Posted on 01/26/2002 1:14:46 PM PST by Paul Ross
Lets play the game again, shall we?
"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin’s time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it’s rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23)
This is why I think you don't have any brains. I already showed you what this paper really says back in post 200 someplace. That you still insist on misquoting from it makes you look like a complete fool in the eyes of everyone who reads this thread.
"One must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record . . . There is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged." (Ruse, "Is There a Limit to Our Knowledge of Evolution," 1984, p.101)
What Ruse Really said: "But one must acknowledge that there are many, many gaps in the fossil record. Moreover, given the high improbability of fossilization, there is no reason to think that all or most of these gaps will be bridged. In short, we will probably reach a limit of fossil evidence for phylogenies, with many things still unknown. Pertinent information will simply have been lost, irretrievably. (Ruse 1984, p. 101)
And: "Again, certain specific items of evolution seem now to have been established, as firmly as any reasonably minded person could demand or wish. The evolution of birds and mammals springs to mind. The fossil record showing the transitions is rock solid." (Ruse 1984, p. 101)
And: "Coming closer to home, the fossil evidence of our own simian ancestry is overwhelming." (Ruse 1984, p. 101)
"There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be." (Eldredge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, p. 65)
Full quote: "Simpson thought the fossil record had a great deal to say about how evolution occurred - its pace and style, its "tempo and mode." After all, it is in the enormous expanse of geologic time that the evolutionary game has actually been played. But to make such a claim is also to assert that the fossil record is at least complete enough to be taken seriously. Thus the gaps had to be confrunted. And since gaps there certainly are, they must at least in part be a _product_ of the evolutionary process if they were not merely the artifacts of a poor geologic record.
It is the gaps in the fossil record which, perhaps more than any other facet of the natural world, are dearly beloved by creationists. As we shall see when we take up the creationist position, there are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate "transitional" forms between species, but also between larger groups - between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals. In fact, the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be. For example, _Peripatus_, a lobe-legged, wormlike creature that haunts rotting logs in the Southern Hemisphere, appears intermediate in many respects between two of the major phyla on earth today the segmented worms and the arthropods. But few other phyla have such intermediates with other phyla, and when we scan the fossil record for them we find some, but basically little, help. Extinction has surely weeded out many of the intermediate species, but on the other hand, the fossil record is not exactly teeming with their remains. (Eldredge, 1982, p 65-66).
And:
"If evolution was always a slow, steady change from species to species, Simpson pointed out, the transitions between major groups would typically take millions of years, and we should expect to find some fossil evidence of the transitional forms. Not finding them very often, he deduced, implied that evolution sometimes went on rather quickly - in brief, intense spurts. The presence of _some_ intermediates (such as _Archaeopteryx_, the proto-bird) falsified Schindewolf's saltational notions. But the relative scarcity of such intermediates bespoke a major mode of evolution producing truly rapid change - a mode of speciation Simpson called "quantum evolution". (Eldredge 1982, p. 67)
And:
"Paleontologists have, from time to time, blamed gaps solely or partly on the vagaries of the fossil record or have claimed that gaps, to the extent they are there at all, actually tell us something interesting about the nature of the evolutionary process. Few paleontologists (and none now active, as far as I am aware) have ever claimed that anotomically true intermediate forms actually never existed in the course of life's evolutionary history. Paleontologists, whatever their preferred explanation for why obviously intermediate forms are not found more frequently in the fossil record, always point to the intermediates that _have_ been found as evidence that intermediates in fact existed. Creationists respond by refusing to accept the examples as intermediates. (Eldredge 1982, p. 121)
And: "The reason why _archaeopteryx_ delights paleontologists so is that evolutionary theory expects that new characteristics- the "evolutionary novelties" that define a group - will not appear all at the same time in the evolutionary history of the lineage. Some new characters will appear before others. Indeed, the entire concept of an intermediate hinges on this expectation. Creationists imply that any intermediate worthy of the name must exhibit an even gradation between primitive and advanced conditions of each and every anatomical feature. But there is no logical reason to demand of evolution that it smoothly modify all parts simultaneously. It is far more reasonable to expect that at each stage some features will be relatively more advancedthan others; intermediates worthy of the name would have a mixture of primitive retentions of the ancestral condition, some in-between characters, and the fully evolved, advanced condition in yet other anatomical features." (Eldredge 1982, p. 122)
"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524)
Finally what Mawr really said: "The students of diversity raised some obersvational objections to natural selection. On the basis of the survival of superior individuals and the gradual change of populations, one would expect complete continuity in nature, they claimed. What one actually found was nothing but disconilnuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed. How could the sterility barrier between species have possibly evolved by gradual selection? The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories. Higher taxa, like birds and mammals, or beetles and bufferflies, are far too distinct from each other, the skeptics say, to permit the explanation of their origin through gradual evolution by natural selection. Furthermore, how can selection explain the origin of new structures like wings, when the incipient new organs can have no selective value until they are large enough to be fully functional? inally, what is the role of the very small differences amongst the individuals of a population, seen in all gradual evolution (including geographic variation), when, it was said, the differences are far too small to be of selective significance? The defenders of evolution had to be able to refute these objections and had to provide evidence in favour of a rather formidable list of prerequisites of their theory: . . . Neither Darwin nor his supporters were at first able to supply this evidence. As a result the traditional objections were raised again and again, up until recent times, most forcefully by Schindewolf (1936), Goldschmidt (1940), and some French zoologists (Boesiger, 1980). It was not until the period of the new systematics that Rensch, Mayr, and others demonstrated the populational origin of the discontinuities (Mayr, 1942: 1963) and that the geneticists supplied the evidence on the variation needed to permit natural selection to be effective." (Mayr 1982, p. 524-525)
So all four of these quotes do not say what you think that they say. Let me tell you a little secret. Misquoting someone else's words is considered lying in the eyes of God. Isn't lying for Christ still considered lying?
