Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: donh
The reason you cannot infer evolution from fossils is twofold: 1. the bones show us only a very small part of what makes a species what it is. The DNA, the organs are the most important part of a species and there is no trace of that except in a handful of very special cases.-me-

Oh, you know exactly, down to the minutest detail, what the makeup of Alpha Proxima is?

Who's talking about alpha proxima? We are talking fossils and you are avoiding the point.

2. Homology is nonsense. There are far too many examples of totally unrelated species with similar features and what is worse, there are examples of closely related species with completely different features. Therefore homology, the only basis for paleontology is total nonsense. It's not science, it's fairy tales for atheists.-me-

I'll assume you mean morphology when you say homology. What the micro-biologists do is establish homologies, what the field paleontologists do is investigate morphologies.

Wrong assumption, I mean exactly what I say. Paleontology only works on homologies and homologies as I point out are not legitimate ways of figuring out descent. For that reason and the one above bones cannot give evidence of evolution.

6,281 posted on 01/31/2003 9:50:47 PM PST by gore3000 (Evolution is whatever lie you want it to be!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6232 | View Replies ]


To: gore3000
The reason you cannot infer evolution from fossils is twofold: 1. the bones show us only a very small part of what makes a species what it is. The DNA, the organs are the most important part of a species and there is no trace of that except in a handful of very special cases.-me-

Oh, you know exactly, down to the minutest detail, what the makeup of Alpha Proxima is?

Who's talking about alpha proxima? We are talking fossils and you are avoiding the point.

I yearn for the day when you will stop skipping over analogical arguments by pretending to be too dumb to breath. The fact that we don't know everything there is to know about stars does not prevent us from forming theories about them. Just as the fact that we don't know everything there is to know about fossil bones does not prevent us from forming theories about them. If you don't quit tooling me to repost your arguments so transparently, I'll quit playing.

6,307 posted on 02/02/2003 12:44:31 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6281 | View Replies ]

To: gore3000
I'll assume you mean morphology when you say homology. What the micro-biologists do is establish homologies, what the field paleontologists do is investigate morphologies.

Wrong assumption, I mean exactly what I say. Paleontology only works on homologies and homologies as I point out are not legitimate ways of figuring out descent. For that reason and the one above bones cannot give evidence of evolution.

In 1913, when the only way to guess what family a species might belong to was to guess from bone similarities, you might have gotten away with this definition. However, this is now, and now, micro-biologists do the work of establishing homologies. Paleontologists do the work of establishing morphologies.

6,308 posted on 02/02/2003 1:03:52 AM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6281 | 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