Posted on 02/05/2002 8:18:30 AM PST by JediGirl
For those of us who are constantly checking up on the crevo threads, why do you debate the merits (or perceived lack thereof) of evolution?
Well, it's not "my" site. Second, it's not even really the place I was suggesting people go to. www.talkorigins.org is just the FAQ(s) and resource materials that some folks on the talk.origins *newsgroup* have put together.
While it is an excellent resource in its own right, I was actually suggesting that people go to the talk.origins newsgroup itself, and participate in some of the ongoing discussions there.
I was looking for the forum, and the FAQ's you mentioned. Noticing the "how to debate a creationist" I see the forum is an evolutionist's site designed by evolutionists for evolutionists.
No, the actual "forum" (the talk.origins newsgroup) is open to anyone, and like most Usenet forums, is not moderated or "owned" or "run" by anyone. It's a free, open, public forum.
The www.talkorigins.org *website*, on the other hand, was indeed assembled by some of the talk.origins regulars who happened to be evolutionists, and thus of course it will be presented from their perspective. There are, however, FAQs and websites which have been published by creationist regulars of talk.origins as well, although I don't recall the links right now.
I tend to agree with your analysis of crevo debates here (as well as other places). Yet I would question the site-author whether his/her issue should be with the 'ignorance of creationists' and their short-term rhetorical arguments ......or the format of internet chat and message boards itself.
If that's all you found on www.talkorigins.org, you haven't browsed very deeply. How to debate with creationists is just one tiny part of that vast website. Most of it is focused on the "origins" topic itself, and not on the act of debating it.
First, Darwin admitted it because at the time, not many fossils (of any sort) had been found, cataloged, and researched, nor was it easy for researchers in different parts of the globe to share or compare findings. The fossil evidence in his day *was* weak.
That has changed immensely in the past 143 years.
Today, there's an enormous body of fossil evidence for transitory forms -- and these resoundingly confirm the predictions of evolution.
For just one example, consider the whales. They are clearly mammals, and they they differ in many fundamental ways from land mammals. Evolution postulates that all mammals must have branched from the same "family tree", and thus the whales must have descended (and evolved) from earlier land-dwelling mammal ancestors.
And yet, as little as 50 years ago, the fossil evidence for such a transition was spotty. But fossil discoveries over the past few decades have filled in most of the gaps very nicely and *in exactly the way that evolution predicts*. Even more interestingly, creationism has no good explanation for the existence of various fossils that lie along a stepwise path between land-dwelling mammals and the whales.
From the talkorigins.org archives:
I'm sorry, what was that you were saying about the evidence for transitional forms being "very weak"?Cetaceans (whales, dolphins)
Just several years ago, there was still a large gap in the fossil record of the cetaceans. It was thought that they arose from land-dwelling mesonychids that gradually lost their hind legs and became aquatic. Evolutionary theory predicted that they must have gone through a stage where they had were partially aquatic but still had hind legs, but there were no known intermediate fossils. A flurry of recent discoveries from India & Pakistan (the shores of the ancient Tethys Sea) has pretty much filled this gap. There are still no known species-species transitions, and the "chain of genera" is not complete, but we now have a partial lineage, and sure enough, the new whale fossils have legs, exactly as predicted. (for discussions see Berta, 1994; Gingerich et al. 1990; Thewissen et al. 1994; Discover magazine, Jan. 1995; Gould 1994)
- Eoconodon or similar triisodontine arctocyonids (early Paleocene) Unspecialized condylarths quite similar to the early oxyclaenid condylarths, but with strong canine teeth (showing first meat-eating tendencies), blunt crushing cheek teeth, and flattened claws instead of nails.
- Microclaenodon (mid-Paleocene) -- A transitional genus intermediate between Eoconodon and the mesonychids, with molar teeth reorganizing in numerous ways to look like premolars. Adapted more toward carnivory.
- Dissacus (mid-Paleocene) -- A mesonychid (rather unspecialized Paleocene meat-eating animal) with molars more like premolars & several other tooth changes. Still had 5 toes in the foot and a primitive plantigrade posture.
