Review of Godless -- (Centers on Evolution)

Powells Review a Day ^ | August 10, 2006 | Jerry Coyne

[Dimensio]

Fact is you folks who live your lives studying and believing these charlatan scientists have brainwashed yourselves into taking everything they say as gospel.

You have yet to demonstrate that any of the scientists are "charlatan", and you are asserting without evidence that their claims are taken as "gospel". Your unsubstanitated assertions do not demonstrate that the theory of evolution is false of flawed.

Every example of a transitional species you put up, and there would have to be millions have skeptics and questions about their validity for good reason.

You have provided no evidence to support this claim.

You can dismiss it as being ignorant Creationist Troglodytes, but there are more and more of us as we realize the odds are far too astronomical to be believed.

To what "odds" do you refer? Please provide or reference the relevant calculations for these "odds" and explain how they relate to the discussion.

Ann is right, God makes more sense.

To which "God", out of the thousands of often mutually exclusive deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout humans history do you refer and why does that particular deity "make more sense" than all others? Also explain why the theory of evolution does not make sense. Please refrain from re-employing your previous false claim that there exist no transitional fossils.

[MHGinTN]

In my reading the other day it was interesting to notice that even the 'Cambrian Explosion' fossil record contains what are very likely transitional species (worms with stubby legs, for instance). Now that I'm noticing the transitionals in my reading, they seem to be 'accumulating at an astonishing pace'!

[bray]

I am talking about the One True Living God not some bunch of fake and twisted rocks you guys worship. Nebraska man, Piltdown man?.

Correction: I put up plenty of evidence, you guys just don't choose to look at it. The old Cindy Sheehag above rebuke stance.

Anyone who is not an evolutionist will not be accepted by evolutionists. Nomal liberal argument. Ann destroyed you guys' sense of invincibility because you are no longer Cindy Sheehan's anymore.

So how did the Eye evolve?? How can it be evolved with all of it's complexity. It takes millions of miracles for you to read this simple sentence. Prove the eye is not a miracle. Prove that your faith in Darwin is less than my faith in God.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[Coyoteman]

It seems we only find fossils for species that once were successful. Where are the fossils of the unsuccessful ones? [I gather that was Ann Coulter’s actual question, as best as I can make it out without having closely followed her argument.] Or are we to suppose that unsuccessful species don’t live long enough to leave fossil evidence? That by itself might indicate a very serious “gap” in the fossil record: We have no evidence for the unsuccessful species. An “absence of evidence” has implications for the rigor of the theory….

How do you know we have no fossils from the unsuccessful ones? Can you tell from looking at a fossil whether it was successful or unsuccessful?

[Coyoteman]

fake and twisted rocks you guys worship. Nebraska man, Piltdown man?

Those are a mistake (fooled one guy) and a hoax (which was quickly rooted out and ignored--by scientists).

(Your "worship" comment exposes both your bias and your ignorance of how science works.)

What do you think of this nice specimen?

---

Fossil: Sts 5

Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[PatrickHenry]

Transitional species -- while they are alive and thriving -- don't have any features that indicate they're transitional; and it's not apparent by looking at them that their distant descendants will be considerably different. They're happy creatures, well-adapted to their environments. But as it gradually gets colder (or hotter, or wetter, etc.) and only a few of their offspring survive long enough to reproduce, it will be obvious only in retrospect that they were eventually superseded by better-adapted forms.

[Coyoteman]

Transitional species -- while they are alive and thriving -- don't have any features that indicate they're transitional; and it's not apparent by looking at them that their distant descendants will be considerably different. They're happy creatures, well-adapted to their environments. But as it gradually gets colder (or hotter, or wetter, etc.) and only a few of their offspring survive long enough to reproduce, it will be obvious only in retrospect that they were eventually superseded by better-adapted forms.

Aw, you gave away the answer. I wanted to see if BB knew anything about this stuff.

[PatrickHenry]

Well, there are those goofy-looking ones that have a sign that says: "Yes, I know I'm a mess, but that's because I'm a species in transition. Please come back in a thousand generations and check out my descendants."

[ChessExpert]

The greatest mass murders in history have been perpetrated by the godless (atheistic communists).

True. Atheist communists murdered more people in the 20th century than have Christians in 20 centuries, or Jews in all history. So far, Muslims do not begin to compare to the communists, but jihadist Muslims seem to be the greatest problem today.

[Dimensio]

I am talking about the One True Living God not some bunch of fake and twisted rocks you guys worship.

You are mistaken. I worship no rocks; fake, twisted or otherwise.

Nebraska man, Piltdown man?.

What is the relevance of this incomplete question?

Correction: I put up plenty of evidence, you guys just don't choose to look at it.

You have provided no evidence. You have made several assertions, but you have offered no evidence to suggest that they were correct.

Anyone who is not an evolutionist will not be accepted by evolutionists.

Please demonstrate that this statement is true.

Nomal liberal argument.

This appears to be a non-sequitur. We are discussing evolution, not liberalism.

Ann destroyed you guys' sense of invincibility because you are no longer Cindy Sheehan's anymore.

