Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaur-Bird Flap Ruffles Feathers
Yahoo!News ^ | October 10, 2005 | E.J. Mundell

Posted on 10/11/2005 4:07:11 AM PDT by mlc9852

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-331 next last
To: Ichneumon; longshadow

See post 199.


201 posted on 10/13/2005 12:41:03 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain

Other than exposing a creationist as a liar, what's your point? Dog bites man. Ho Hum.


202 posted on 10/13/2005 12:51:42 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Why didn't you post the rest of Darwin's statement where he explains why the spottiness of the fossil record is not a problem? That only a very very tiny percentage of organisms ever become fossilized? Is it too much to expect that an ID/creationist would actually try to give a quote in its proper context so that it doesn't say the opposite of what the author meant

Well, you can read all 14 chapters if you want the complete context or just chapter 9. Below is the first paragraph of chapter 9. Darwin admits in his words "the extreme imperfection of the fossil record".

Chapter 9 On the Imperfection of the Geological Record.

IN the sixth chapter I enumerated the chief objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume. Most of them have now been discussed. One, namely the distinctness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty. I assigned reasons why such links do not commonly occur at the present day, under the circumstances apparently most favourable for their presence, namely on an extensive and continuous area with graduated physical conditions. I endeavoured to show, that the life of each species depends in a more important manner on the presence of other already defined organic forms, than on climate; and, therefore, that the really governing conditions of life do not graduate away quite insensibly like heat or moisture. I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. The main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and exterminate their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

You're correct, Darwin gives many rationales as to why the record is so poor. As one would expect from the proponent of a theory.

But 150 years later the record is still, shall we say "less than perfect". And when you couple that with the discovery of DNA by Crick and Watson 50 years ago and the realization that the cell is not simply a sack of protoplasm (as was thought in Darwin's day) but a micro factory teeming with information and activity, questions and doubts will and are being raised about the validity of Darwin's claims.

Darwin's theory has had a good run. About 150 years. He deserves all the accolades he gets and will long be remembered as one of the greatest scientists of all time.

However it's time for science to move on. And we are witnessing a great scientific revolution it in our life time. Amazing. The history of science is one of revolution and change. Theories get created, destroyed, modified and tweaked. That's the history of science.

A good read on this process is "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn 1962.

203 posted on 10/13/2005 1:12:00 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
And we are witnessing a great scientific revolution it in our life time.

If so, it's a silent revolution. Check out how much scientific research ID has so far stimulated..

I guess this is just one more sighting of the Imminent Demise of Evolution. Yawn!

204 posted on 10/13/2005 1:18:14 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
"You're correct, Darwin gives many rationales as to why the record is so poor."

And he was right. Fossilization only happens to a tiny tiny percentage of organisms, and it's biased against land organisms and soft tissue. It would be TRULY miraculous if we had transitionals between every species. We DO have some transitionals between species, and certainly we have MANY transitionals between higher taxa. The fossils are where they are supposed to be; we don't find Precambrian Rabbits. By itself, the fossil record is not enough to tip ToE onto the plus side. Coupled with the DNA evidence, the morphological and geographical evidence, the theory has exceedingly few holes to fill.

" And when you couple that with the discovery of DNA by Crick and Watson 50 years ago and the realization that the cell is not simply a sack of protoplasm (as was thought in Darwin's day) but a micro factory teeming with information and activity, questions and doubts will and are being raised about the validity of Darwin's claims."

Not by the scientists doing the work in those fields. Only by creationists. DNA research has clinched the theory of common descent. The ToE has no scientific challengers.
205 posted on 10/13/2005 1:27:59 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Thanks for the link. I found your thread and deployed the ping list. Better late than never.


206 posted on 10/13/2005 1:40:01 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I went to the first link. The article was rather condensending. However it did raise an interesting issue involving the lack of ID peer review. The link below attempts to explain why this is the case.

link

The excerpt below will give you the flavor of the article.

"The current intelligent design controversy is a struggle within science between empiricism (what the evidence shows) and naturalism (the belief that no evidence that shows design can be admitted). … Surely, all the evidence must support naturalism! Unfortunately, many in science today seem incapable of a rational discussion of the problem of what happens when the evidence doesn't support it. Contrary evidence piles up, increasingly strained interpretations are invoked, the issues are politicized in order to gain time, and dissenters (real or imagined) are persecuted and suppressed."

