Replies

<>

Or -- alternatively -- you could read some science instead of apologestics. I have read both.

<>

If you have read even a modicum of scientific information about that issue, you would not be saying this. Again -- I challenge you to read what science has to say. Here -- here is a small start. Are you willing to follow this lead?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC213.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC220_1.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC250.html

Your creationist friends will tell you not to read anything at TalkOrigins. They will tell you it is full of "evolutionist lies and talking points." But I challenge you to be objective -- remember what you said about being objective? -- and read those articles, which contain references to further study in the scientific literature. Be skeptical. Read critically. Even if you don't believe it, at least you will know what you are arguing against, and perhaps be able to avoid silly straw men like the one you created here.

<< What are claimed as transitional are fully formed life forms. >>

Of course. The idea that we should find anything else is nothing but a straw man created by creationists. This is how I know what you have been reading -- and it's not science. Again -- I challenge you to read those articles I linked to -- if all that does it help you be more accurate in your opposition. It's better to know what's really there, than to invent the stuff you want to refute.

<< You are not being honest when you say that the debate was over a long time ago because I can clearly see that the scientists that have shown the theory of evolution as false are not cranks but very reputable. >>

I have given you no reason to doubt my honesty. You can doubt my knowledge, or my grasp of the issues -- but not my honesty. But that's okay; I'm used to being called a liar by creationists. I used to do the same -- to my shame. Go ahead -- doubt my honesty -- but do the research. Call me a liar -- but do some reading in the actual science. Disbelieve me -- but look at the real evidence. I challenge you. If you won't do that -- then who, really, is being dishonest?

If you will have the courage to read up on the issue from a different perspective -- you will find that I am not being dishonest about this. My statement is correct -- there is no real scientific debate over evolution. Scientists, of course, will argue over this or that mechanism, or this or that data point -- just as they do in other scientific theories. But there is no more controversy over whether the overall theory is accurate, anymore than there is controversy over the atomic theory.

Sorry -- but that's just the way it is. The ones who are being dishonest are not the ones, such as myself, who admit this, but the ones who keep pretending that evolution is the subject of some great "controversy" in the scientific profession -- that it is on it last legs -- that it is in some sort of "crisis." That's just not true. The percentage of scientists who accept evolution is in the high 90s, and among biologists it is almost universal.

Tens of thousands of biologists agree -- probably over 99% of them. They could all be wrong, of course -- but to SHOW them to be wrong, you need more than silly straw man arguments like the "no transitional fossils" nonsense -- or non sequiturs like the supposed "precision of the seasons" -- or this nonsense about "there is real debate over the theory."

<>

Because you did not explain the theory. You explained the history of evolution. Yes, organisms evolve -- but WHAT IS evolution? How does it work? What evidences are said by scientists to support it? What predictions does it make? How can it be falsified?

These are scientific questions, and they are asked of every scientific theory. The more the theory is able to make accurate predictions, and the better it answers questions, and the better it fits the evidence -- the better the theory is. No theory ever answers all questions -- but as scientific theories go, evolution is one of the best, because it passes all these tests beautifully.

<>

On the contrary -- for twenty years I had a need to reject it regardless of the facts. I could not even consider the real evidence, because I made the mistake of believing that the "professional" creationists were telling me the truth -- and I spent my time gorging myself on their distortions and straw men -- and then just regurgitating them in debates with those who were more scientifically literate. But when I finally decided to study up on the actual facts instead of just regurgitating creationist lies and distortions -- that's when I faced the facts.

I believe the evidence points very strongly to the fact that you are the one who has a "need" to DISbelieve evolution, regardless of the facts. If that is not true about you -- then you can easily disprove it by setting aside those creationist arguments -- just for a little while -- and doing some reading in the actual, honest-to-goodness scientific literature. If you are unwilling or unable to do that -- it is not I who shows a "need" to believe in disregard of the facts.

<>

Absolutely not. I know where you are right now, because I was once there, in spades. No one was more vociferous than I was about the "falsity" of evolution. I organized a visiting lecture from the godfather of creationism -- Henry Morris himself -- to my college, back in the early 70s. I used to say and think the exact same things you are saying now. And I was challenged, as I am challenging you now, to study the facts for a while instead of just reading and believing creationist apologetics. Why won't you do the same? Even if you don't believe it, at least you will know what it is you don't believe.

<>

That sentence makes no sense, so I'll just leave it alone. It was when I finally quit being "caught up in the dark side of myself" that I had the courage to come to the light of knowledge and facts -- and to live up to what I was teaching my logic students: one is not ready to refute something until he really knows what it is he is setting out to refute. Clearly -- you are not ready to take that step. Maybe someday.

Why not start by answering those questions? What evidence do scientists put forth to support evolution? What predictions does evolution make -- and are those predictions accurate? How can evolution be falsified?

When you are able to answer those questions accurately, without creationist straw men -- then you will be ready to deal with this issue. Till then, you are doing nothing but wallowing in denial and logical fallacies.

.I have read a bit of information on both sides and it is so clear that transitional fossils are missing. What are claimed as transitional are fully formed life forms.

Well of course they are fully formed life forms! What did you expect them to be?

Transitionals show characteristics of earlier and later organisms, but all are fully formed. It is just that, given a longer perspective, you can see features changing: brow ridges shrinking, a chin developing, braincase increasing in size, dental morphology and other related traits changing with diet, etc.

I am going to post pictures and a description of a fossil, below, along with a chart, at the bottom, showing its theorized position in the evolutionary tree.

This fossil is an obvious transitional. It will not suffice for you to claim that it doesn't exist, as clearly it does exist. For you to claim otherwise, you need some bring some kind of evidence to the discussion.

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html