Posted on 04/28/2004 12:57:48 PM PDT by Junior
You were expecting what, movie frames? Not realistic, although it is observed here and there (see Smooth Change in the Fossil Record), mostly in oceanic sediments which have experienced continual depostion across millions of years. The continents have been subject to plate tectonics, periods of depostion separated by long periods of erosion which guarantee a very "gappy" record.
The fossil evidence that I cite is exactly what evolution would create in the plate-tectonic continental-drift geology that we now know the Earth has had. It is a strawman to pretend that anything else is to be expected. You continue to try to erect and knock down this strawman. Not very convincing.
By comparision, no alternative model--"saltational" or other--of which I'm aware accounts for why a certain lineage of reptiles called synapsids should over a period of maybe 100 million years transform into something recognizeable as early mammals. It's nice and gradual. Genesis doesn't mention anything like it. Creationists just look at it and say "But where are the intermediate forms between that one and that one and that one and that one and that one and that one ...?"
Silly lawyering games! You don't like the evidence, so you take your ball and go home. Well, boo hoo! Your failure to understand isn't proof of anything.
You seek to leap millenias of millenia to arrive at a conclusion that can't support the gap of time and evidence. Seeking to discount a lack of fossil evidence that may bridge gaps as much as 450 million years is pure faith,not science.
I have given you plenty of material that says science and the fossil record are in accord. You respond with continued unsupported assertions that they are not. What are you babbling about above? Please put up or shut up.
Darwin predicted nothing,he specualted by relying heavily upon the works of Edward Blyth,Charles Lyell and Alfred Wallace for his theories.
It's too late to worry about how Darwin wrote his book in any event, but your "facts" here are wrong. Darwin was in front of everyone on the mechanisms of evolution. Others had recognized that evolution occurs, yes. It's not that hard to see if you're not a cretinist. Darwin and Wallace independently arrived at the mechanism of variation plus natural selection, but Darwin was definitely first. He just took his time getting published and was nearly scooped by Wallace.
To say that Darwin relied on Wallace when anyone familiar with the subject knows that he anticipated him by a decade or more is to reveal serious problems with yourself as a source. How is one to interpret such a statement? You're either profoundly ignorant of what you say, or you feel licensed to lie. In either case, your performance is abysmal. If you don't know this stuff, why don't you take some time to find out before embarrassing yourself?
Honestly produced biographical information is available everywhere. If you rely on creationist sources, your posting experience here is going to be a stream of embarrassments.
You may be comfortable with a speculative theory that presents millions of years of void as its basis. I chose not to be so enraptured simply to oppose another point of view.
You are clearly uncomfortable with mainstream science--not just biological evolution but most of geology and paleontology--because of your religious convictions. The biggest joke in this discussion is that you understand anything about science or even history.
Reveals a lot about the mindset here that they think attacking Darwin (d. 1881) is going to change anything in 2004. The way science works, he was only the first Darwinist.
The way religion works, it makes sense. Attack the Prophet, his revealed word is discredited. But Darwin isn't the Prophet. He's just the first person to point out something, a thing for which a lot more evidence has been unearthed since he died than he ever saw in his day.
Now that I think about it, you're just sad.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on, off, or alter the "Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list --
Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
The GGG Digest -- Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.The Neandertal EnigmaFrayer's own reading of the record reveals a number of overlooked traits that clearly and specifically link the Neandertals to the Cro-Magnons. One such trait is the shape of the opening of the nerve canal in the lower jaw, a spot where dentists often give a pain-blocking injection. In many Neandertal, the upper portion of the opening is covered by a broad bony ridge, a curious feature also carried by a significant number of Cro-Magnons. But none of the alleged 'ancestors of us all' fossils from Africa have it, and it is extremely rare in modern people outside Europe." [pp 126-127]
by James Shreeve
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
Does this explain why the kids over at Darwin Central want to be considered adults?
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.