Ever heard of those warblers in Asia?
Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
I seem to have lost the point of the thread after 900+ posts. Has anyone addressed the question of who designed the designer? Or is this all about GoddiditbecauseIsaidso? And anythingIdontunderstandmustbemagic?
Now there are signs that geologists and biologists are becoming uncomfortable with their Lyellian glasses. Some are daring to give expression to their malaise, pointing to blind spots and distortions in the overly restrictive view of nature they have inherited from Lyell. In the field of sedimentary geology, for example, the concept of catastrophism has been resurrected, the dust of 100 years of neglect brushed off, and catastrophic explanations offered for many (but not all) features of the earth's crust. The most notable advocate of "neocatastrophism" in geology is Derek Ager. He vividly captures the new catastrophic point of view in geology in these words: "The history of any one part of the earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of long periods of boredom and short periods of terror" (3).So it should not be surprising that a similar view of reality is now emerging in paleontology. The paleontological challenge to Darwinian uniformitarianism is also a return to a more catastrophic view of reality. Any revival of catastrophic views of nature is naturally of keen interest to creationists, whose reaction to the recent developments could justifiably be — "At last!"
One of the best articles for understanding the new developments in paleontology is found in a lively and stimulating professional journal called Paleobiology. The article is entitled "Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered," and is written by Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History. Here, Gould and Eldredge vigorously restate their theory, defend it against its critics, and summarize the status of the debate it has inspired.
Have Gould and Eldredge really accepted the creationist critique? Probably not consciously, but listen to the assertions they make about the fossil record and evolution:
1. Paleontologists have dealt with the fossil record in a seriously biased manner. ("Paleontologists have worn blinders that permit them to accumulate cases in one category only: they have sought evidence of slow, steady and gradual change.... other classes of information were explained away or simply ignored....") (p.116).
2. Stability is more fundamental than change. ("... most species ... either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction.") (p. 115).
3. The gaps in the fossil record are real and will not go away with more collecting. ("The punctuations that mark the fossil record do not smooth out as stratigraphic resolution improves.") (p. 118).
4. The processes that produce small-scale changes in living organisms are inadequate to explain the origin of the tremendous variety of living forms. ("Genetic substitution within populations cannot be simply extrapolated to encompass all events in the history of life.") (p. 139).
5. Rates of change are far too slow to account for macroevolution. ("The characteristic rates of supposed gradualistic events ... are too slow to account ... for adaptive radiations and the origin of new morphological designs.") (p. 133).
All of these points have been raised by creationists, though, sad to say, rarely as cogently or with comparable sophistication. [I'm insulted!]
Although these new developments will be (and should be) viewed by creationists as a sort of vindication, it is quite unlikely that creationist views will now achieve greater acceptance in paleontology. After all, the title of Gould and Eldredge's article is not: "Punctuated Equilibria: Evolution Reconsidered!"
Why have I never been given a woodpecker tongue? [Ambiguous pronoun. Gotta watch that stuff.]
I'm always open to learning something new.
Good answer.
Me too.
See, there you go again with the name calling and the cryptic remarks. Why did idiocy take hold? What was wrong with the post to which you were replying? You are not adding anything here.
But the idiocy I refer to was more on the bringing the discussion back to pedestrian petty argument mysideyourside level than about the intron issue.
Nah!
Nothing is sufficiently clear that it isn't obscured by another round of tallhappy ad hominem. At least, tallhappy hopes so.
“And so, random operations of chance totally fail in the origination of complex specified informational molecules in living things. The opposite of "randomness" and "chance" ----is NOT chance ----which is the same as intentionality and willful purposefulness. Thus, it would seem that anyone with an open mind to the facts of the situation would deduct that an intelligent designer is the only logical explanation for the initial origin of much (or at least some) of the complex specified information in biological systems. This conclusion is not arrived at by irrational faith, but the deduction comes from a calm evaluation of empirical facts rigorously verified in the laboratory and analyzed by accepted logic and mathematical probability procedures. “
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?Evolution as Fact and Theory, by Stephen J. Gould.
I've linked you Don Lindsay's Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium how many times now, and yet you cling to the Duane Gish version. How is this excusable?
If so, then we could agree that my "religion" as you think of it, is based in facts, while your religion is based on nonsensical, factually empty "faith," which relies on the absense of fact, intellect or reason, to promote itself... You believe in the tooth-fairy, Santa Claus and a government that really will care about you...
Between the two, I'd rather be in my religion then yours...
Sorry, but you are still the weakest link... Good-Bye!
You guys have weird ego problems or something.
And again you have no idea what you are talking about.
As stated above, the answer is nebulis is wrong. If he had added "the presence of introns" to the statement that would be better and debatable.
What's so funny is you said cell wall and I didn't give you any trouble or grief but the type of failed attempt at technicality you guys make here vis-a-vis introns goes much more so in talking about cell wall.
It seems you want to play the argue game of mysideyourside, werightyouwrong.
I was hoping perhaps a discussion of molecular biology would have been on the way, but alas you guys can't help but be defensive and belligerant.
What are you scared of?
It is analogous to a person who claimed to base their religion on everything in the Bible but who is actually illiterate.
You guys claim to base your beliefs on fact and science but are actually illiterate of the science you claim to believe.
Here is where you once again cannot read. A thread on "Common Creationist Arguments" is not particularly [key music, dancing girls] The tallhappy Molecular Biology Quiz Hour!
It's really about anything we want it to be. If Aquinasfan wants to defend "I don't know; that would be second-guessing the Designer" as science, worth throwing out the accumulated knowledge so far of the history of life on earth, I'm free to attack. I could hardly restrain myself, really. You're free to make all the distractions you can bluster muster, but I doubt you can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by yelling "Hey! Look over here! You're a poo-poo head!"
I can see why you tend to snipe a little and disappear for months at a time. Your style's too easy to solve.
Why do you keep talking about someone else?
I have not read any of his posts.
Perhaps if you could actually sustain and follow an informed discussion of molecular biology one would be interested in talking to you.
You'd rather argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
I have been as straightforward as possible in all my comments. There is no style involved nor anything to solve.
Well, when you think of something actually on-topic and informative, force yourself!
(Snort!)
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.