Posted on 09/24/2001 1:12:24 PM PDT by ThinkPlease
Tonight is the beginning of the Evolution Series on PBS. I thought I'd open up some threads of discussion here prior, during and after the telecast of the episodes.
Here's PBS's homepage for the telecast:
And Here's something from the Discovery Institute, who is evidently irritated about turning down free publicity on the telecast. (They were offered time on the final night of the telecast, and turned down PBS.)
No it's not. Your saying it is does not make it so. Your reaching pal.
On one hand the evolutionists say that the fossil record proves evolution,
No. Evolutionists say that the Evolution is the best explanation for the fossil record so far.
... on the other hand they say that anything could have been related to anything else and the bones can't show the relationship.
What? No they don't! No one is saying anything could be related to anything and bones can't show the relationship. Again you are just stating your own misconceptions as to what Evolutionists are saying.
No. Evolutionists say that the Evolution is the best explanation for the fossil record so far."
Not according to your statements. You said that a labrador may end up as the ancestor to an otter in post#250. Clearly your statement means that it is impossible to trace evolution through fossils. It really agrees with some of the statements I have made: that the fossil record does not show enough about a species to be certain of who its ancestors and descendants are. It also agrees with my statement that paleontologists totally misuse fossils to prove whatever they want.
You and your fellow evos keep shouting this mantra, but you (plural) cannot point us to any evidence to support it. We (creationists) keep pointing to examples which disprove evolution and give evidence against it, and all that you (plural) can do is repeat the above mantra. Seems to me that at some point in the discussion you (evolutionists) have to put up or shut up.
Do we? I've heard this specious argument before, and I have NEVER seen a definition of "Kind" in a creationist book or tract. "kind" seems to be a catch all word for whatever the creationist wants it to be.
Evolutional theory says animals don't necessarity reproduce their own kind but that they reproduce all kinds of freaks and the "fittest" survive. This has NEVER been observed; therefore, we have the Bible's teaching as observed fact and the theory of evolution as a fantasy that does not exist outside of an athiest's closed mind.
Its funny you mention that there are no transitionals around. The Water to land transition happened over 300 million years ago! All of the transitionals are gone! Long extinct because of better adapted species! There are some current analogues to the transitionals, like the mudskipper, and the lungfish, but for the most part, animals with fully developed legs are better off than animals with flippers, on land, anyway. In the ocean, animals with flexible fins are better off than those with inflexible ones.
Have you been watching the PBS special? For you to say that evolution has never been to occur suggests to me that you haven't. During the first night, and last nights chapter, they mentioned several examples of natural selection. Viruses, and hummingbirds are just two examples that I gleaned from the parts I have seen thus far. I would encourage you to not use the bible as a scientific tome of knowledge, it is not exactly accurate in that manner (after all, it says that pi=3,right?)
But you have problems with facts, truths, and reality, don't you?
I just gave you convincing proof of Darwin's atheism and you continue to slime me about not proving my statements. You are clearly just a slimer and a very dishonest person. Now you owe me an apology for your last two posts.
Correct, it is hard to see and hear with your eyes shut and your hands over your ears and you are screaming "LALALALALALALALALA" at the top of your lungs.
He replied:An appropriate post . . . for an idiot.
The truth hurts, I bet.
No I didn't. You lie! I never said a labrador could end up as an ancestor to an otter. I said:
All living things are potential missing links to some future species. Today's labrador retrievers may be tomorrow's otter-like carnivors, and the only evidence that labradors ever existed might be the discovery of a partial skull by some future paleontologist showing canine type fissures in the palate, even though that future otter-like labrador descended species looks more like an otter or a whale than whatever other terrestrial canines still exist at that future date.
I precisely stated an otter-like carnivore as an example of a common aquatic body-type that land animals seem to acquire when transitioning from land to aquatic species. This would also serve as an illustration for convergence - when two non-related species vying for the same ecological nich, assume the same outward appearance despite their genetic gulf, such as the Ichthyosaurus and the modern dolphin, or the Pliocene's thylacosmilid, which was a saber toothed marsupial which looked very much like the big cat, smilodon, but of course evolved from the marsupial branch, not the mammilian branch.
Clearly your statement means that it is impossible to trace evolution through fossils.
Do you always just make up sentences like the one above, devoid of any meaning. Talk about non-sequiters!
It really agrees with some of the statements I have made: that the fossil record does not show enough about a species to be certain of who its ancestors and descendants are. It also agrees with my statement that paleontologists totally misuse fossils to prove whatever they want.
Some species have a sparse fossil record, others have a pretty thorough record, enough to make the case for their lineage through empirical demonstration. No. Paleontologists do not totally misuse fossils to prove whatever they want. For sure there are probably some who are intellectually dishonest, but the vast majority are redefining their evolotionary trees with each new discovery of good fossils. Good paleontologists adapt their hypothosis to accurately fit the the evidence as best they can, the way good scientists should and do.
