in 288. He had already figured out that the fossil record did not, would not, and should not contain every transitional that ever lived, despite the necessity that such things must have once existed. His chapter on the imperfections of the geological record is explicit from the beginning to the end about what he does and does not predict.
337 posted on 07/06/2004 12:27:15 PM PDT by VadeRetro (You don't just bat those big liquid eyes and I start noticing how lovely you are. Hah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
His chapter on the imperfections of the geological record is explicit from the beginning to the end about what he does and does not predict.

If that's the case, and if he didn't expect the fossil record to be filled in, at least to some degree, over time, then his theory rests on pure speculation.

473 posted on 07/07/2004 4:25:15 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro
The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. In the first place, it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on the theory, have formerly existed...

What would be the problem with admitting that Darwin didn't say what you reported he said instead of all this dancing around? He said something quite the opposite of what you reported in 288.

It's my understanding that Chuck expected the record to be filled in over time, as do the textbook publishers who leave the mysterious blank spots in the "family tree" of all life.

He had already figured out that the fossil record did not, would not, and should not contain every transitional that ever lived...

There's a difference between the fossil record "not containing every transitional form that ever lived" and a fossil record that uniformly exhibits stasis within species.

...despite the necessity that such things must have once existed.

Where did the necessity come from? The necessity follows from the theory, but the necessity contradicts the fossil evidence.

His chapter on the imperfections of the geological record is explicit from the beginning to the end about what he does and does not predict.

OK. Either he did or didn't expect the fossil record to support his theory. If he expected the fossil record to uniformly contradict his theory, then his theory was based on pure speculation.

If he expected the fossil record to confirm his theory, then his theory is contradicted by the fossil evidence. Considering the myriad forms of existing life and the necessity, according to the theory, of the countless transitional forms which must have preceded these existing life forms, then the fossil record should not uniformly exhibit morphological stasis within species.

479 posted on 07/07/2004 5:28:24 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson