Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dotnetfellow
That you are not quite clear is clear. But of course you set up a false dichotomy and prop up your strawman, hoping to smooth over the rough edges of your theory. However, Behe's expertise in molecular biology doesn't materialize for you the overwhelming absence of transitional fossil records.

So, do you agree with Behe's conclusions about the truth of evolution or not? You still haven't plainly answered. And why do you keep telling lies about transitional fossils, when you have been pointed to links showing numerous such finds.

633 posted on 12/06/2005 11:05:04 AM PST by Thatcherite (F--ked in the afterlife, bullying feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 626 | View Replies ]


To: Thatcherite
why do you keep telling lies about transitional fossils

No lies from me. Darwin dedicated a whole chapter of "On the Origin of Species" to what he called "a crowd of difficulties". For example, "Can we believe that natural selection could produce...an organ so wonderful as the eye". How could organisms that need it survive without it while it was evolving over thousands or millions of years? Most complex organs and organisms must have all of the parts functioning together at once from the beginning. Any gradual acquiring of them would be fatal to their functioning. Further, "can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection?" Darwin admits the difficulties with evolution that "some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered". Darwin admitted, “Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”. Darwin hoped that enough of these “missing links” would eventually be found to substantiate what he called the “theory of evolution”. Gould says, “Darwin’s argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution directly.” Dawkins adds, “Some very important gaps really are due to imperfections in the fossil record. Very big gaps, too.” Gould admits, “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” We all know this is a waste of time posting these apparent contradictions because readers have made up their minds even though this theory on the origin of species has been decimated.
636 posted on 12/06/2005 11:10:21 AM PST by dotnetfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 633 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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