Scientific revolutions are always resisted. As Kuhn makes clear. And they don't happen over night. The latest flap at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. over an article by Stephen Meyer is a case in point.

What makes ID so difficult to get accepted is its insistence of an intelligent agent. This is anathema to modern science. This in-spite of the obvious weakness of Darwin's theory.

207 posted on 10/13/2005 2:31:18 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 204 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain

Made my day.

Thanks for your effort.


208 posted on 10/13/2005 2:40:51 PM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
Scientific revolutions are always resisted. As Kuhn makes clear. And they don't happen over night. The latest flap at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. over an article by Stephen Meyer is a case in point.

Meyer's paper is just a hackneyed warming over of creationist arguments. It contains no new data and no original thought. The flap was over how an apparently creationist editor abused his position to publish something that doesn't conform to the generally accepted standards for reporting of scientific results.

What makes ID so difficult to get accepted is its insistence of an intelligent agent. This is anathema to modern science. This in-spite of the obvious weakness of Darwin's theory.

No, the problem is that ID gives us no objective ways of determining whether an intelligent agent was involved. It reduces to 'godiddit'.

And there are no obvious weaknesses in Darwin's theory.

209 posted on 10/13/2005 2:42:38 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
And he was right. Fossilization only happens to a tiny tiny percentage of organisms, and it's biased against land organisms and soft tissue

Yes, I'm well aware of the many rationales Darwin's defenders provide to explain away the gaps in the record. And they may seem valid to many people. But there are many others, and there numbers are growing, who disagree.

If the evolution of life can be shown to be "in fact" inherently discontinuous then Darwin is falsified.

Proponents can no longer depend on the Fossil Record to support Darwin's thesis. It undermines it.

Anyone can give a rationale as to why there are gaps. But the gaps remain. The "only if" arguments will only convince true believers. And assertions such as "he was right" are not going to cut it.

210 posted on 10/13/2005 3:03:26 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Meyer's paper is just a hackneyed warming over of creationist arguments. It contains no new data and no original thought. The flap was over how an apparently creationist editor abused his position to publish something that doesn't conform to the generally accepted standards for reporting of scientific results.

So you decided on the Ad Hominem. Good way to debate. Keep up the good work.

211 posted on 10/13/2005 3:13:42 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 209 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
"Yes, I'm well aware of the many rationales Darwin's defenders provide to explain away the gaps in the record. And they may seem valid to many people. But there are many others, and there numbers are growing, who disagree."

The only people who have a problem with the fossil record are creationists. You have not spoken to any of my points, either, so I take it you found nothing to disagree with.

"If the evolution of life can be shown to be "in fact" inherently discontinuous then Darwin is falsified."

Since the evolution of life has not been shown to be inherently discontinuous, there is no problem. Common descent is a fact, the DNA evidence is overwhelming. ID's main proponents have already agreed on this point.



" Proponents can no longer depend on the Fossil Record to support Darwin's thesis. It undermines it. "

Nonsense. Every fossil that is unearthed has only strengthened it. There has been nothing in the fossil record that has been evidence against common descent and natural selection as the driving force of evolution.

"Anyone can give a rationale as to why there are gaps."

Do you have any evidence that fossilization happens at a higher rate than paleontologists believe? Anybody can make vague assertions without having to back then up.

" But the gaps remain."

In the specific genealogies of specific organisms. We will never know the complete history of life; far too much info has been lost. The gaps are NOT in the ToE though. That's a separate issue.
212 posted on 10/13/2005 3:17:29 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
So you decided on the Ad Hominem. Good way to debate. Keep up the good work

No, this was a criticism of a paper, not a person. Possibly if you had some exposure to the scientific literature*, you'd realize that we criticize people's work all the time, and in no sense is that a criticism of them personally.

*see, now that's an ad hominem

213 posted on 10/13/2005 3:23:28 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Picky, picky, picky.


214 posted on 10/13/2005 3:32:55 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
You're correct, Darwin gives many rationales as to why the record is so poor. As one would expect from the proponent of a theory.

Darwin wasn't a geologist, either, although he knew plenty about the state of it in his day. If his statements are just a guy with a bad theory of biology making non-biological excuses, he might have been slapped down hard over the subsequent 146 years from then to now. I do not believe this has happened. Instead, his perception of the likelihood of fossil preservation has survived the discovery of plate tectonics, continental drift, space-rock catastrophism, etc. You can still see web pages today like this one echoing Darwin's basic ideas on fossil preservation.

