Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield
You cannot impose this upon evolution. All evolving creatures are fully developed, even while their populations are gradually morphing under environmental pressure into something utterly new. All the forms along the way are adapted to their environment, competitive, functional, "fully developed." People who suggest that a transitional has to be some kind of obviously unfit freak do not know what the theory of evolution says.
Correct. A "transitional" is nothing more than an ancestor. It lived, it survived well enough to reproduce, and that's the deal. Your parents are "transitionals" between your grandparents and you. They are not one-half grandparents and one-half you. They are themselves.
As for the micro-macro issue (which hasn't surfaced yet but it's sure to arise), each ancestor in the chain of evolution, being fully evolved in its own generation, is capable of having mutated offspring, regardless of how many of its own ancestors did the same thing. There is no mechanism for keeping score. Natural selection is the only rule. The number if mutations which can appear in a line of descent that stretches back millions of generations is not limited by some arbitrary principle that says "thus far and no farther." Every creature that ever lived is capable of being part of a "transitional" species. And unless they go extinct, or find a congenial unchanging niche, they probably have been transitionals, or will in due course be seen to have been transitionals.
Thus there is a paradox. Both nucleic acids and proteins are required to function before selection can act at present, and yet the origin of this association is too improbable to have occurred without selection. (T. Dobzhansky et al, Evolution, 1977, 359)
I'm not saying this thought is so convincing that all discussion is closed. It's just a curious thing.
Keep going back on the evolutionary trail and you come to this point. How did such complex structures as nucleic acids and proteins come to be? One can't exist without the other. They are interdependent.
Thomas Cech earned the Nobel Prize in 1989 for discovering that this isn't always true. In fact there are over 300 examples of catalytic RNA that have been found in nature since then.
You might enjoy some of these (somewhat technical) video lectures by Cech. See especially RNA as an Enzyme: Discovery, Origins of Life, and Medical Possibilities [DSL version]
If you google on "Thomas Cech" or "ribozyme" you'll find a lot of articles on this.
May I try to break this up into just two logical bits?
"The DNC may issue a press release tomorrow that pictures of Bush have surfaced dancing drunk and naked on a bar in 1976. Their motives would be obvious. The picture might nevertheless be real....
Sure. As to the motives, people everywhere are free to draw their own conclusions.
But that same "grace" does not apply to questions of fact.
This is the reason why fair-minded adults would want to weigh in on the question of motive, which can only be established on the basis of facts, fairly considered. It appears they have to resolve the controversy by means of (1) evidence; and (2) their analysis of the evidence. Lots of people these days seem not to have the time for this sort of thing.
And that seems to be the reason why "totalizing-minded secularists" (a/k/a ideologizing sectarians) are getting such a free rein (and thus free reign) these days. So go figure!
Thanks so much for writing, VR.
Evolution is a theory, sir.. not a forgone conclusion. And as such, I'm not imposing upon it. There are things expected to be seen and the evolution theory has been designed and redesigned to cop out on any real objection and divert attention from any honest problem with it. Sorry. You have not shown a transition. You have shown what you want to sell as one. We aren't buying.
So? Your point? Saying something and proving something, by now, ought to occur to you to be vastly different things. Like how your article you just linked denies liquifaction sorting of layers by a flood by saying that "bigger things would go to the bottom and smaller things to the top". This is so scientifically dishonest it amazes me that it could be stated so boldly. Liquifaction doesn't sort by size - it sorts by bouyancy. But mistating the argument - likely on purpose - then gives one the apparent ground to dismiss the argument out of hand without actually dealing with it's substance or any facts. Sidestepping it as it were.. This is not science nor does it pass for research. And such a blatent attempt to avoid an argument belies the idea that this is a search for facts.
You're simply changing the subject by spewing false statements about something else. You said there was no evidence for species transitions. Many are known, especially from deep sea cores from sediments accumulating for millions of years without erosion. Acknowledging what anyone can see would be honest. So far, you have failed to make such a demonstration.
Regarding what you DID say, there is nothing wrong with the statements on the page regarding hydraulic sorting. Hydraulic sorting would indeed put the trilobites (which averaged about the size of modern pillbugs) at the top of the geologic column and T. rex at the bottom. Neither is located where flood sorting would put it. The actual observed faunal succession in the geologic column is not the result of any possible flood sorting action at all.
"What makes you think that God has the same motivations as you?"
Thank you very much!
When you say, and I quote, "A fully developed critter ain't a transition," you are making predictions for the theory of evolution which no one educated in the topic would make. You're an ignoramus and don't want to be anything better. Why pretend anything else is going on here? Why? Why this sham? Why this patent dishonesty? Why?
"Why couldn't God have created the Big Bang, as well as evolution? This "either or" logic doesn't hold water, specially for those who believe in a non-denominational God. "
In fact, an omnipotent God could. But the Creationist God is only limited to irrational acts that make no sense, because that's the only way to befuddle the primates into worshipping Him.
In other words, Creationists believe in a crippled God. To me, Darwinism is a tautology (if the strong didn't survive, then they wouldn't be strong!), it has little to do with God. I'm just looking for the truth, even if that turns out to be some mix of Creationism and Darwinism.
You're right. I did say that. You presented evidence for something - what I don't know. But passing it off as transitions ain't gonna work. Sorry. I ain't drinking the koolaid.
>>Sorry, but after all these years on these crevo threads, it's not often that a creationist earnestly makes a totally silly argument that I haven't heard before. This one is just so funny...<<
Glad I got a chuckle out of you. 8^>
>.Sorry, but after all these years on these crevo threads, it's not often that a creationist earnestly makes a totally silly argument that I haven't heard before.<<
Out of curiosity, what is silly about it? Again, just curious...
No, I'm positing an issue that you guys can't afford to posit because it lays your poker hand bare on the table for having nothing. You are artful dodgers and benefitting from years of obfuscation designed to protect the theory rather than allow weaknesses to be shown (ie the theory itself). This is why it's presented initially in classes as a theory, and they you go on to present every thing else in light of the theory as though the theory were fact. And people still refuse to believe it inspite of the indoctrination because it stinks to high heaven. And because you guys can't answer tough questions without making jerks of yourselves. It's built in. You guys are in the same mess the democrats are in and you don't have the sense to act like it. Thank you for that. It just makes others more determined to have done with all of you. We're all tired of the crap and tired of shovelling tax money at it. And the sooner we can defund this crap the better. Can I make my stand any more clear, or do you need me to tell you that supporting snake oil salesmen shouldn't be the business of government and that's why I see it's time for your grants to go..
One of the things I really like about this article is that he so well brings up and then supports the distinction between scientists who are just trying to figure out what happened, and "evolution as a religion" apologists that attack anyone, even their own, who would even suggest that there may be some questions that may need to be answered - as well as the "if you don't think evolution is how it happened then you are an idiot" crowd.
He does a good job, for a single article, of exposing the "evolution is the proof that Christianity is stupid" argument tenaciously clung to by so many evolution "fringe" scientists for so many decades, even as evidence has so fragmented their pet theories.
It will be a compelling read to the young people who have not yet made up their mind.
"You guys are in the same mess the democrats are in and you don't have the sense to act like it."
You just nailed down this whole thing in one sentence. I wish I had made the comparison because you put into words my exact impression of this topic.
And the author took an entire LONG article to basically say the same thing!
Kudos!
I wonder what Dawkins really thinks.
"I wonder what Dawkins really thinks."
You use the term "thinks" loosely. I think "feels" would be more appropriate. That kind of statement is certainly not backed up by intelligent thought.
;) Happy to oblige lol
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.