Cindy Sheehan has no relevance to this discusion whatsoever. It appears that you have not done any actual research on the subject of evolution at all. Why, then, should your claims on the subject be given any credence?

So how did the Eye evolve??

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html

How can it be evolved with all of it's complexity. It takes millions of miracles for you to read this simple sentence.

Please provide evidence of this claim.

Prove the eye is not a miracle.

You have confused the nature of burden of proof. You are the one who has made a specific claim -- that the eye is a "miracle" -- and as such it is your responsibility to show that the claim is accurate.

Prove that your faith in Darwin is less than my faith in God.

What do you mean by "faith in Darwin"?

[b_sharp]

"A lot of words about evolution. None about Darwinism. Note that in Ann's book, she specifically stated that when she was talking of evolution in that book she meant evolution as preached by Darwin.

What exactly do you think 'Darwinism' is?

Points 2,6,8,9,10,11,13,14,15,16,17,18 all derive directly from what Darwin discovered. The only difference is the inclusion of a mechanism, the gene, for the transport of inheritable features. That method of transport was unknown to Darwin, although he suggested a need for something like DNA.

The division between Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian evolution is based on the discovery of DNA/genes. Otherwise they are the same, they both include natural selection(among other types of selection), descent with modification, common descent, and an ancient Earth.

If you want to differentiate between Darwinian and Neo-darwinian evolution then you need to consider Darwinian evolution a subset of Neo-darwinian evolution.

All of those areas that Coulter attacked were those areas that Darwinian and Neo-darwinian evolution (the modern sythesis) share.

By the way, the reason modern evolutionary theory is call the Synthetic Theory of Evolution is because it is a synthesis of the old Darwinian theory and genetics.

If you insist on claiming Coulter is attacking Darwinism but not the SToE then you are saying she is attacking those areas of the old theory that are no longer used. Why would she bother attacking something that is no longer considered a part of the SToE?

"Sorry, but Darwinism, even as described by Darwin himself is not falsifiable.

Darwin himself mentioned at least one way of falsifying his theory.

"Not to mention that neither open nor closed Darwinian paths are falsifiable - nor testable for that matter.

Could you please explain this in more detail?

"Logically, Darwinism is an open loop. Once again, note once again, that I refer to Darwinism, which has many earmarks of a religious cult. I do not say anything about evolution itself.

In what way is 'Darwinism' an open loop?

The theory of evolution proposed by Darwin is the basis for modern evolutionary theories.

[b_sharp]

By the vitriol you bring to your posts it would be easy to surmise your faith is not as secure as you would like it to be.

Anyone with a secure faith would consider the evidence for the SToE without bias. Can you do that?

[b_sharp]

" True. Atheist communists murdered more people in the 20th century than have Christians in 20 centuries, or Jews in all history. So far, Muslims do not begin to compare to the communists, but jihadist Muslims seem to be the greatest problem today.

Does that mean all atheists are likely to go out and murder another human simply due to their atheism?

Should I now go out a kill a few people?

[PatrickHenry]

Should I now go out a kill a few people?

Why not? Darwin did. That's why he recanted on his deathbed.
</creationism mode>

[bray]

Australopithecus afarensis, or "Lucy," has been considered a missing link for years. However, studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have shown that she was merely a pygmy chimpanzee that walked a bit more upright than some other apes. She was not on her way to becoming human.
Homo erectus has been found throughout the world. He is smaller than the average human of today, with a proportionately smaller head and brain cavity. However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that he was just like current Homo sapiens. Remains are found throughout the world in the same proximity to remains of ordinary humans, suggesting coexistence. Australopithecus africanus and Peking man were presented as ape-men missing links for years, but are now both considered Homo erectus.

Another highly questioned example. If evolution was a fact than there would be litterally millions of examples littering the earth. Rather you have to come up with 5 or 6 questionable examples. You are satisfied because the high priests of Darwinism say they are "objectively studied under gummit grants" true.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[bray]

What vitriol? Must be making points when you have to come up with that lame response. The internet and truth destroys liberal lies.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[bray]

Your article of the physics of the eye are pretty much a rediculous theory. Your belief in this is truly amazing. You want everyone to believe it just happened due to natural selection.

Nobody but the evomafia believes it anymore. http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html

Pray for W and Our Troops

[bray]

If the ends justify the means.

Pray for W and Our Troops

[Coyoteman]

Nice cut and paste from http://www.allaboutcreation.org/human-evolution.htm.

Do you actually know what any of this means? Did you verify the accuracy of these statements? Or do you really believe that creationist websites tell the truth about evolution?

[Dimensio]

Your article of the physics of the eye are pretty much a rediculous theory.

Why is it ridiculous? Please support your claim with evidence.

You want everyone to believe it just happened due to natural selection.

You are mistaken. Natural selection is not the only mechanism that drives evolution. That you do not know this suggests again that your lack a sufficient understanding of the subject to credibly speak on it.

http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html

The article that you have referenced employs a false analogy in suggesting that the eye must have appeared all an once, fully formed. There is no justification for this premise, thus the conclusion is meaningless.