There are two opposite errors which need to be countered about the fossil record: (1) that it is so incomplete as to be of no value in interpreting patterns and trends in the history of life, and (2) that it is so good that we should expect a relatively complete record of the details of evolutionary transitions within most lineages.

What then is the nature of the fossil record? It can be confidently stated that only a very small fraction of the species that once lived on Earth has been preserved in the rock record and subsequently discovered and described by science. Our knowledge of the history of life can be put into perspective by a comparison with our knowledge of living organisms. About 1.5 million living species have been described by biologists, while paleontologists have catalogued only about 250,000 fossil species representing over 540 million years of Earth history (Erwin, 1993)...

So, basically, what is the point of claiming that Darwin was just making excuses? The point is to defend a dishonest strawman model, to be good little liar for the Lord and earn a special place in Heaven. But I thought He said some bad things about false witness.
215 posted on 10/13/2005 3:53:56 PM PDT by VadeRetro (I'll have a few sleepless nights after I send you over, sure! But it'll pass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: OKWNORD
Remember, this was told by Jesus and Luke doesn't say this was told as a parable. I think JESUS was telling about an actual event (JESUS being both GOD and man would know). So, if a person has placed their faith in JESUS having died for their sins, as I have, then I KNOW what happens after I die and where I spend eternity.

Face it. You don't really know.

216 posted on 10/13/2005 4:45:47 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
Anyone can give a rationale as to why there are gaps. But the gaps remain.

Unless you're of some ancient, well-documented lineage, I suspect there are plenty of gaps in your own genealogy, even if you only try to go back a dozen generations. So what? There were undoubtedly ancestors who occupied those gaps. If you claim that the gaps are "evidence" for some divine origin, you won't find too many people who are impressed by that argument. You may learn who those missing ancestors were, or you may not. If you try to go back further, the gaps will be worse. Evidence of some ancestors may be lost forever. But there is no weakness in the theory that you are descended from a long unbroken line.

217 posted on 10/13/2005 4:51:57 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.
I also wonder about training kids to go to a museum and make fun of the volunteer or low paid guides. What other purpose could there be since they were not going to believe anything they were told?

Isn't this just the same old "kids vs. teacher" story recycled? I think we can just fill in the blank "kids vs. _______" for the next evolution of the story.

218 posted on 10/13/2005 4:52:13 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
You wrote: It would be TRULY miraculous if we had transitionals between every species. We DO have some transitionals between species, and certainly we have MANY transitionals between higher taxa.

The problem you have arguing with creationists is that every time you find a fossil that fits into a gap, you just have two (smaller) gaps!

More gaps! See, evolution is being disproved! There are more gaps than ever. See, we told you so!

[Sorry, sometimes it get to be a bit much.]

219 posted on 10/13/2005 8:10:02 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan; CarolinaGuitarman; Right Wing Professor; PatrickHenry; VadeRetro
[And he was right. Fossilization only happens to a tiny tiny percentage of organisms, and it's biased against land organisms and soft tissue]

Yes, I'm well aware of the many rationales Darwin's defenders provide to explain away the gaps in the record.

Now you're just being offensively obnoxious.

I explained the nature of your fallacies to you in my earlier post, but rather than gain any englightenment from that, you decide to just bluster on with your same flawed arguments, while cranking up the "in-your-face' quotient several notches. Be honest: Do you actually want to discuss the science, and maybe learn something yourself in the process, or do you just want to "preach" at us about how evolution's days are allegedly numbered?

One more time, son: No one is "explaining away the gaps in the record". There *are* gaps in the record. No one denies them. But the point is that there will *always* be gaps in the record, even if smoothly gradualistic evolution is 100% correct. Fossilization is, by its nature, a "spotty" process which will produce a limited number of "snapshots" of living things in the past. It's kind of like a box of family photos -- it'll capture certain times, certain places, and certain events, but there will be other times, places, events, and people which just didn't get recorded; but that doesn't mean they never existed. You learn as much as you can from the records which are available, while realizing that not everything is going to have been preserved in pictures.

Look, I've ready your profile page -- you seem to be a reasonably bright fellow. You've worked as an engineer in aerospace. There aren't many complete dolts in jobs like that. So I have no doubt that you *can* understand the issues if you actually bother to sit down and have a look at them. But so far I see little indication that you *want* to actually apply analytical skills to the actual evidence and find out what conclusions are and are not appropriately drawn from it.

