Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
We do not know how the mutation arose. Therefore we cannot tell how or why it spread to such a large part of a population. We do not know when it started and we also do not know if it is dissappearing or not. What we have are a lot of assumptions and assumptions are not evidence.
Very important point. If one looks at many evolutionist arguments, the only basis they have is that if God does not exist then ...".
An interesting and very good point.
It seems that way. It was ingrained in me -- probably through pop culture more than anything -- that scientists treat things with skepticism. I don't see this happening with evolution. How do we empirically know that a housecat and donkey have a common descendent? I mentioned this to RWN earlier. I'm curious as to his answer.
I don't think they have found any bones which they could even remotely 'use' to link most of the mammal genera (which being the most recent, should be the easiest to find). If one looks at the 'ancestors' in the evolutionary trees, for most species they have 'proto' this or 'archaic' that which means they don't know beans what came before.
Do you see the absurdities in blue being posted to me now? He claimed that most of the species in the fossil record are still around. Can defend, can't retreat: the Holy Warrior is caught out again, dumping buckets of slops over Satanic materialist infidel heads and announcing victory.
Meanwhile, you blandly declare that one might go either way but so far as you can see the preponderance of evidence as presented on these threads is that gore has the facts. Can you explain this in any sort of rational terms?
You: An interesting and very good point.
Explain please! I posted 1208 to you yesterday.
See, this is Creation Science 101. No facts, no logic. Just blithely ignore all refutations and keep pretending that pasture pie is filet mignon.
Can't spell, can't proof. "Can't defend" was meant.
I'm trying to avoid being a lawyer with words -- i.e. allowing "species" a very broad definition -- but most of the classes of plants and animals of which there are fossils exists today.
Go back to your link in post 1208. How many classes are extinct? Are we confident in our taxonomy? Are we going to call something a class today that we were calling a subphylum yesterday?
And what exactly was a trilobite anyway? Maybe it is more closely related to the horseshoe crab than we believe. Taxonomy by fossil is pretty speculative.
A further note, one should avoid being definitive concerning the extinction of marine creatures. Consider the coelacanth.
I suppose a trilobite is an arthropod (but so is a cockroach) and a T. rex is a reptile (but so is a garter snake) and an ammonite is a shellfish because it looks like a nautilus. And a creationist is a scientist because he writes about fossils and stuff. Anything can be sort of anything when it's for the Lord.
You're moving goal-posts past the point where gore's original contention has any significance. Obviously, there are still primitive micro-organisms. There are still primitive multi-cellulars. There are still primitive vertebrates. This chain of increasing complexity in extant creatures suggested evolution to various people even before Darwin.
More importantly, the converse statement (that everything today goes far back in the fossil record) is not true. Go back to the Permian, there are no mammals. There are some reptiles which are trending to look sort of mammalian, but they don't pass muster. In the late Triassic, you have some shrew-like creatures that have the signature mammalian jaw and ear bones. No primates. No humans. No horses. No dogs. No cows. No whales. No bats. No cats or rats or elephants, as sure as you're born.
There is no excuse for gore not to know that "species" is the second-lowest taxon (after only subspecies/variety). His statement is a rather spectacular "refutation" of evolution in the form he made it, but it's a lie. Your modification ("species" means "some kind of taxon, anything from kingdom on down") makes the statement literally defensible but removes any impact it may have on the crevo debate.
And you think he's doing fine. How are you doing?
Actually, that's not more important. Evolution implies a need for extraordinary adaptation. Why wouldn't all organisms have this need to adapt? Why would those which fail, survive?
Go back to the Permian, there are no mammals. There are some reptiles . . .
And you draw the conclusion that the mammals are descended from the reptiles. Something I'm unwilling to do.
How are you doing?
I am fine. How are you, doing?
There is no need to adapt. Changes simply happen and if there is a niche where these changes provide an advantage then the individual is more likely to survive in this new environment.
On doctrinaire religious grounds. The physical evidence is unambiguous. The "mammal-like" reptiles become mammals in a nearly seamless sequence. I've posted those skulls enough times a veteran like you should remember.
And the very same thing, multi-part lower jaw bones drifting off to become ear bones, happens all over again in mammalian embryos. Funny, that.
So why do different species, genus, orders, classes, phylum and kingdoms occupy the same niche?
That's a point of disagreement. I see fossils as ambiguous.
I don't see it. Beside, that would be a lot of coincidences to assume they are random occurrances.
Oh, now fossils generically are ambiguous! Can you explain this better?
Maybe they were planted by God/Satan to confuse us? Getting a little unscientific here, aren't we?
You're too quick to run off when you come out with this kind of statement. I'm still wondering what color the sky is in a world where G3K is scoring solid points and there's plenty of room to doubt whether evolution produced the diversity of life and (now) fossils are ambiguous.
I don't see it. Beside, that would be a lot of coincidences to assume they are random occurrances.
These occurrences may be random but they can happen in every individual independently. And since there are many individuals their occurrence isn't that unlikely. Note that the probability for one particular beneficial mutation may be low but in general there are several possible beneficial mutations that can occur to one of those many individuals.
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.