Posted on 01/26/2002 1:14:46 PM PST by Paul Ross
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
The ridiculous reptile to bird theory
And then there is common sense. In a popular evolutionary explanation, here's how reptiles evolved into birds: They wanted to eat flying insects that were out of reach. So the reptiles began leaping, and flapping their arms to get higher. Over millions of years, their limbs transformed into wings by increments, their tough reptilian scales gradually sprouting soft feathers.
But the theory suffers when scrutinized. According to natural selection, a physical trait is acquired because it enhances survival.
The problem is, wings would have no genuine survival value until they reached the point of flight. Birds' wings and feathers are perfectly designed instruments. Those with crippled or clipped wings cannot fly, and are bad candidates for survival. Likewise, the intermediate creature whose limb was half leg, half wing, would fare poorly -- it couldn't fly, nor walk well. Natural selection would eliminate it without a second thought.
Let's raise an even more fundamental question: Why aren't reptiles today developing feathers? Why aren't fish today growing little legs, trying to adapt to land? Shouldn't evolution be ongoing?
The complete lack of a fossil record
Supposedly invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite millions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.
Insects, rodents, bats, pterodactyls and numerous other life forms appear in the fossil record with no trace of fossils showing how they developed.
The main point: If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them. Instead, the fossil record shows animals complete -- not in developmental stages -- the very first time they are seen. And this is just what we would expect if the Bible is right and God created animals whole.
James Perloff is the author of Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism
Technically, we do. Every fossil found, unless it belongs to a dead-end species, is a transitional fossil. What you want for proof is an example from every generation of every organism around. Vade gave you a link to a smooth transition website; if one organism shows a smooth transition through the fossil record, and other species show close to smooth transitions (but there are gaps in that particular organism's fossil record), could we not infer that what held true for the first organism could also hold true for other organisms? Or, should we conclude the first organism evolved and the rest were simply zapped into existence at various points along the fossil record? Or finally, can we conclude that you completely ignore any links anyone gives you? Please note that my seminal work, The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource, contains numerous creationist sites. I do not ignore creationist writings simply because understanding your opponent's (most up-to-date) position makes refutation of his position a bit easier.
It's called Confuciusornis sanctus, and if you can imagine anything closer to halfway between claw and wing . . .
Please read down the 201-220 section of this thread. Your 221 has been rebutted before it was posted. Perloff is an ignoramus columnist for WND.
then he probably argues like Ol' Sparky here. However, that means he probably argues like Gish in a debate, you know, where he's more a master of combative arguementation rather than arguing any evidence. Just my take.
The spokesman for mainstream science, who has about the same amount of time, can either try to rebut as much as possible of this (but there isn't time and he/she will not likely have the needed materials at hand) or simply ignore the C side and present the true picture. (There's barely time to do a good job of that.) Either way, a wander-in audience will not see how little science there is in creation science.
By comparision, none of the big C-side quacks like the web as a debate milieu. It's too easy to research bogus claims and show them up.
Don't forget to check out the whale series, Sparky. It's so good these days, and the creationists made so much hay about it back when it wasn't, that Waggoner made it the star of the show.
Alas, the guy's Home Page reveals him as a minion of Satan.
That's too funny. Great pic!
I used to watch Ralph Nader do this. He was a master of the technique in the days of his book, "Unsafe At Any Speed." The technique, as I studied it, involved this:
1. Use your first 3 minutes to speak very rapidly, with much emotion, and shoot out about 10 lies, rapid fire.Ralph would usually have the audience packed with idiot-students who were his admirers, and they would wildly applaud each "point" he made. To an un-informed member of the audience, it appeared that Ralph was a clear winner.
2. Let your opponent, who has evidence and reason on his side (a Ken Star kind of guy), use his 3 minutes to carefully refute a couple of lies.