Instead, it seems that you just want to "think" only as far as is needed to come up with an "aha, gotcha!" thought you can use as an accusation against evolutionary biology, and then you stop cold right there.

Furthermore, it looks very much as if you've cribbed most of your "conclusions" about the fossil data from creationist sources, and not actually taken the time to examine the fossil evidence yourself, and drawn your own conclusions. Warning: Trying to learn anything about science, evolution, or evidence from creationist sources is like trying to "learn" about conservatism from Michael Moore: You're not going to get the whole picture, and much of what you do "learn" will be heavily "spun", or just flat-out wrong.

Now, getting back to specifics, the point you keep missing -- even though I over-belabored the point and drove it into the ground in my last post to you -- is that regardless of the "gaps", there is a vast amount of "nongap" data that you seem very determined to totally ignore. That available data itself makes an overwhelming case for Darwinian evolution. Why do you keep failing to address any of it? Why do you keep fixating on the inevitable "gaps", and not on the evidence? The evidence is *far* more complete than the "gappers" like to imply, and makes an incredibly compelling case on its own. Why aren't you looking at *that*?

Now back to your specific charge. You write of, "the many rationales Darwin's defenders provide to explain away the gaps in the record". First, no one is trying to "explain away" the gaps. What we're trying to explain to the creationists who "can't see the forest for the gaps" is that:

1. There will always be gaps in the fossil record, for the obvious fact that not everything gets fossilized, then not everything that gets fossilized will survive (many are destroyed by erosion, subduction, etc.), then not every fossil that survives will be accessible (some will be buried deep in the Earth), then not every accessible fossil will be discovered (people can't scour every square inch of the planet), etc. etc. Hell, there aren't even fossils for each and every species that exists *today*, so obviously the fossil record will always be a small fractional slice of all life that has ever lived on the Earth.

2. Because there will always be gaps, one can't conclude a damned thing from the simple fact that gaps exist in the record. Of *course* they do. There would be gaps no matter *what* the reality of the history of life on Earth was, even if it *was* truly gradualistic change. Even then there would still be gaps in the fossil record, because that record *itself* is "gappy" -- fossilization occurs too rarely to cause a "snapshot" of every significant lifeform at every significant moment in time at every significant location on Earth. Period.

3. So the meaningful question (for anyone who actually *wants* to seek the truth, instead of seeking excuses to ignore the evidence like the creationists do) is this: Is the pattern of the fossil evidence we *do* manage to find (including the pattern of the "gaps" in that evidence) of the type we would expect to find if (a) Darwinian evolution actually happened in the way predicted by the Theory, and (b) fossilization produced imperfect snapshots of that process in the way fossilation is known to take place (and not take place)? The answer to *that* question is a resounding "yes".

Come on, DRF, if you've done real engineering, you *know* how to do these kinds of analyses. If you have a process that occurs in a certain way, *and* you can only take samples or observations of that process at certain intervals or from certain narrow viewing angles or whatever, you know how to work out how to test whether the results of your limited sampling method matches the expected operational results or not. It's not rocket science.

Similarly, it's not hard to determine whether the fossils that we *do* find (GIVEN THE KNOWN LIMITATIONS OF FOSSILIZATION AND RECOVERY) are of the number, kind, and pattern that we would expect to find if life arose by evolutionary processes. And when we do such determinations, we find that the actual fossil record *does* match the predictions of evolutionary biology. So any whining about "there are still gaps" is just tunnel-visioned naysaying.

These are not "rationales". These are informed analyses. And it's not just "Darwin's defenders". Anyone with any existing belief can perform the same analyses and get the same results -- if they honestly want to. The creationists don't.

And they may seem valid to many people.

Because they *are* valid.

But there are many others, and there numbers are growing, who disagree.

There will always be stubborn holdouts, no matter how valid and strong the evidence. Some people can't let go of their preconceptions. And you're wrong about "there [sic] numbers are growing". The creationists keep trying to give that impression through propaganda and PR, but the actual number of scientists in the relevant fields who are familiar with the data yet "disagree", are *not* growing.

If the evolution of life can be shown to be "in fact" inherently discontinuous then Darwin is falsified.

True, but you're being overly simplistic here. "Discontinuous" is not an either/or thing. There are wide degrees of discontinuity, as you should know if you're really an engineer. And discontinuous on what *scale* (both temporally and spatially, not to mention parametically)? Creationists like to misrepresent Punctuated Equilibrium as being "discontinuous", but as Gould has made very clear at every opportunity, it's *only* "discontinuous" when viewed on the scale of millions of years. It's still continuous when viewed at the scale of thousands of years.