- Hapalodectes or a very similar mesonychid (early Eocene, around 55 Ma) -- A small mesonychid with very narrow shearing molars, a distinctively shaped zygomatic arch, and peculiar vascularized areas between the molars. Probably a running animal that could swim by paddling its feet. Hapalodectes itself may be just too late to be the whale ancestor, but probably was a close relative of the whale ancestor. Says Carroll (1988): "The skulls of Eocene whales bear unmistakable resemblances to those of primitive terrestrial mammals of the early Cenozoic. Early [whale] genera retain a primitive tooth count with distinct incisors, canines, premolars,, and multirooted molar teeth. Although the snout is elongate, the skull shape resembles that of the mesonychids, especially Hapalodectes...."
- Pakicetus (early-mid Eocene, 52 Ma) -- The oldest fossil whale known. Same skull features as Hapalodectes, still with a very terrestrial ear (tympanic membrane, no protection from pressure changes, no good underwater sound localization), and therefore clearly not a deep diver. Molars still have very mesonychid-like cusps, but other teeth are like those of later whales. Nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole). Whale- like skull crests and elongate jaws. Limbs unknown. Only about 2.5 m long. This skull was found with terrestrial fossils and may have been amphibious, like a hippo.
- Ambulocetus natans (early-mid Eocene, 50 Ma) -- A recently discovered early whale, with enough of the limbs and vertebrae preserved to see how the early whales moved on land and in the water. This whale had four legs! Front legs were stubby. Back legs were short but well-developed, with enormous broad feet that stuck out behind like tail flukes. Had no true tail flukes, just a long simple tail. Size of a sea lion. Still had a long snout with no blowhole. Probably walked on land like a sea lion, and swam with a seal/otter method of steering with the front feet and propelling with the hind feet. So, just as predicted, these early whales were much like modern sea lions -- they could swim, but they could also still walk on land. (Thewissen et al., 1994)
- Rodhocetus (mid-Eocene, 46 Ma) -- Another very recent (1993) fossil whale discovery. Had hind legs a third smaller than those of A. natans. Could probably still "waddle" a bit on land, but by now it had a powerful tail (indicated by massive tail vertebrae) and could probably stay out at sea for long periods of time. Nostrils had moved back a bit from the tip of the snout.
- Basilosaurus isis, Protocetes, Indocetus ramani and similar small-legged whales of the mid-late Eocene (45-42 Ma) -- After Rodhocetus came several whales that still had hind legs, but couldn't walk on them any more. For example, B. isis (42 Ma) had hind feet with 3 toes and a tiny remnant of the 2nd toe (the big toe is totally missing). The legs were small and must have been useless for locomotion, but were specialized for swinging forward into a locked straddle position -- probably an aid to copulation for this long-bodied, serpentine whale. B. isis may have been a "cousin" to modern whales, not directly ancestral. Another recent discovery is Protocetes, a slightly more advanced whale from the late Eocene. It was about 3m long (dolphin sized), and still had primitive dentition, nostrils at end of snout, and a large pelvis attached to the spine; limbs unknown. Finally Indocetus is known from only fragmentary remains, but these include a tibia. These late Eocene legged whales still had mesonychid-like teeth, and in fact, some of the whale fossils were first mis-identified as mesonychids when only the teeth were found. ( See Gingerich et al. (1990) for more info on B. isis.)
- Prozeuglodon (late Eocene, 40 Ma) Another recently discovered whale, found in 1989. Had almost lost the hind legs, but not quite: still carried a pair of vestigial 6- inch hind legs on its 15-foot body.
- Eocetus, & similar "archeocete whales" of the late Eocene These more advanced whales have lost their hind legs entirely, but retain a"primitive whale" skull and teeth, with unfused nostrils. They grew to larger body size (up to 25m by the end of the Eocene), an had an elongate, streamlined body, flippers, and a cartilaginous tail fluke. The ear was modified for hearing underwater. Note that this stage of aquatic adaptation was attained about 15 million years after the first terrestrial mesonychids.
- Dorudon intermedius -- a late Eocene whale probably ancestral to modern whales.
In the Oligocene, whales split into two lineages:
- Toothed whales:
- Agorophius (late Oligocene) -- Skull partly telescoped, but cheek teeth still rooted. Intermediate in many ways between archaeocetes and later toothed whales.
- Prosqualodon (late Oligocene) -- Skull fully telescoped with nostrils on top (blowhole). Cheek teeth increased in number but still have old cusps. Probably ancestral to most later toothed whales (possibly excepting the sperm whales?)
- Kentriodon (mid-Miocene) -- Skull telescoped, still symmetrical. Radiated in the late Miocene into the modern dolphins and small toothed whales with asymmetrical skulls.
- Baleen (toothless) whales:
- Aetiocetus (late Oligocene) -- The most primitive known mysticete whale and probably the stem group of all later baleen whales. Had developed mysticete-style loose jaw hinge and air sinus, but still had all its teeth. Later,
- Mesocetus (mid-Miocene) lost its teeth.
- Modern baleen whales first appeared in the late Miocene.
And if that's not enough for you, there are dozens of more step-wise transitional lines (each consisting of dozens of steps revealed by discovered fossils) listed at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html.
And that's just a quick sketchy overview of the huge amount of fossil evidence available.
Every fossil is a transitional form. Trying to convince a creationist by finding fossils that fill gaps is a fool's game: each new fossil that fits into a gap leaves two gaps in its wake.
It's usually the same "players" as well. It's the folks here who engage in their pathetic chest-thumping, "more brilliant than thou" attitudes, slapping each other on the back for the latest outrageous and blasphemous (and hugely insulting) drivel aimed at Christians, and insistence that their view of so-called "scientific" theories make any religious beliefs laughable that are a disgrace to an otherwise terrific Web site.
You asked; hope you can take the answer.
Psalm 14:1
That's as may be, but it's orthogonal to this discussion. Creationists try to divert attention by channelling the discussion to a debate about the existence of God, but that issue doesn't even enter into the minds of the evolutionists. I offer this quote:
God made man, but he used the monkey to do it. Ape is the plan, and we're all here to prove it.
-- Devo, "Jocko Homo"
I suggest that you look at the FR threads catalogued by Junior, and count how many threads were started by creationists and how many by evolutionists. I'm certain you'll find that most of the threads were started by Christians for the purpose of bashing science.
Even if all of the threads were started by evolutionists, your position is only tenable if you equate all of Christianity with the narrowest possible literal interpretation of the Old Testament. I daresay most Christians would take exception to that.
Why in the world would you want to borrow a bunch of phoney -- and fraudulent -- quotes? Please study jenny's post 258 and click on the link that she provided. It will astonish you. Virtually every single quote (which on the surface seems so impressive) is out of context, and the person being quoted was really saying the opposite of the impression you are being given.
Of course, there is absolutely no evidence for this point of view because under this system everything that happens would, of necessity, have a completely natural explanation, having been built into the system before execution.
Did you actually READ that web page that she directed you to? It's very important that you see why we hate quote-miners so much. For example, did you actually look up each of those quotes yourself, and verify that the author meant to say what you think he said? If you haven't, did you know that you are guilty of intellectual fraud?
Lets look at a few of the quotes you posted, to show what I mean...
"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."
-Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University
This is an example of an innacurate quote to a T. For example, I have no way of checking to see if he really DID say what you quote, because you don't leave any sort of reference. However, we can note he has also said:
"since we proposed punctuated equilibrium 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. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups."Gould, S.J. (1983) p 260, Hens teeth and Horses toes. Norton & Co., New York
And
"Archaeopteryx, the first bird, is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find."(Gould, S.J. (1991) Bully for Brontosaurus. Penguin, London. 540 pp, p 144-145.
Feel free to look those up in a library, they are in context, and mean exactly what the author meant for them to mean.
In reference to the Patterson quotes:
"I was too naive and foolish to guess what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to Luther Sunderland... Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to stop circulating the transcipt, but of course to no effect. There is not much point in my going through the article point by point. I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field. I do not support the creationist movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify school curricula. In short the article does not fairly represent my views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting 'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal mode of argument." (Letter from Colin Patterson to Stephen Binkley, June 17, 1982).
and
"Chelvam asserts that 'we are drowning' in evidence against darwinism. He cites nothing beyond the remarks attributed to me. It seems possible that he confuses two theories under the name of darwinism, the general theory of common ancestry or descent with modification, and Darwin's special theory of mechanism, natural selection. If he knows of evidence inconsistent with the general theory of common descent, he should tell us what it is. I know of none." (Colin Patterson in a letter to the editor, _Nature_ 332:580, 1988).
