Posted on 11/14/2007 4:00:52 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
The evolutionary tree is constantly changing. Every new textbook has its own drawing. This is not to say that the evolutionary path of life from the rock bacteria to our exalted selves has changed at all, but our sleuthing out of how it was is updated all the time. Sometimes they even change the classifications altogether as they try to make some kind of coherent sense of the data collected so far. Even just a hundred years ago when Einstein had his big year 1905 the whole game was the one and only galaxy and it was only a billion years old. More data and more all the time and the picture has to change. It’s good or there would be little point to writing a doctoral thesis anymore.
Not so fast. There is no fossil evidence for a single trunk. As Stephen Jay Gould explains, the evidence points in the opposite direction:
The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1) Stasis - most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;
2) Sudden appearance - in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.
Gould, S.J. (1977)
“Evolution’s Erratic Pace”
Natural History, vol. 86, May
Devolution is Evolution. They are exactly the same. Why do we have two words? Because we can.
LOL
They would remain in their form since they are fully evolved as such. Every species we see on earth now is fully evolved and would not exhibit directional change. If something evolves from that it would be a new species.
Seperate origins is not Darwinian evolution. No where did the article even suggest this to be the case. All they do is suggest that these ancestors are likely to be more complex than their descedents.
Furthermore, no evolutionist, getting paid by our taxes, would ever make a statement like yours. It would be the equivalent of stating "please shut off all our funding, our work is bogus." Not going to happen. The college deans would go nuts over anything that would threaten their revenue stream.
I read the article and didn't come to that conclusion. Could you throw me some evidence for that statement.
Yes. So is this mighty creationist idea. There is another idea that has nothing to do with stochastics.
==Devolution is Evolution. They are exactly the same. Why do we have two words? Because we can.
They are not the same. The TOE would have us believe that life’s pattern is best represented by a single tree that began with lower organisms that evolve into higher organisms. Creationists believe life’s pattern displays just the opposite. Namely, that life began with the creation of the highest organisms, and is slowly devolving into lower organisms. Big difference.
==I read the article and didn’t come to that conclusion. Could you throw me some evidence for that statement.
www.detectingdesign.com
You do have to have a very fertile imagination to be an evolutionist. And also be most credulous.
The TOE doesn’t require or infer increasing complexity. That is a later addition by exegetes of limited cognizance. Stochastics has nothing to do with it either, but that is a different idea.
Remember the old "missing link" business? What we have here are some "missing classes, orders and families" ~ a lot more than a "link" sort of thing.
None of this is surprising if life, per se, in all of its various locations throughout the universe, shares the same fundamental engines ~ they should be expected to be shuffled a bit differently (but otherwise utilize the same DNA) coming from different places.
There is not a general trend toward complexity, and humans are not more complicated than amoebas. Wherever that 'nobody' statement came from it can go back now.
That would be fine with me, but the purpose of the space program is not actually to search for life or even to do science. It has a state purpose.
I think it was the part about the critters losing their brains. That’s rather serious you know.
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.