Proponents can no longer depend on the Fossil Record to support Darwin's thesis. It undermines it.

Complete, utter, 100% horse manure. You really *are* relying on the creationist propaganda, aren't you? Because there's really no way you could be personally familiar with the fossil record and actually say something that boneheadedly wrong.

There's absolutely nothing in the fossil record that "undermines" Darwinian evolution. The *only* thing I've seen the creationists even *attempt* to offer in support of such a ludicrous statement is itself an obvious, blatant fallacy -- all such claims rest on the fallacy that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". In other words, they rashly conclude that if there's a gap in the fossil record, it represents "proof" that there are no transitions to be found. The obvious nature of the fallacy is twofold:

1. Many of the gaps are simply spans where no fossils are available AT ALL, for ANY animals of any kind, because of subduction, deep deposition, or other obvious reasons. It really is obviously a "missing data" problem, *not* a "missing XYZ when everything else has been found" problem, as the creationists like to dishonestly imply. For example, it's extremely rare to find *any* mammal fossils of any kind from the Oligocene era. It's not just the "transitions" which are missing from that era, almost *all* fossils from that era are unobtainable.

2. You'd think the creationists would stop making this error, because they've fallen on their faces *so* many times already doing it. It seems that just when the creationists like to make a Poster Child of a particular "missing link", paleontologists find it after all. Whales with legs, proto-birds with partially formed wings, fish with feet, proto-mammals with jaw joints that are half reptilian and half mammalian... The list goes on and on. Creationists kept ridiculing biologists for not finding these "obviously" ludicrous life forms which would "obviously" remain "missing links" forever as an eternal "gap" in the fossil record -- and then such fossils *were* found to fill in the gaps that the creationists had wrongly presumed were "real" gaps. Oops.

Furthermore, by ranting obsessively about "gaps", you keep overlooking the fact that many, many, *MANY* lineages HAVE been filled by enough fortuitously found fossils to provide a clear, continuous record of evolutionary change across many millions of years, of the kind that the creationists keep falsely claiming aren't possible and don't actually happen. Oops again for the creationists. Any special reason you're not discussing *those*?

Additionally, you're glossing over the fact (I *hope* it's because of ignorance, not dishonesty) that even when "gaps" exist, they're often small and minor enough that the fossil sequences which have been found provide an overwhelmingly complete picture of the evolutionary relationships. Creationists often like to try to convince people that any gap at all is a vast discontinuity, but let's face it, when the gaps are minor enough and the nongap data is voluminous enough, it doesn't take a genius to literally "connect the dots" when the picture is that complete and obvious.

Finally, the creationists like to "forget" to deal with the fact that even when (often relatively minor) gaps exist in fossil sequences, DNA analysis and other kinds of independent evidence can and does provide overwhelming cross-confirmation of the fact that the apparent fossil lineages (gaps and all) are, indeed, true lines of descent. But the creationists don't like to talk about that...

Anyone can give a rationale as to why there are gaps.

Especially when they're right, and can demonstrate it through research and independent lines of evidence. Is there some reason you "forgot" to mention that?

But the gaps remain.

Big freaking deal. There are gaps in your own family tree history -- does that mean you didn't actually descend from other people? Get a clue.

The "only if" arguments will only convince true believers.

Then how handy that biologists don't actually rely on "only if arguments", they rely on vast amounts of evidence and analysis which demonstrates the truth of their conclusions.

And assertions such as "he was right" are not going to cut it.

Darwin *was* right, as 150 years of subsequent evidence and research have overwhelmingly demonstrated. And no amount of "gaps, gaps, oh my god gaps!" from you or other die-hard creationists is going to hand-wave away the evidence. Yeah, there are gaps. Whoop-de-doo. What you keep "forgetting" to consider is that the size, nature, and location of the gaps, ALONG WITH the vast amount of available evidence which you keep wanting to not talk about, exquisitely supports evolutionary biology. Deal with it.

220 posted on 10/14/2005 4:23:13 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Stone Mountain; joeclarke; Oztrich Boy; jayef; Pure Country; js1138; RogueIsland; PatrickHenry; ...
Either you or she is lying, but, if she and you continue talking, please keep me informed.

