Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: js1138

Some of us actually have to accomplish stuff during the day, and these threads tend to grow like triplet repeats. Regarding your mountain-out-of-a-molehill accusation about the hopeful monster theory vs. PE, I see that a bit of explanation is going to be necessary.

First, ask yourself why *either* of these theories came into existence. The answer should be quite obvious. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution, his mechanism for evolution was a gradualistic progression driven by natural selection. When Origin of the Species was first published, relatively little was known about the geologic record, and very little was known about genetics.

Now fast forward to the early 1900s. More is known about the fossil record, and still very little is known about genetics. Howeve, the fossil record poses a problem to evolutionists in that instead of providing a record of gradual progression of life, it is more consistent with the fossils that would by left by a "hopeful monster" hypothesis. In particular, transitional forms are absent - as they continue to be to this day.

By the late 1900s, far more is known about genetics - specifically genetic mutations - than was known when saltation was proposed and it is now clear that genetically, saltation is an untenable process...hence the rise of PE.

Both theories are attempts to explain evolution by "alternate routes" and deal with the inability of the fossil record to back up what Darwin had originally proposed.


233 posted on 04/19/2006 11:40:56 AM PDT by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]


To: Old_Mil
Both theories are attempts to explain evolution by "alternate routes" and deal with the inability of the fossil record to back up what Darwin had originally proposed.

Your characterization of the fossil record is simply dishonest. Obviously not every creature that ever lived is present as a fossil. Fossilization is a rare event. What is true, however, is that creationists have consistently predicted that there are *no* transitional fossils, when in fact there are many thousands.

It boils down to this: one hypothesis predicts no transitional fossils and has no basis for predicting them. Evolution predicts transitional fossils, predicts their characteristics, and predicts the strata in which they are likely to be found. Even a single find falsifies the expectations of creationism.

244 posted on 04/19/2006 11:48:54 AM PDT by js1138 (~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson