Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.
It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
Almost never, actually. Not counting the numerous *creationist* fakes (like the Cardiff Giant, the Calaveras Skull, the Freiberg Skull, the Paluxy Man Tracks, the Burdick Track, the London Artifact, etc.), I can think of only *two* actual *fakes* in paleontology from the past two hundred years: Piltdown Man and Archaeoraptor (note: *NOT* the same as Archeopteryx, which *is* a legitimate fossil).
Piltdown was a very skillful fake crafted by a knowledgeable individual to be as convincing as possible, although the actual culprit and his motives have never been conclusively established -- there are at least three plausible suspects, with at least three different possible motives. Interestingly, it was considered questionable for years before it was conclusively proven to be a fake, precisely *because* its evolutionary implications contradicted those of all the *real* hominid fossils, which were consistent in their indications about human evolution. This would *not* have been the case if humans had not actually evolved...
Archaeoraptor was two different fossil plates put together by a Chinese peasant (lots of primitive bird fossils are found in China), and although the motive is known (whole fossils can be sold for more money than partial fossils), it's not known whether he was dishonestly pasting together what he knew to be two different fossils, or whether he honestly thought they were a proper match. In any case, *no* peer-reviewed science journal fell for it, and the scientific community recognized it for what it was immediately. National Geographic (a mass-market magazine, not a science journal) had some egg on its face though, because through a comedy of errors and missed signals their normal review process fell apart, and they published it in one of their issues as a legitimate new find. In less than a week, though, they were flooded with letters from experts who pointed out that it clearly wasn't a coherent fossil specimen.
So no, it's not true to say that transitional fossil finds "just about always turn out to be fakes". Quite the contrary. No paleontologist has anything to gain by knowingly fabricating or publishing a fake, and they would have a huge amount to lose.
For several hundred real transitional fossils -- out of tens of thousands known -- see Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ
I agree with that. Even the King James version is a pretty good description of things, if you don't quibble about details. People should keep in mind that this was written by and for people several thousand years ago, with only the most basic science knowledge. If God had told Moses to write down a description of the Big Bang Theory, quantum mechanics and modern astrophysics, the people would have had a good laugh and gone back to worshiping golden statues of cows.
Why should I.?. go google..
He's right, you're wrong, deal with it. You posted your fantasy (that the few fakes in paleontology were uncovered by "non-evos") as a fact. You were wrong. The few frauds in paleontology were detected and exposed by other "evos". Anyone who actually *has* "gone Google" would know this -- that leaves out people who just post their fact-free prejudices without bothering to learn what the truth might be, such as yourself.
Retract your false claim, if you want to be honorable about it.
Or don't, and join the long list of other creationists who either can't accept that their presumptions and propaganda could possibly be wrong, or aren't honest enough to admit it.
How many times does it have to be explained to you that the process of evolution involves more than "mere chance", before it finally sinks in?
Selection, another component of evolution -- something most schoolchildren know -- is not random.
I'm trying to be patient here...but if not chance, then what mind is directing away from random?
ROFL! Is it truly your contention that the only possible force in the Universe which can produce non-randomness is "mind"? That's really funny.
Hint: When salt crystallizes, does it line up in neat rows from random dissolved molecules due to the action of some "mind" -- or because of the interaction of the natural properties of atoms and chemistry?
Hint: When raindrops fall all in one direction (i.e. "down") instead of moving in all random directions, is it due to the work of a "mind" -- or due to the natural properties of matter and gravity?
There are countless ways in which natural processes induce non-randomness. "Mind" is not the only thing capable of that. Heck, given some of the posts here, the results of some alleged "minds" are sometimes more chaotic and random than not...
One example that I've used is "imagine if God sat a plasma TV in front of Moses and tuned into the Discovery channel for a video on His Creation". God then told Moses to write down what he saw, and what came out was "In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth".... Sure, it was perfectly inspired by God. But the words from Moses' pen communicate nothing like perfect reality.
Humans never do anything perfectly. There are recent movements among the fundimentalist denominations to believe the Bible "literaly". But the fact is that humans transcribed it onto paper, and retranslated it by hand for centuries. I believe the Bible to be the perfectly inspired word of God. But I don't believe that the human caretakers over the centuries were perfect, or perfectly inspired themselves.
Comparing the first sections of the Bible to the Dead Sea Scrolls that date to just about Jesus' time, demonstrates that there were lots of changes in the verses. Yes, they're pretty close. But they are not exact.
The Old Testament that we read, even in Hebrew, is not the same Old Testament that Jesus studied.
Flame away, lurkers.
To me, Genesis is about the origins of the Universe and the Earth, but has little to say about the origin of species, other than that God was involved in their creation. God gave us the big picture and left it to us to figure out the details.