A museum that claims they do not give tours to school kids, if you believe that, it is understadable that you believe in the theroy of coming from a rock, a rock that came from nothing.

Hey, I'm on my way to a gravel pit, want me to say "Hi" to any of your kin?

221 posted on 10/14/2005 4:57:22 AM PDT by newsgatherer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
And today's evolution breaking news


Hey, look what they are doing to your near kin.

Evolution, the religion that believes that man and goose are not only kin, but trace their roots back to the same acid rain socked rock.Billions and billions of years ago in a galaxy far, far away, there was nothing, absolutely nothing...

But the one I like best is the theory of the frog, Millions and millions of years ago in a swamp far far away lived a frog and over millions and millions of years, this lucky frog, who never got ate by a snake, fish or alligator, became a prince. I like the other kids version better, Once upon a time their was a princess, and she kissed a frog and puff it became a prince.

222 posted on 10/14/2005 5:05:58 AM PDT by newsgatherer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
... I assure you that our educators are more able to support the Museum's position and second, we do not give tours.

Wow. Unreal friggin real ... What some people will do just to try to keep their beliefs and push their beliefs on others. This is about disgusting as people who suggest that if you practice proper empirical science in the theories of evolution you must be a liberal.

Thanks for this.

223 posted on 10/14/2005 5:43:28 AM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I'm sure glad you are on this board. Your posts are right on.


224 posted on 10/14/2005 5:54:48 AM PDT by hawkaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer

I'm sure you have a telephone, plus the ability to e-mail people at the museum.


225 posted on 10/14/2005 6:06:37 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

[Thunderous applause!]


226 posted on 10/14/2005 6:34:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan; Ichneumon
If the evolution of life can be shown to be "in fact" inherently discontinuous then Darwin is falsified.

This becomes exceedingly dishonest. It has repeatedly been pointed out to you that neither Darwin himself nor anyone after expected the fossil record to be continuous. This is for inevitable reasons of geology as much as biology.

All that said, there are certain known cases where millions of years of geological deposition have continued uninterrupted on certain areas of sea floor.

Cores from such deposists have been microscopically examined and, guess what? Very long and sweeping completely smooth transitions exist.

Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Foraminifera.

So where we have a gap-free fossil record, we have found instances of gap free evolution. So what were you saying?

If the evolution of life can be shown to be "in fact" inherently discontinuous then Darwin is falsified.

Perhaps the out is that it doesn't matter how many continuous histories we find, any discontinuous process of evolution falsifies Darwin?

Not really. Such discontinuous events as speciations by hybridization and polyploidy (I can Google, you can Google) have been identified and, no, Darwin is not falsified. These are rather interesting special cases which Darwin, knowing nothing of genetics, did not anticipate but it's no big deal.

227 posted on 10/14/2005 7:28:43 AM PDT by VadeRetro (I'll have a few sleepless nights after I send you over, sure! But it'll pass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer

Feel free to contact the museum yourself to verify the information.


228 posted on 10/14/2005 7:59:03 AM PDT by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%; balrog666; BMCDA; Condorman; Dimensio; Doctor Stochastic; general_re; Ichneumon; ..
Feathered dinosaurs liked flying so much they tried it twice.

Buitreraptor gonzalezorum, from the Neuquén Basin in central Argentina may provide tantalising evidence that powered flight evolved twice.

Details of the discovery appear in the academic journal Nature.

One theory suggests the lineage of dinosaurs the new animal belonged to, the dromaeosaurs, originated in the Cretaceous Period (144 to 65 million years ago).

But this discovery suggests their lineage can be traced further back in time, to the Jurassic (206 to 144 million years ago), experts say.

The authors say the discovery Rahonavis and Buitreraptor have long and wing-like forelimbs could imply that flight evolved twice, once in birds and once among this group of Gondwanan dromaeosaurs.

229 posted on 10/14/2005 12:32:57 PM PDT by b_sharp (Making a monkey of a creationist should be a natural goal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Ichneumon

Hey. We have to stop the thunderous applause thingy. If we keep it up Ichy will explode and give birth to some new "kind" and create another gap.


230 posted on 10/14/2005 12:49:54 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws; Ichneumon
Hey. We have to stop the thunderous applause thingy.

I can't help it. The Grand Master insists.

231 posted on 10/14/2005 12:55:38 PM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Where do you think I am going wrong? (Please be specific.)

You should have taken a left turn at Albuquerque.

