Replies

What do you think of the points I make in posting 223?

No offense, but it could use a lot of work.

As for your first paragraph, there are many fossils showing the transition from sea-based life to land-based life. And, in fact, with the cetaceans, of the reverse, as well. And when the founding species of a higher-level taxon begins to split, it initially would look no more different from the trunk species than subspecies do today. It is only with massive amounts of time do members of separate taxa take on strongly divergent morphology. For example, we wouldn't expect the most recent common ancestor of birds and mammals to look like half-bird, half-mammal, because the defining characteristics of each arose later. It would be something whose morphology is not evolutionarily inconsistent with either birds or mammals.

The second paragraph is based on the common misunderstanding as to the role of random mutation in evolution. In fact, you seem to express the creationist (although I'm not claiming you're a creationist.) obsession/misconception with the notion of randomness in evolution. Evolution through natural selection is not a wholly random thing. And, in fact, to the extent randomness is a factor, it is usually (but not always) randomness of the most mundane kind. It is the randomness that says, "if you measure the heights of all the men in a particular city, they will exhibit a variation around the mean." It is the next step, the natural selection in light of environmental pressure, that is the more interesting aspect.

Well thank you both for the thought provoking responses. With the fever pitch this thread sometimes reached I wondered if I should try, but I'm glad I did.

soft tissue organs is based not on a need for them to be present to make the evidence strong enough, but because of your certainty that they cannot be preserved. This ensures you will never have to worry about your demand being met.

No, I assure you, I don't think like that. I don't make arguments just to have them not be debated. I included the "/radical-skeletal-features" precisely because organs aren't preserved. My meaning is that although the arm and leg tissue would have decomposed, the skeletal strangeness of a fish with feet (as per your example) would nevertheless still be apparent. The churning of internal organs and changing external muscle structures would undoubtedly also affect the skeletal torso of the specimen, and that would be preserved in the fossil record, hence my reference to the organs (not preserved) and the radically changing skeleton (preserved)

I present to you the Ichthyostega, a fish with feet.

Well thank you for that interesting example, but the fact that there are not thousands and thousands of fish with feet, birds with canine teeth, true reptiles with inverted pelvises and wings, etc. is what shows clearly this evolution effect is not happening over time. The fact that a vast number of fossils of animals in mid transition do not exist simply cannot be explained. It's more probable that this specimen is a misidentification.

counterarguments before. If not, you can find them here.

this was also interesting, but after showing that super-simple molecules can sometimes make copies of themselves, the author then jumps to saying that they "might" then form more complicated cooperative molecules that "might" then work together and start creating life. I would have been more convinced if an example, and not just a candidate mechanism had been displayed.

WildHorseCrash:
Granted, everything in your first paragraph is quite accurate, but it's the lack of mid-transition fossils later in the "evolution" process that I'm referring to, not just at the beginning of the split. These fossils of blended animals don't exist.

Regarding an obsession with randomness, I understand that argument exists against creationists, but that's because evolution is fueled by randomness! Granted you draw a distinction between the operant factor being the actual environmental niche that the organism is in combined with its selective pressures, nevertheless the assertion that random genetic changes are always "throwing spaghetti on the wall" is what ostensibly powers this whole concept (ie that there is always something new ready to test said environmental selective pressures of such magnitude that the species itself would mutate over time), and I, personally, find the science for this unworkable.

Anyway, thank you both for responding this late in the thread. I suppose we should let this dead horse die. If you'd like to write a final response I will look forward to reading it.

Now, if only I could get GhengisKhan to respond to my question regarding pre-Hindu Buddhist manifestations of allegedly Hindu religious outlooks. I don't suppose either of you would like to take a stab at this topic?:
********************************************
To: Gengis Khan
The sources I've read declare that Buddhism (or its precedent) is the indigenous religion of the Harappa Civilization, the oldest known civilization in India. Harappa Civilization's artifacts, and its now indecipherable script, predate Sanskrit (and hence the Vedas), and some of those artifacts clearly demonstrate people in meditation positions practicing meditation. Buddha himself stated that he was simply redeveloping an ancient practice (a pre-Vedic practice, given that Harappa script is pre-sanscrit, and as you stated, I believe, that the Vedas describe Hindu history, but don't refer to Harrapa Civilization)

Perhaps it is a little bit of propaganda to say that reincarnation, karma, etc. was originally Hindu, when it may in fact have been Buddhist/pre-Buddhist-Harappa, then absorbed into Sanskrit reading Hinduism at a later date.

From what I've read the Hindus at Buddha's time were interested primarily in pantheons and ritualistic sacrifice, the later often being compared as less effective than the Buddha's living, analysis-driven doctrine, implying Buddhist rationality was something new to Hinduism.

I don't know if there was an invasion or not, but if not, then how was the Harappa Civilization displaced by the Sanskrit reading population?

24 posted on 10/23/2005 2:27:37 AM PDT by starbase (I like the way you think, and I'll be watching you.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
*************************************************