I think I'm going to set up a little database of these quotes, I think something like this would be very educational in the future...
There's more than you, in particular, ever wanted to know about insect evolution starting here, although you might want to take the lecture from its beginning here.
How do people learn? That breaks the Second Law...
How does a person grow from a sperm and an egg? That breaks the Second Law...
Cross my palm with knowledge, O Great One.
The basis of this claim is the fact that while the second law is inviolate in a closed system (i.e., a system in which neither energy nor matter enter nor leave the system), an apparent limited reversal in the direction required by the law can exist in an open system (i.e., a system to which new energy or matter may be added) because energy may be added to the system.
Now, the entire universe is generally considered by evolutionists to be a closed system, so the second law dictates that within the universe, entropy as a whole is increasing. In other words, things are tending to breaking down, becoming less organized, less complex, more random on a universal scale. This trend (as described by Asimov above) is a scientifically observed phenomenon—fact, not theory.
The evolutionist rationale is simply that life on earth is an “exception” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things.” This supply of available energy, we are assured, adequately satisfies any objection to evolution on the basis of the second law.
But simply adding energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, or “build-up” rather than “break-down”). Raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy—in fact, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, both with and then without the addition of solar radiation).
Speaking of the general applicability of the second law to both closed and open systems in general, Harvard scientist Dr. John Ross (not a creationist) affirms:
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
Yes it has. Pikaia.
Living systems also have the second essential component—their own built-in mechanisms for effectively converting and storing the incoming energy. Plants use photosynthesis to convert the sun’s energy into usable, storable forms (e.g., proteins), while animals use metabolism to further convert and use the stored, usable, energy from the organisms which compose their diets.
So we see that living things seem to “violate” the second law because they have built-in programs (information) and energy conversion mechanisms that allow them to build up and maintain their physical structures “in spite of” the second law’s effects (which ultimately do prevail, as each organism eventually deteriorates and dies).
While this explains how living organisms may grow and thrive, thanks in part to the earth’s “open-system” biosphere, it does not offer any solution to the question of how life could spontaneously begin this process in the absence of the program directions and energy conversion mechanisms described above—nor how a simple living organism might produce the additional new program directions and alternative energy conversion mechanisms required in order for biological evolution to occur, producing the vast spectrum of biological variety and complexity observed by man.
In short, the “open system” argument fails to adequately justify evolutionist speculation in the face of the second law. Most highly respected evolutionist scientists (some of whom have been quoted above with care—and within context) acknowledge this fact, many even acknowledging the problem it causes the theory to which they subscribe.
Total bull. One of my favorite transitional examples is reptile to mammalian skulls.
The top two are early mammals. The bottom are increasingly old synapsid reptiles. Note the appearance and change in the "synapse," the extra skull hole. Note the wanderings of the rearmost lower jaw bones. They're turning into the mammalian ear bones before your eyes.
Any physical system left to itself will decay, or , lose energy and organization within the system. Instead of being highly organized like our earth's system, everything tends to become gradually disorganized. All life on this planet will become more disorderly and die.
This statement was true when Colbert (as quoted by Gish in your earlier cut-and-past) said something similar in 1955. It isn't true now. For you to still be saying this on this thread, with what's been posted to you already on whale transitionals, amounts to a barefaced lie.