232 posted on 10/14/2005 12:55:55 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Merely arrogant ignorance.
233 posted on 10/14/2005 12:59:35 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Now you're just being offensively obnoxious. I explained the nature of your fallacies to you in my earlier post, but rather than gain any englightenment from that, you decide to just bluster on with your same flawed arguments, while cranking up the "in-your-face' quotient several notches. Be honest: Do you actually want to discuss the science, and maybe learn something yourself in the process, or do you just want to "preach" at us about how evolution's days are allegedly numbered? Knock it off!

You're becoming an insulting bore! If you want to debate....debate. .but knock off the insults.

However, I find your "pattern" illustrations useful. In a way that helps illuminate the problem of the gaps. The "pattern" is Darwin's vision of the continuum of life. The fossils are the dots. From a distance we see the "pattern". But under closer examination we see the dots (fossils). The question now becomes what is the reality? The "pattern" or the "dots"?

Come on, DRF, if you've done real engineering, you *know* how to do these kinds of analyses. If you have a process that occurs in a certain way, *and* you can only take samples or observations of that process at certain intervals or from certain narrow viewing angles or whatever, you know how to work out how to test whether the results of your limited sampling method matches the expected operational results or not. It's not rocket science.

Yes I have done a lot of analysis in my time. Mostly math modeling of electronic systems in order to get an understanding of the basic dynamics of their inherently discontinuous nature. I once worked in a section that was called "The Continuous Systems Section".

I'll try to give you my understanding of why I believe Darwin got it wrong.

You said: "...you can only take samples or observations of that process at certain intervals..." And their in lies the problem.

Darwin insisted that the evolution of life was a continuum of small micro changes over vast periods of time. The pattern he was perceiving in his mind was smooth and easily discernible. His mistake was a natural one. Humans look for patterns all the time. In our minds Patterns take priority over discontinuous, abrupt seemingly nonsensical jumbles of data. We gravitate to patterns because it enhances our ability to understand reality. And it's also intellectually fulfilling. But it can also mislead.

My career begin in the days of the slide rule. It was necessary to make assumptions about our systems since our computational abilities were severely limited in comparison with today. Because of these limitations we were forced to build "testbeds" and "breadboards" which became our defacto computational tools.

With the advent of the PC and mega computational power the necessity of test beds was reduced. We can now model very complex highly discontinuous systems that were once out of our computational reach.

Now back to Darwin. Darwin had a choice to make. When he saw the "... extreme imperfection of the geological record." His words. And how it contrasted with the "pattern" he visualized in his mind. He decided to fill the gaps in the record with rationals. I've done this myself by the way. He did this because the pattern was his priority not the data. He could have said "you know...the data is highly discontinuous and this leads me to believe that the evolution of life is discontinuous". But he didn't. And for perfectly understandable reasons. His "pattern" was easier to understand and more intellectually fulfilling. But it misled him to declare the "pattern" was the reality when in fact it was the "dots" that were the reality..

As some one who has worked with "patterns", (they are called linearized models in my profession), I can testify that they are of limited use. They provide some insight into the dynamics of a system but leave out an understanding of transient responses and nonlinear saturations ("hitting the rails") which is vital in the designing of a robust system. Hence the need for testbeds and breadboards.

There were people in my specialty at retirement (sophisticated switchmode power conversion systems) who were still clinging to the old "patterns". They are mostly old professors who made their reputations on and published many a textbook explaining the old "patterns".

But we now utilize the power of the PC. And we model discontinuous non linear models which give us a better and more complete understanding of the dynamics of systems.

The Darwinian "pattern" is something we formulate in our minds. The data is the reality. On closer examination we discover the "pattern" isn't continuous as Darwin once thought. It's extremely discontinuous. And Darwin's claim of a 'smooth continuum' is falsified.

234 posted on 10/14/2005 1:00:24 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Do I detect a yearning for a free pass?

But if the defence were drawn offside, it won't work.

235 posted on 10/14/2005 1:05:56 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

I think the defence has 12 men on the field.


236 posted on 10/14/2005 1:09:05 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Donald Rumsfeld Fan
Scientific revolutions are always resisted. As Kuhn makes clear. And they don't happen over night.

But Kuhn was mostly wrong. Quantum Mechanics was accepted almost universally within a year of Heisenberg's ans Schroedinger's papers.

237 posted on 10/14/2005 1:11:24 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

If I believed I evolved from a monkey, which I don't, that would not necessarily prevent me from believing in a Creator. After all, the monkey didn't just appear.