Letter from Patterson to T.O. regular
I don't have the time to hit on all of the quotes there, though most of them are improperly quoted so as to make them extremely difficult to track down and interpret the context. Nearly all of them are more than 15 years old (excepting the Denton quote), and more than quite a few are more than 30 years old, with some older than Darwin(funny how someone born before Darwin has an opinion on his theory, eh?)! Science moves on whether you like it or not. We know a lot more now than we did 15 years ago about evolution. Yet creation science has stood stock still for the past 50. I suggest you read jennyp's link. If you want to efficiently argue with a scientist, be scientific, check and recheck your attributions. It is one of the major failings of most creationist webpages that I can think of, and it more than illustrates the state of creation science today, the fact that they have no evidence to support their cause, so they are reduced to putting words in other peoples mouths. How truthful is that?
You don't mind if I "borrow" a couple of those do you?
The kind of discussion you get when your science is Quote Science.
What makes this problem worse in creationist literature is that many creationist writers do not actually read what they are quoting in the original but copy it from another writer, usually (but not necessarily) another creationist who himself might have copied it from yet another creationist. This is often revealed by multiple creationists having the same error in the quote or citation. Thus if a single creationist is dishonest, sloppy, or incompetent in his quotation the error becomes widespread.Quotations and Misquotations: Why Creationist Quotes are Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution
Interesting question. I understand the constraints of the system to be the laws of physics. It would be interesting to see if these would be the same if we ran the Big Bang over and over. It's hard to know how many universes are possible when you only have the one example.
But I suspect that's not the question or the answer you intended. The "created" is a real clue.
"God did it" just raises more questions for me. Where did He come from? If you say he's eternal, or "exists outside of time," or whatever, that's as unsatisfying as anything else being eternal or outside of time or whatever.
That's like saying a roadmap is atheist because it doesn't mention God. But who in the world is that "Lord" they referenced at the end?
Cordially,
What is false about something that had a beginning, having a reason it began, whether that reason is man or God or chance, it had a 'reason' to begin?
Everything Incindiary said is true. If something had a beginning, there had to be a reason it began. When considering the reason for all beginning, to call it God is no more faith-inclusive than someone believing inthe bbig bang, for no one ever saw that or experienced that and only assume that, so the big bang is a faith based belief, too.
And NAZI Germany was started by those who believed in a MASTER RACE, EVOLUTION.
The people who developed modern astronomy were astrologers
Brahe and Galileo were astrologers?
The people who developed modern mathematics were magicians. That doesn't mean magic is true.
Archimedes, Euclid, Newton and Leibniz were magicians?
The people who developed modern chemistry were alchemists
Lavoisier and Boyle were alchemcists?
Now I suppose the Creationists will attempt to get astronomy, chemistry and mathematics thrown out of the schools because of their non-Biblical, magical and superstitious origins.
God is the source of all truth. That his truth can and has been discovered by magicians, alchemists or astrologers doesn't suprise or disturb me in the least. So to suggest that anyone who is interested in knowing the truth would want astrononmy, chemistry and mathematics thrown out of schools is ridiculous.
Cordially,
I agree with you in theory, and if everyone agreed to abide by this principle, the world would be a much better place. However, how does one define 'reason' and 'rational' in a strictly materialist framework? It seems that you are implicitly assuming at least some sort of metaphysics (in a nontheistic sense) in order to use words like 'rights' and 'reason'. Otherwise, from a strictly reductionistic standpoint, all you have are the firing of electrical signals and chemical reactions.
That which is rational, is that which is logically consistent with reality. Are men always rational? No, of course not. Does that mean that we should abandon rationality? Hell no.
It seems that you are implicitly assuming at least some sort of metaphysics (in a nontheistic sense) in order to use words like 'rights' and 'reason'.
Of course I am.
As a rational human being, I have no alternative.
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.