I've noticed that Creationists never offer evidence of their own theory. Wonder why that is?
He said "otter-like animal" not otter. Of course, as your the person who believes platypi are relatives of ducks this distinction is probably lost on you.
Idiot.
(What's a seal? What's a sea otter? What's a penguin? What's this whole class of animals called amphibians? Their larvae are fully aquatic but their adults are air-breathers.)
I fail to see a problem with evolution. Species responds to pressures placed on it by the environment, which causes individuals who are physically better able to handle the new environment to survive easier. If there is no pressure, there is no real selection for a new species. The shark, on one hand, has changed quite a bit in 65 million years, while appearing to retain some of the characteristics that made it a "shark". See Discovery.com for a few fanciful graphic renderings of existing shark fossils.
As far as the coelocanth, the thousand coelocanths remaining after all of this time are but one species that closely resembles that of one of the 120 species gleaned from fossils we have 400 million years ago. It doesn't sound particularly successful to me. It sounds like the coelocanth has found its tiny niche, and is successful there. Link www.dinofish.com
I don't know much about blowfish, so I must defer there.
My point remains that since since evolution is a statistical process, and only responds to selective pressures in the environment, therefore a species will not change if there is no reason to change. Evolution does not dictate change for change's sake.
You are correct in that it is a question evolution cannot answer. It is also a question that intelligent design cannot answer either, therefore there is no refutation. Intelligent design is just a glorified thought experiment trying to come up a way to come up with a way to scientifically test for God. They are welcome to try, but I suspect they will be spinning their wheels for a good long t time. I still have yet to see a scientific paper that has been peer reviewed by other scientists in the field of evolutionary biology testing any tenets of ID theory. Until then, they are philosophers playing at being scientists.
With all due respect, your statement that there is evidence in support of Evolution is not evidence. It is, in fact, the lack of evidence that leads me to reject the "theory". And theories don't compete. They're either correct or incorrect. Einstein's theory encompasses Newton's Mechanics but they don't compete. One is "truer", more encompassing, than the other. Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity have both been found to be, based upon the evidence, correct in their domains. It is their reconciliation by means of a broader Theory of Everything that is being currently attempted with, for example, SuperStrings Theory. Here, it is my opinion that we may indeed have found a mathematical Theory of Everything but that it is our inadequate capacity to conceptualize its implications that stands in the way.
Correct.
therefore, there should today be all kinds of transitional creatures still evolving, i.e., fish with nubs for legs, fish wish short little legs, fish with half legs, fish with full legs, land animals with fins, small fins, ad nasuem.
Incorrect. The environment in which the original fish (and other creatures) became amphibious and then land dwellers no longer exists. Now there is a great deal of competition from existing amphibians and land dwellers, so there's little opportunity or pressure for sea creatures to become land creatures.
Of course they do--they are all competing for mindshare among scientists and laypersons (a form of memetic, as opposed to genetic, evolution). There are an infinite number of theories that explain why objects fall to the ground when they're released--the best ones are adopted by the most people.
They're either correct or incorrect.
Theories can be said to be incorrect (i.e., don't account adequately to explain the phenomena in question, or do not adequately predict future behavior), but never correct (i.e., they can be falsified, but never proven to be absolutely true).
There is always Einstein's theory encompasses Newton's Mechanics but they don't compete.
I didn't claim that those particular theories compete--they are actually complementary, and in fact, Newton is just a special case of relativity.
One is "truer", more encompassing, than the other. Quantum Mechanics and the Theory of Relativity have both been found to be, based upon the evidence, correct in their domains.
No, both have been found to describe most phenomena that they purport to describe more accurately than any competing theory (so far). That doesn't mean that there might not be better theories coming along in the future.
They are a transitional form between casabas and bozoomies, as any evolutionist will tell you. Now repeat after me:
Why would a transition just occur at one place and time. It wouldn't, therefore you'd have a much more continious set of species and not the distinctly different sets of today. We can agree to disagree.
I also know enough that the world may be an open system (in terms of outside influences), but it is still a corner of the physical universe (which is closed). So to exempt our planet from physical principles (2LOTD) is hogwash.
I think you'll find that 90% of the people (or higher) already have their mind made up on this (with the exception of impressionable kids). And that forums like this are merely chances for folks to spout off.
Elitist attitudes are prevalent on both sides of the fence, but there's definitely no shortage of it from those who are Evolutionist Fundamentalists. Those nasty little details are either dismissed as canards or are just easily dismissed rubbish by those of little intellect. That's how it appears.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." So much for the new age of 'tolerance'. Those that disagree with our ideas (unproven theories... are idiots). Is that how it is?
I've still not heard one good reason why no experiment cannot be undertaken to try to create a dog with a giraffe like neck? The experiement may take a few generations of dogs, but why not in the name of science?
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.