I also don't believe that Genesis fixes the age of the Earth. That is an inference some have drawn, the actual calculation having been done by one Bishop Ussher, an Anglican. Interestingly, William Jennings Bryan was an old Earth creationist, not a young Earth guy. You should read sometime the actual transcript of the cross-examination - it's very different from the Inherit the Wind fiction. Actually, the cross-examinaiton was one of Clarence Darrow's poorer efforts, with Bryan often getting the upper hand. And no, he never broke down on the stand; he was rather amused by the whole thing.
Full disclosure: I think Darwin got it wrong concluding random genetic mutation leading to natural selection from a "war of the survival of the fittest" is the agent of change within species or leading to new species. I think there is a different change agent we have not yet discovered.
It is useless to discuss science with True Believer Darwinites who will not see the difference between a lawlike crystal and a non-lawlike cell.
And you Ardemt Evolution Devotees should quit trying to tell me that shining energy on something makes it organize and complexify. Energy, unguided, DEstructs, not Constructs
It is useless to discuss science with True Believer Darwinites who will not see the difference between a lawlike crystal and a non-lawlike cell.
And you Ardemt Evolution Devotees should quit trying to tell me that shining energy on something makes it organize and complexify. Energy, unguided, DEstructs, not Constructs
Word tricks. If it's not guided, it's random
You got something interesting to say, say it. I've chased too many of these links to find nothing much there.
Losing DNA information is not a positive step.
I'll come back tomorrow.....
I agree.
Darwin was undoubtedly wrong, small changes over long periods of time can't get the job done. Doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen, just means that Darwins view of the mechanism was wrong.
A paleontologist friend made the same observation to me.
It seems to me a little humility is due from both sides. We've only just mapped the human genome and only have the foggiest idea how the thing might work. It seems clear many species have ancestors, but do we have enough evidence to say with certainty all life descended from one common ancestor? Or were there many? The Cambrian explosion creates a lot of questions we don't seem to know the answers to today. We have a very sketchy family tree for the primates, based on inferences drawn from a very small quantity of specimens. It seems to me we're still in an era where we don't know more than we do. I'm even open to a metaphysical role in the origin of species. Some of the ID folks have some interesting ideas, but even less evidence for them than the Darwinians.
On the other hand, some humility is due from the crevos. As Narby observed, IMHO the Genesis story of creation is compatible with evolution. I've never understood the atheists or the Christians who insist the two are incompatible. The Bible teaches us to be humble, to submit to God's will and do His will rather than our own. We learn from dust we came to dust we will return. If it turns out there is an ape way back in the human family tree, are we so proud that we can't accept that? God works in mysterious ways and may have chosen that path to create Man. That doesn't diminish the accomplishment.
Well, I'm rambling, so I'll just post this.
And the difference would be.... what? Are you going to be foolish enough to try to claim that the processes at work in a cell do not follow physical laws? That would be hilarious.
You're way out of your depth.
And you Ardemt Evolution Devotees should quit trying to tell me that shining energy on something makes it organize and complexify.
ROFL! You really haven't understand a word we've actually said, have you? Hint: No one has ever said that "shining energy on something makes it organize and complexify", although it's obvious that you got that silly impression by totally misunderstanding the discussions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I repeat, you're way out of your depth. I don't mind you not understanding the topic, but you really shouldn't be so arrogant about it as to think that you do, and that you are able to "instruct" those of us who actually do understand it.
Energy, unguided, DEstructs, not Constructs
I see... So when the unguided energy of the Sun dries up a puddle of sea water and salt crystals construct themselves as a result, this is actually an example of "destruction" in some way that only creationists can grasp, is that it?
Learn some science before you attempt to critique it. If you're able.
There may or may not be an additional change agent that we haven't discovered yet, but you're wrong when you say that "Darwin got it wrong": -- the evidence for natural selection and mutation being responsible for, if not all, then a vast amount of change within species or leading to new species, is overwhelming.
Differences which you fail to explain. You merely assert some magical property that crystals have that cells dow not, because if there is no 'difference', then your argument falls to pieces.
He also (clumsily) dodged the fact that even the simple examples of crystals and so forth shatter his false presumptions about what nature can or can't do on its own without the intervention of a "mind".
And if he can't even grasp the details of the *simple* things and understand their interplay with nature, how can he hope to have even the slightest clue about the more complex systems?
Fascinating -- please present your evidence for this amazing assertion, and you're a shoe-in for the next Nobel Prize. Or... maybe you're just stating your prejudices as if they were facts.
Doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen, just means that Darwins view of the mechanism was wrong.
In what way, exactly? It has been tested thousands of different ways, in hundreds of thousands of experiments and observations over the past several hundred years, and oddly enough the results of the experiments certainlys eem to back Darwin, and fail to match your conclusion. Please explain.
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.