3. When it's your turn again, spew out 10 more lies.
4. Repeat (using 10 new lies each round) until the "debate" ends.
5. Result: no time to rebut very much, and most of Ralph's lies would go unchallenged.
VadeRetro is correct, that a "debate" is not the forum to handle such a fraud. It must be done in writing, point for point, so that each lie can be clearly dealt with.
Although Creationists complain bitterly that mainstream Scientific Journals won't publish Creation Science papers, one has to wonder whether they don't secretly see it as a blessing in disguise. By self-publishing their "scientific research," they effectively shield their audience from the very point-by-point analysis and rebuttal to which all science is subjected in mainstream science journals. In short, Creation Science avoids science journals for the same reasons Vade and you have suggested Creationism hucksters prefer live "debate" formats over the rigors of a written format like FR.
Perhaps this also explains why circus and magic acts thrive in live performance formats, but don't translate well to video tape, where the suspicious viewer can stop the tape, back up, and run it in slow motion.
In a word, too much "scrutiny" ruins the effect.
Beep. Circle takes the square. You must really do more reading. Taking Wing: A New View of the Origin of Bird Flight Emerges was posted less than a month ago (Jan. 10). As for the feather thingy, paleontologists have known for decades that feathers preceded flight and probably developed for insulation purposes (for which they are superbly adapted). Evidence for Dinosaur-Bird Transition, The (A Sidebar Thread) was posted on July 9 of last year and has some lovely pictures of feathered dinosaurs. Ah, but you ask, how do we know dinosaurs had feathers? Well, not all dinosaurs had feathers, but some did, and Microscopic Bone Evidence Supports Dinosaur-Bird Evolution.
If you are really interested in actually learning something about bird evolution and not just in spouting off the last thing you heard someone exclaim on the Christian Broadcast Network, you might take a gander at the following sites. I've even included the creationist view on the subject:
So, giving me another lame, unproveable theory to "prove" a theory is no more credible than explaining the wonders of the faser from the Star Trek series works.
The wrist of this raven-sized bird [Archaeopteryx -- VR] was identical to that of the man-sized Deinonychus. Both specimens at the wrist are unlike any other structure ever found and represent a primitive condition of the bird wing. This condition is only expressed by the Hoatzin and these two dinosaurs. There is a unique swivel that allows for extraordinary control of the wrist. Based on this evidence, Ostrom realized that these two had been closely related.Post 219 has a good picture of this.
The theory contradicts thermodyamics. And the evolutionist has to make up imaginary laws that don't exist to try and explain why the theory completely contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
And what moron could possibly believe based on human history that massive, beneficial mutations have occurred when human history indicates mutations are overwhelmingly detrimental.
It takes blind faith to believe this utter stupidity. And, of course, you haven't got the courage of your convictions. Of course, you won't debate a creationist because there is no place to hide. No place to cut and paste more absurd theories to pile on to the ultimate fairy tale. You don't want a real debate because you know you'd get an ass kicking.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nods of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record." (Gould, Stephen J. "The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181
"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even ahistorical theories." (Kitts, David B., "Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, pp. 353-354)
You obviously did not read the Thermodynamics links I gave you. You are definitely showing a lack of desire when it comes to actually understanding the theory you seek to disparage. BTW, when are you going to show proof that creationism is a more viable "theory" than evolution?
Let's see how the argument goes so far:
1) Evolution has 150 years of evidence to corroborate its basic thesis that all organisms change over time and all are descended from a common ancestor. The fossil record backs up this contention as does observation both in nature and in the laboratory. But since evolutionists are all a bunch of Satan-worshipping atheists* evolution is crap.
2) There is no evidence for creationism so we are forced to rely upon a particular interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis and some faulty statistical analysis. This absolutely proves that Biblical Creation is right!
Did I get your position right?
*Yeah, I know. Logically you can't be an atheist and a Satan worshipper, but logic is not the creationist strong suit.
Gould could have been talking about you when he said, "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms."
ME a wuss?
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.