 Flying fish |
 Red herring |
Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
No, it doesn't. Evolution claims to be precisely about how the variety of life came to be. Darwin's book was titled The Origin of Species, not The Description of Species.
" No, it doesn't. Evolution claims to be precisely about how the variety of life came to be. Darwin's book was titled The Origin of Species, not The Description of Species."
Exactly wrong. The book was NOT about the origin of life. Anybody who actually read it would not have made such an egregious error.
Who determines what is supernatural and what is not? The statement "The supernatural is not subject to the scientific method." is a presumption in and of itself.
It's not just that there aren't any transitional species, there ought to be millions of them! If species come from the gradual change of earlier species, then the very appearance of the "family tree" of species should be entirely different than it is. There should not just be a few, rare, possibly related "transitional" fossils, there should always be transitional fossils found!
Where there are two species, A and C, for which evolutionists claim A was the "father species" of C, there should always be species B which is the transitional species. Otherwise, evolutionists must claim that species C evolved into being where evidence of transitional species B is found, but magically sprang into existence everywhere else.
For there to be a few, rare fossils which have the appearance of being transitional (itself a questionable term: Why transitional? It should be superior to the previous species, due to "survival of the fittest", and probably replace the inferior, previous species. No?) is evidence in and of itself that inter-species evolution simply does not occur.
If the process of inter-species evolution is, in fact, a gradual one, the process described by Darwin, then the fossil record should reflect that. It does not. A hundred nor a thousand more years of digging will not change it. If the process occurs, it should be evidenced everywhere, not just in isolated examples. Otherwise, different species arose from some process other than evolution in most cases, and evolution in a few, isolated cases. Evolution does not claim that.
They require no leaps of faith at all. It requires reason and the scientific method on the empirical evidence, which is obviously present.
" Possibilities and probabilities of intelligent design also require inferential leaps of faith when organized matter that performs specific functions is recognized. "
The hypothesis has no support. It also contradicts the scientific theory that does have support.
"Neither common descent nor intelligent design are, in the strict sense, empirical science. They only make use of empirical science, from which they make reasonable conjecture.
Common descent is, ID is not. ID is an abandonment of science and the scientific method to pursue arbitrary constructions.
"
The problem is, those who find the fossil evidence lacking are not the scientists who have studied the subject; they are almost always laymen who hold a particular religious viewpoint.
Does this help you understand why scientists are not impressed?
Speak for yourself
No, it's a scientific fact, not a presumption. To date there is no evidence of the supernatural. If you have some that's amenable to the scientific method, have it published. A Nobel prize awaits.
Unsubstantiated assertion.
No, it is truth. Granted, the tools of science do not substantiate it, but then they could not substantiate the existence of X-rays until Rotengen in 1895. However, X-rays did exist before 1895.
Science refusing to recognize the techniques used to learn the truth of the Creator does not disprove Him.
"Man has always been man; apes have always been apes."
We ARE apes.
If we are apes, we are also plants. Man also shares about 50% of their DNA with bananas.
And fossil genetic fragments called ERV's demonstrate the common ancestor we share with other apes.
...and our common banana ancestor too, no doubt.
Speciation has been observed. What has NEVER been shown is the genetic stop sign that creationists claim exists that would prevent a population from continuing to diverge from the parent species.
Nobody has found a problem with raising successive generations of a plant that becomes an animal? Really? I want to see that one.
I'll admit, I have used the term "species" a bit too loosely. Where the devision is between a species, a phylum, an order, etc. are all mortal constructs. I have no problem with speciation. A dingo and a wolf could evolve from a parent species, and I would have no problem with that. There are a huge variety of dog breeds which show the differences that can occur.
What I'm looking for is the big stuff. I want to see the transition from fish to bird. I want to see the evidence, which should be abundant, of species transitioning from plant to animal. If this kind of gradual change has happened, why isn't it happening now? Why aren't there oodles of "in-between" creatures?
Where is the fish-bird? If there was an evolution from ape to man, where is the transitional species? By definition, it would have to be more fit for survival than the ape, and so should be abundant.
Fossils are rare, and those which exist are rarely found. Yet, in the absence of extinction, all species are transitional. You might find this of some help: Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation.
|
Flying fish |
Red herring |
So have agnostics and athiests. Many of whom, share your views and desire to advance them using the natural sciences, knowing full well that the intrinsic value in the Creation Theory is that faith is required.
From The List-O-Links:
Ichneumon's legendary post 52. More evidence than you can handle.
Post 661: Ichneumon's stunning post on transitionals.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Yes, macro-evolution.
Nice attempt. How's the DNA of that fish? Part way between fish and bird? I'm guessing not.
Big fins != wings for flying. Many fish have proportionally large fins.
transitional placemarker
I'll take a shot. Perhaps you both could answer my question?
I was once an atheist and an evolutionist.
You write that you used to be an evolutionist? Does this mean that you no longer believe that evolution is valid?
If so, do you believe that all (and I mean ALL) animals were created by God in their present form with absolutely no changes whatsoever between the time they were created and now?
IOW, do you believe that animals do not evolve?
Are you saying that only canines evolve?
What about cats?
Birds?
Apes?
Reptiles?
Fish?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.