IMO, the greatest evidence of a Creator is the vast world of creatures from amoebas to the most evolved mammals, the amazingly endless number and types of plant life...so much variety and creativity! Honestly, I am not trying to be combative. I'm just expressing that the more I learn about the world, the less likely it seems that it is all just random, and happened on its own. And though my theory is just as provable as yours, I don't think evolution must exclude Creation, or vice-versa.


238 posted on 10/14/2005 1:13:29 PM PDT by I'm ALL Right!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: js1138

But the 12th man is a strawman.


239 posted on 10/14/2005 1:14:33 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

I'm not particularly thrilled by the idea of rooster-sized dinosaurs. My parents had an egg farm (free range) when I was a toddler, and the roosters attacked me at every opportunity. Think in terms of the early scene in Jurassic Park where the raptor's claw is demonstrated.

Spielberg's raptors were modeled after the behavior of fowl. I've seen those hunting techniques up close.


240 posted on 10/14/2005 1:15:19 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

I was thinking of a less secular dozen.


241 posted on 10/14/2005 1:16:36 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
It has repeatedly been pointed out to you that neither Darwin himself nor anyone after expected the fossil record to be continuous

. Not the fossil record. The evolution of life. I'm sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

The fossil record is "severely discontinuous" as Darwin admitted. And that was his gravest concern.

242 posted on 10/14/2005 1:16:52 PM PDT by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

No fair. Creationists haven't figured out QM yet and probably never will.

I happened to take college geology a few years before plate techtonics was proposed. I distinctly recall hearing rather long and detailed lectures on the evidence for continental drift. It was even in the textbooks.

No one was really opposed to the idea. They simply hadn't settled on a mechanism supported by evidence.


243 posted on 10/14/2005 1:23:22 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies]

To: js1138

How about a Baker's dozen? They need all the help they can get.


244 posted on 10/14/2005 1:24:33 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"I think the defence has 12 men on the field.

They must be playing Canadian fooball.

245 posted on 10/14/2005 1:50:27 PM PDT by b_sharp (Making a monkey of a creationist should be a natural goal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"I'm not particularly thrilled by the idea of rooster-sized dinosaurs. My parents had an egg farm (free range) when I was a toddler, and the roosters attacked me at every opportunity. Think in terms of the early scene in Jurassic Park where the raptor's claw is demonstrated.

Domestic roosters can't fly. A flying velociraptor is more frightening than a running raptor.

It's great fun when you cut their heads off and they insist on believing it's still attached while running 'headlong' into a barn door.

(I needed the catharsis of that ghoulish vision.)

246 posted on 10/14/2005 1:59:21 PM PDT by b_sharp (Making a monkey of a creationist should be a natural goal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp
Domestic roosters can't fly.

That's an absolute statement attempting to cover a complex reality. Modern egg layers are so inbred and overfed they can barely walk. Free range chickens can fly, even if not far. Farther than a two-year-old boy.

247 posted on 10/14/2005 2:10:16 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: newsgatherer
Billions and billions of years ago in a galaxy far, far away, there was nothing, absolutely nothing...

Oh, look, again a creationist lies about what evolution states. What a shock.
248 posted on 10/14/2005 2:12:48 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: I'm ALL Right!
If I believed I evolved from a monkey, which I don't,

Neither does any intelligent person who accepts and understands evolution.
249 posted on 10/14/2005 2:15:18 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"That's an absolute statement attempting to cover a complex reality.

I am prone to that aren't I.

The chicken I have familiarity with were far too heavy to fly farther than 10 or 20 metres. I had cousins that lived on a farm who loved teaching their city slicker cousin all the ins and outs of farm life, including how to scare the s&*t out of chickens. They taught me to hold the rooster or hen with its head tucked under its wing and gently rock it to sleep. When it was sound asleep I was instructed to throw it as high as I could and watch the look on its face when it found itself 4 or 5 metres in the air.

I never did learn how to read their faces...beaks...whatever.

"Modern egg layers are so inbred and overfed they can barely walk. Free range chickens can fly, even if not far. Farther than a two-year-old boy.

There's the problem...your age. I was 8 when I tortured my first chicken.

(The torturing didn't last long because I really felt I was doing something wrong.)

250 posted on 10/14/2005 2:23:45 PM PDT by b_sharp (Making a monkey of a creationist should be a natural goal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 151-200201-250251-300301-331 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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