Posted on 09/27/2009 2:04:48 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Ho-Hum, Another Feathered Dinosaur
--snip--
Last January when the most recent flap about feathered dinosaurs made the rounds (01/21/2009), we listed 18 questions that should be asked before believing the claims made about bird and feather evolution. It would be a good time to review those again (see also footnote 3). The rush to judgment and eagerness to prove dinobird evolution should raise red flags...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
See you later. I enjoyed watching the game with you.
O.K.,Good night.
Ask the evos. They're the ones lumping them together more than anyone.
For that matter, IDers and evos ought to be lumped together because they share a great many beliefs, like evolution. The only difference there is that the IDers see intelligence and design in life while hard core evos deny it.
Otherwise, they have far more in common with each other than IDers have with creationists.
This goes back to GGGs #33 where he links them three times in one post.
That just doesn't fit with the agenda of getting all the differing opinions at each other's throats.
What fun is it if someone can't pit everyone against the other and get the OEC, YEC, and IDers infighting so that DC has something to keep it going?
That may be the case on this thread, but in general, that’s not the case.
Normally, it’s the evos lumping creationists and IDers together, with the usual accusation that ID is creationism in disguise and just a way to sneak creationism in the back door (of schools, primarily).
So, no one is going to believe your nonsense to the contrary.
Where are anyu IDers? You are the closest thing I have seen but you have not come out of the closet.
Usually, I am the one trying to correct the creationists that identify with ID.
Just updating the tag line... there must be an easier way!
When I read the Origin of the Species ... (it's a long and interesting title), I was struck by how much Darwin emphasized an evolutionary process that was very slow and uniform. It wasn't just a detail of evolution, it was the essential nature of the evolutionary argument. At one points, he says that rapid evolution would be indistinguishable from a miracle.
Then Gould and Etheridge came along with their rapid evolution theory. Is the difference just a non-essential detail of timing? Or is it something more?
Let's say that Darwin's hangup (if you will) with slow evolution is not central to the argument. (That would put one at odds with Darwin, but a modern evolutionist would say that's O.K., that's just how science works.). Still, there are implications. Darwin admitted that the fossil record did not support his theory. But he thought that, in time, new discoveries would prove him right.
Doctrinaire evolutionists simply say the evidence supported Darwin. Gould and Etheridge admitted that the evidence still did not support Darwin's slow theory of evolution. They came up with rapid evolution with smaller populations. By their theory, we wouldn't really expect to find transitional fossils.
It seems that Darwin's original theory has not been supported by the evidence. The punctuated equilibrium theory of Gould and Etheridge is a theory that protects itself from the evidence.
Nice...now if we can just find you a few more writers!
6. Common errors in discussion of PE
Many errors can be found in discussion of the concept of PE. G&E 1977 point out several of these.
PE is not mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. Gould and Eldredge take pains to explicitly point out that PE is an expansive theory, not an exclusive one (1977).
PE sometimes is claimed to be a theory resting upon the lack of evidence rather than upon evidence. This is a curious, but false claim, since Eldredge and Gould spent a significant portion of their original work examining two separate lines of evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites) demonstrating the issues behind PE (1972). Similarly, discussion of actual paleontological evidence consumes a significant proportion of pages in Gould and Eldredge 1977. This also answers those who claimed that E&G said that PE was unverifiable.
PE is essentially and exclusively directed to questions at the level of speciation and processes affecting species. The basis of PE is the neontological theory of peripatric speciation. The criteria by which “punctuations” are recognized by Gould and Eldredge involve temporal issues and geographic issues. PE is not expected to be as useful at lower or higher levels of change.
PE is by no means either synonymous with “saltationism”, nor did Gould’s essay on Richard Goldschmidt “link” PE with Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” conjecture. Gould wrote an article that has caused much confusion. “Return of the hopeful monsters” sought to point out that a hatchet job had been done on some of the concepts that Richard Goldschmidt had formulated. The discussion of systemic mutations as mutations which affect rate or timing of development has caused many people to assume that Gould was somehow linking PE to this concept. A close reading of the article shows this to not be the case.
Gould and Eldredge did not specify any particular genetic mechanism for PE. PE does not require large scale mutations.
PE is not a saltational theory of evolution. The emphasis upon applying consequences of peripatric speciation to paleontology shows this critique to be unfounded. PE is no more saltational than peripatric speciation is in study of modern organisms.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#errors
Interesting tag line for one that places all his faith in something for which there is no proof.
I'm not sure if you're going to construct a ping list, but if you do, put me on it. I may or may not participate in the debate, but I do however want to read the thread...
And how did reason come into the world? As is only befitting, by accident. One must guess at it, as at a riddle. - F.N.
You’re a master of irony, CW. There’s no way I thought of that!
Now, thank you for agreeing with the fact you have no proof for evolution. We’re finally getting somewhere.
Now, thank you for agreeing that you have finally agreed that the evolutionary theory is a valid theory.
All it takes to be a creationist is a low IQ, and a mind invulnerable to facts and rational thought.
Well, it’s later.
Then does Darwinism make a case or include some thought that life has purpose and came in existence with direction to some purpose? Conversely do the Scriptures NOT make the statement that life has purpose and direction? So where is the bias or lack of understanding?
You said “In the above.” What’s the bias? What’s the lack of understanding?
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.