Charles Darwin's unfunny joke

World Net Daily ^ | jan 27, 2007 | Pat Boone

[Parawan]

I would think the discovery of a fossil human skull intertwined with the exotic critters of the Burgess shale would go a long way to falsify Darwin's grand idea.

[Hank Kerchief]

"Your complaint (if taken seriously) amounts to intellectual nihilism, a denial that scientific theories are testable."

Not at all. My whole point is for a hypothesis to be truly scientific, it must be testable.

Hank

[Stultis]

My whole point is for a hypothesis to be truly scientific, it must be testable.

Well, good then. It's just that you were complaining about examining the evidence (putative transitional forms) in light of assuming evolution to be true. But this is exactly how you test a theory. You deduce its implications as to what kind of facts you should observe -- and not observe -- on the assumption that the theory is true.

If evolution is true, and the fossil record is not too drastically imperfect (it isn't), then we should find fossil forms that are intermediate between the Families, Orders, Genera and so on that were created purely on the basis of living forms. This is exactly what we do find. The series of transitionals linking reptiles and amphibians, for instance, is so good that it's entirely arbitrary were you draw the line. Although living reptiles and mammals can be distinguished by dozens and dozens of marked skeletal traits, the fossil forms can only be separated by the trivial detail of a single articulation in the jaw. Literally every other feature is either intermediate or appears on both sides of the "line".

[Coyoteman]

If evolution is true, and the fossil record is not too drastically imperfect (it isn't), then we should find fossil forms that are intermediate between the Families, Orders, Genera and so on that were created purely on the basis of living forms. This is exactly what we do find. The series of transitionals linking reptiles and amphibians, for instance, is so good that it's entirely arbitrary were you draw the line. Although living reptiles and mammals can be distinguished by dozens and dozens of marked skeletal traits, the fossil forms can only be separated by the trivial detail of a single articulation in the jaw. Literally every other feature is either intermediate or appears on both sides of the "line".

Good point. That's exactly what is happening with this handsome critter. This specimen really is a transitional because folks are still arguing over how it should be classified. (Note its position in the chart which follows; hint--in the upper center):

---

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

[GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos]

Aside from your numbers being gross emotional exaggerations, I agree. Biomed and Global Warming have the most corrupt scientists living off grants. I do not trust doctors and scientists anymore. And I DO NOT go to see ignorant doctors. Haven't seen one in over ten years and my health hasn't been better since I was in my 20's. Every time I've gone to a doctor, their pills and so-called cures made things worse. Diet and moderation are the only things that have improved my health. The FDA and most scientists today, are more interested in profits and their political agendas than the truth.