Every month some evo comes out with "new" evidence that "proves" evolution, and the truth is, they haven't.
Now, before I am jumped on, I would like to say, I am NOT a Christian, I am not an IDer or a creationists. What I am is a seeker of truth and the theory of evolution is too full of lies to be the truth. That is how I see it.
Let the flaming begin!
This article makes a lot of bad assumptions and broad-brush statements. Either the author is the ultimate authority on ID and the intentions and motivations of all parties involved, or he is taking a lot of liberties.
That being said, I think he has failed in his attempt to solve the entire ID/Creationism/Evolution thing with his article. He'll have to try harder next time.
How about this instead.
Scientists don't prove their theories. Proof is found in mathematics, fine Irish whiskey and photography. Scientists supply evidence to either support, or fail to support hypotheses and/or theories.
Here are some definitions to help out (and by the way, there are lots of transitionals; the only ones who can't see them are the creationists):
Definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."
Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."
Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process.
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."
Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.
Observation: any information collected with the senses.
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.
Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.
Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.
Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof.
[Last revised 2/9/06]
What lack of transitional fossils?
WRONG! All species are transitional!
No it isn't. Let me post the usual form this dialogue takes when I have it with a creationist, since you claim you aren't one.
You've been spouting creationist BS on these threads for some time now. All creationists who come back dumb as a stump on thread after thread despite repeated rebuttals are dishonest. Some just add an extra layer of attempted deception in trying to be the shill in the crowd.But wasn't the evidence valid when it was supposedly missing?
- Tap-Dancing Science-Denier declares that the fossil record lacks instances of things changing in an orderly series from some Thing A to Thing Z. As this kind of evidence is to be expected, the lack of it must weigh against evolution having happened. By the very statement of this objection we are invited to believe the Tap-Dancing Science-Denier would accept such evidence IF ONLY IT EXISTED but the thing is it doesn't exist.
- Someone who disagrees demonstrates many instances well known in the literature of fossil series intermediate in form and time between some Thing A and some Thing Z.
- The Tap-Dancer then declares fossil series evidence to be irrelevant. How do we know ... various things? The dates of the fossils? Whether fossil A lies exactly on the ancestral line of fossil B?
Why wouldn't EVERYONE at least lean toward intelligent design? I mean, you do understand entropy, yes?
Causality?
Many transitional species have been preserved as fossils. See the post referenced in Lurking Libertarian's reply to you for many examples.
However, there are other theories of evolution, such as neo-darwinism and punctuated equilibrium that could account for the lack of trans species(although they both have problems also, problems so far unsolved).
Sorry to be blunt but it is obvious, just from this comment, that you have not done the study and reading necessary to legitimately reach your conclusion. You don't even seem to know what "neo-Darwinism" is, and this is very basic stuff!
Neo-Darwinism was simply the reconciliation between classical Darwinism and modern Mendelian genetics that was developed principally in the 1930's and 40's. Contrary to your assumption (I can't imagine where or how you derived it) neo-Darwinism does not differ in any significant way from classical Darwinism regarding expectations about transitional forms.
Punctuated equilibrium does differ from classical Darwinism. (At least it claims to, there being some controversy about that.) However it does NOT explain, nor try to explain, nor presume any need to explain, "the lack" of transitional species. It does claim to explain the relative rarity of transitional species, but not their "lack". It claims they are rare because speciation occurs in isolated populations over geologically brief time spans.
"Geologically brief," however, means on the order of 50,000 years or so. It is relatively rare that fossil bearing sediments are sufficiently fine grained and continuous to resolve events to this sort of time scale.
To get a series of species level transitionals requires that a unique speciation event occurs at a time and place where such sediments are forming, that fossilization occurs, that the sediments are preserved, that they are later exposed, and that a paleontologist finds them. Still the fact is that both authors of the original paper on "Punctuated Equilibria" found, and referenced, ACTUAL EXAMPLES OF SPECIES LEVEL TRANSITIONS that fit the pattern prescribed by their theory. (Caribbean land snails in the case of Gould, and trilobites in the case of Eldridge.)
On the other hand good examples of the contrasting pattern -- "Phyletic gradualism," or geologically gradual changes in species and morphology -- also exist in the fossil record. Most scientists would probably affirm that both type of pattern occurs.
In any case, punc eq only explains the relative rarity of SPECIES LEVEL transitions (the equivalent, lets say, of transforming a wolf into a coyote). It does not in the slightest deny the reality of HIGHER LEVEL transitions (from reptiles to mammals, from dinosaurs to birds, from ape to man, etc) of which we have even more examples, and many absolutely compelling ones. (Again see the Ichneumon post linked above.)
Since these higher level transitions are all antievolutionists really care about any way, it's odd that they cite punctuated equilibria as they do since it doesn't concern such phenomena. In any case it's odd if you presume that antievolution is about actually making a case, instead of merely appearing to do so with misdirection and misrepresentation.
Now, before I am jumped on, I would like to say, I am NOT a Christian, I am not an IDer or a creationists. What I am is a seeker of truth and the theory of evolution is too full of lies to be the truth. That is how I see it.
Similar to my own case years ago. I never thought the TOE was "full of lies," but I did think, after reading some antievolutionary materials, that the creationists might be "on to something." That is I thought they might be asking some of the right questions or raising some points that were telling or otherwise worthy of examination.
Here's what I did, and also my recommendation to you: I took several antievolution books, selected what seemed to me some of the best or most intriguing arguments, and spent available weekends over several months in academic libraries tracing out the references cited back to, and then reading, the original research. (It took some time as it was sometimes necessary to do a fair bit of background reading to understand the terminology and techniques referenced in the original research articles. Also antievolution references were often not direct. They would often cite popular works, or even other antievolutionists. There were often several steps to get back to the relevant original research.)
Much to my amazement (at the time) I found that not a single one of the antievolution arguments I selected had the slightest hint of validity. What I found instead was unexceptioned, systematic and egregious intellectual dishonesty on the part of the antievolutionists.
Your mileage may vary, but try this yourself and see.
Oh boy.. I been running circles around a bunch trying to insist that corn turning into corn is evidence of speciation.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1577107/posts
I've laughed so hard a few times I thought I'd pee. They live in a bubble and when they come out of it to spew the nonsense, it's a target rich environment. Laughs and absurdity.. God has a sense of humor.