Unless you want to plead that you're simply cutting and pasting without reading or understanding and--in the case of this post of yours--without attribution.
I could go on about the nameless and authorless article you pasted into reply 307, but I'll content myself with the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils. There are something over 200 there, and those are just the vertebrates. Also, it's seldom up-to-date. There are apparently just too many new ones being found all the time.
Damn, Sparky actually quoted someone more or less in context! Someone write this down! And he's absolutely correct, too! The problem with Sparky's argument is that since evolution doesn't break the second law, so he's got the right quote for the wrong reason. Poor Sparky. Someday he'll actually understand what the second law actually says.
The Cosmic Microwave Background provides a picture of the universe 300K years ABB (After Big Bang). It was an almost perfectly even gas of hydrogen with some helium and a little lithium. The information content of this universe was nearly zero.
The tiny density differences were all gravity needed to start a runaway condensation process that created stars and galaxies. Nuclear chemistry within the stars created heavier elements. So far, no ordering principle except the laws of physics, but the potential energy of the universe is winding down and the information / order content is going up.
Supernovae result when big stars run out of fuel. They blow heavy elements out into the interstellar medium, where they get incorporated into later-generation solar systems like our own.
Chemical reaction in space and on planets create complex "organic" chemicals. No ordering principle there except electrons doing what they do in their orbital mechanics.
We're almost to life, the universe has run down and increased order, and we haven't violated the Second Law yet. Physicist has a nice animation of some of this if you want to ask him.
Some excerpts:
"Science" (the very meaning of which is knowledge) necessarily can deal only with those things which exist at present. The scientific method involves reproducibility, the study of present natural processes. When men attempt to interpret the events of the prehistoric past or the eschatological future, they must necessarily leave the domain of true science (whose measurements can be made only in the present) and enter the realm of faith.[snip]
The important point, here, is that one may pretty well believe what he wants to believe. He can erect a logical system within which he can explain all the physical data upon any one of any number of mutually exclusive and contradictory premises. But we are concerned here mainly with the Biblical framework, and with the assumption that the Bible is truly the Word of God as it claims to be. If one starts with the presupposition that God has written the Bible as His own perfect revelation of the origin, purpose, and destiny of the world, then it again is perfectly possible to correlate all the physical data of science and history within that framework. The decision as to which presupposition leads to the most logical and self-consistent system of interpretation must necessarily be based on statistical arguments, and these are notoriously subjective in nature. Thus, in the last analysis, it is a spiritual and moral decision rather than a scientific decision.
So how is h2o bonding in geometric shapes different that genes in a DNA strand forming in a double helix to form natural life? We become more orderly at the expense of our surroundings, as does all life on this planet! It is easily shown that such order is not temporary, and can last for millions of years! It is not a stretch to take the lesson one learns from a snowflake and apply them to atoms combining to make organic molecules in outer space, and here on our earth. After all organic molecules have been seen in enough places in space borne meteorites as well as giant molecular clouds that show us that complex things CAN form in no violation of the 2LoT. Read up on these things before you proclaim your ignorance to the world.
How can an inquirer be led to saving faith in the divine Word if the context in which that Word is found is filled with error? How can he trust the Bible to speak truly when it tells of salvation and heaven and eternity which he is completely unable to verify empirically he finds that data which are subject to test are fallacious? Surely if God is really omnipotent and omniscient, He is as well able to speak with full truth and perspicuity when He speaks of earthly things as when He speaks of heavenly things.I consider this to be an important statement. It has an awful lot to do with what is going generally on these crevo threads.
But to assess your "crown jewel" if "transitional" forms:
Synapsids allegedly evolved from evolved from within the Protorothyridae, a family in the order Captorhinida in the subclass Anapsida. (Carroll, 199-201.) According to the fossil record, however, synapsids and anapsids appear simultaneously. (Carroll, Robert L. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W. H. Freeman. New York.)
Of course, one can always argue that anapsids actually preceded synapsids and that their contemporaneous appearance in the fossil record is due to the vagaries of fossilization, but it should be acknowledged that in doing so one has moved from data to speculation. One could just as easily claim that synapsids preceded anapsids.
Synapsids aren't evidence of a missing link. At best, they represent one of the few potential forms that could be plugged into an evolutionary tree. The problem is that most of the evolutionary trees don't even exist in theory, let alone backed by allowed "transitional" fossils.
“...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated [closed] systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems ... there is somehow associated with the field of far-from equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.”
[Dr. John Ross, Harvard scientist (evolutionist), Chemical and Engineering News, vol. 58, July 7, 1980, p. 40]
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.