Posted on 04/17/2008 4:07:06 PM PDT by Aristotelian
If you'll excuse my butting in,
I read Niles Eldridge's "Time Frames," which I found quite revealing. By his own account, he set out to demonstrate evolution in the fossil record.
He chose the trilobite Phacops rana because its ubiquity and high skeletal definition seemed particularly suited to demonstrating gradual change in an organism over time. He describes how month after month, year after year his research went on until he was so bleary-eyed on the bus ride home that he couldn't even read.
Then he struck gold! In an Ohio road cut, he found examples that went, apparently fairly rapidly, from 18 rows of compound eyes, to 17 rows, and then to 15! For Eldridge, it was the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
The reduction in complexity from 18 to 17 to 15 rows sealed the deal:
Complexity reduces to simplicity over time THEREFORE complexity arises from simplicity!!!
Eureka!!! ---Or something.
Yes, absolutely. But so what?
Species becoming reproductively isolated is not enough to demonstrate Darwinian evolution, is it?
Yes, absolutely. But so what?It is. It's trivially easy to prove that phenotype changes according to environment. Once you have reproductive isolation you have evolution.Species becoming reproductively isolated is not enough to demonstrate Darwinian evolution, is it?
Taking a species, and little by little trashing its DNA is a retrogression, a Devolution. (look it up, it's word, ---not that any self-respection Evolutionist would use it).
The processes by which tapestries unravel are not the same as the processes by which tapestries are woven together, ---not by a l-o-o-o-o-ng shot. Good night, may the Great Not-Actor bless you richly.
The reduction in complexity from 18 to 17 to 15 rows sealed the deal:Evolution works both ways, think about the massive size and weird complexity of dinosaurs for example. Dinosaurs get hit with an extinction event and then you end up with just little mammals and birds(a gross simplification, but you get my point). It's cyclic.Complexity reduces to simplicity over time THEREFORE complexity arises from simplicity!!!
Eureka!!! ---Or something.
Don’t be to hasty in your assumptions about reproduction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM
Gotta run, so I'll leave you with this: Taking a species, and little by little trashing its DNA is a retrogression, a Devolution. (look it up, it's word, ---not that any self-respection Evolutionist would use it).Not sure what you're trying to say here, but I'll point out the evolution is *cyclic*, see my earlier post. Tapestries unravel and weave back together all the time, often in the same way(regular and marsupial wolves for example).The processes by which tapestries unravel are not the same as the processes by which tapestries are woven together, ---not by a l-o-o-o-o-ng shot. Good night, may the Great Not-Actor bless you richly.
Dont be to hasty in your assumptions about reproduction.BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM
Thanks you made my day.
But how is it a blow to the idea of the evolution of man? It it a bipedal ape. It isn’t a human with a large brain, bu it is obviously an intermediate between a knuckle walking ape and a bipedal human. By what logic does one think that its discovery is a blow to the theory? Who said it needed a human sized brain to be an intermediate?
And I believe in COMPETENT design. The “designer” of Behe’s imagining is an incompetent who created a system for changing biological systems (selection of genetic variation) that is somehow incapable of any major biological change or innovation.
Good thing you have no qualification or grounds to grade me other than in your own insignificant opinion.
(”Devolution. (look it up, its a word,-—not that any self-respecting Evolutionist would use it”)
1: Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2007 Feb;57(Pt 2):201-6. Links
Evolution and devolution of minimal standards for descriptions of species of the class Mollicutes: analysis of two Spiroplasma descriptions.Whitcomb RF.
PMID: 17267949 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
If Darwin supposed humans came from apes, and said he thinks fossil evidence might support this. We are bipedal apes with big brains. Austrolopithocine fossils were found and they are bipedal apes with small brains. You think that they have small brains means that they couldn't be transitional, or that this is a blow to Darwin's theory?
What about the Cambrian explosion? It happened a long time ago in the Cambrian period and was an “explosion” of complexity in living systems.
Do you think it revealed the “hand of the Incompetent Designer” or something?
If you read my post you will note that I have not taken a position on evolution, only supplying information.
“Further (Darwin) believed that the fossil record would prove him correct or incorrect. On the basis of the fossil record since his book he is loosing the battle.” tongass kid
So far you have yet to provide any example of what you mean.
Thought you might enjoy the quotes.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.