Who said the following about the fossil record:
The history of most fossil species includes 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.”
I will post the answer tomorrow and bump this back to the top of the page. I will give you a hint: This one is a shocker. Would anyone care to take a guess?
Answer: The late Harvard paleontologist and ardent evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould.
He saw the evidence did not point to a gradual development and transition as Darwinian evolution supposed, so he formulated the punctuated equilibria theory to explain the lack of transitional forms. The PE theory better fits the observed evidence, but Gould had no natural mechanism to explain this.
I don't think CE "proves" creation, but it is a stumbling block to macroevolution.
As to all of the other information, all of that is circumstantial and forensic based science, not hard lab-tested science. Just as with anything else looking backwards.
Most of the so-called hominds have been recreated from a small fraction of the bones of body, sometimes as small as a tooth, sometimes gathered from across an entire field from different areas to construct one fossil.
As to all of the other information, all of that is circumstantial and forensic based science, not hard lab-tested science.
Had to stick your head in the sand after that eh?
I'm not sticking my head in the sand, but I can't go through and point by point answer that much info, so I made a general statement.
I read all of it and was not convinced by any of it. I could do the same with ID or even with creation science. I could go and find a scientist who does a lot of work in the field and just cut and paste large amounts of info. Then you couldn't respond to each point and I could claim you dunked the information.
But regardless, I think you will be surprised by who said the quote.
I'm not sticking my head in the sand, but I can't go through and point by point answer that much info, so I made a general statement.
I'll respond to your "general statement" then. You said…
As to all of the other information, all of that is circumstantial and forensic based science, not hard lab-tested science. Just as with anything else looking backwards. -Aaron
To understand this statement properly, we must translate certain terms properly from creationist spin to reality. If you disagree with the traslation let me know because I can defend it easily.
1. Your use of the term "circumstantial" is incorrect. The proper term is "observation." Empirical observation is not "circumstantial evidence."
Indirect observation = autopsies showing other people have hearts. So, no need for direct observation to conclude you have a heart too.
Indirect observation = transitional forms in the fossil record. So no need for direct observation of "cats changing into dogs right before our eyes."
Indirect observation = empirical. Indirect observation does not = historical or circumstantial.
2. Your use of the term "forensic based science" is incorrect.
Forensic means…
The proper term is "paleontology" which means…
Now, when we restate you assertion with the proper terminology we find that not only is it untrue, but it also contradicts itself…
"As to all of the other information, all of that is observation and paleontology, not hard lab-tested science. Just as with anything else looking backwards.
It's contradictory because 1. paleontology is hard science and 2. paleontaolgy is not lab friendly; you have to go to sites and dig for bones.
Your statement is false because you imply anything having to do with observation and paleontology is irrelevant; "…not hard lab-tested science. Just as with anything else looking backwards."
How many times do we have to go through this? No amount of evidence is going to convince you. You already decided, years ago, how old the Earth is, and who created it, and where we came from. Why do you keep claiming that its the lack of evidence that isn't convincing. You're not convinced because you already decided.
I don't know who said it. If it's someone like Richard Dawkins though I would be leery of a quote taken out of context.
Semantics. Indirect observation (which I called "historic", but I'll use your term) alone can not establish mechanisms – that is pure speculation. That's why gradualists have had to back off of their case, because the fossil record didn't support their theory. This is also why puncutated equilibriumists arose.
The fact that you rely on assumptions to interpret the data, since you can not perform an experiment to validate your guess, means that your assumptions are NOT fact. They are educated guesses.
The fact that both the laws of entropy, genetics, and statistics are against you means that your religous assertions of fact fall on dead ears – you are so totally convinced on this evidence, and wonder why everyone doesn't see the light like you. This is why 50% of Americans do NOT believe like you – because your hubris in overstating your case makes you obviously ideologically driven, not science driven.
…your assumptions are NOT fact. They are educated guesses.
It’s my educated guess you have a heart as well.
…your religious assertions of fact fall on dead ears.
Using the word “religious” to describe my views is not only fallacious and oxymoronic; it also means that you are falling back on your old talking points because you have nothing substantial to counter me with. As far as my “assertions falling on dead ears,” when it comes to you, Aaron and faith, I have no doubt about it.
This is why 50% of Americans do NOT believe like you – because your hubris in overstating your case makes you obviously ideologically driven, not science driven.
Seeker, I was invited to comment on this thread. You know I am not a creationist so your faith in Genesis will be at odds with my belief in scientific principles such as evolution. To refute creationism with scientific facts is not hubris. Think of it as the science education you should’ve had, had you not been duped by your religion into believing that women came from ribs.
That you and Aaron are intelligent men I have no doubt of. But you guys are just as blind and narrow minded as this little girl. No, I am not in any way saying you are taught to hate like her. But I am sure that she will grow up to hold to her Muslim creation myth as zealously as you and Aaron hold to Genesis. If Islam and Christianity share a common flaw, it’s that its followers are taught religious superstition over science.
You mentioned 50% of Americans don’t believe in evolution. That is a sad statistic. I hope our little discussions can serve as a crucible to burn away the untruths of Genesis readers have been taught by religion and all that will be left is reason, understanding, and peace. That’s my ideology, as sentimental as that may sound to you.
Regarding science education, the United States is a backward nation compared to other industrialized nations.
SAD
Bitacle Blog Search Archive – Their Two Cents v.2
[…]
Who said the following about the fossil record:
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1) Stasis. […]
Sam, I have no idea how long ago the Earth was created. I have my guess, but I won't know that now. Just as you say, I've made my mind up and nothing will change it, so have you. You or Cineaste don't care that evolution is not the best explanation for life on this planet, but it is the only strictly naturalistic explanation we've got so you have blind faith in it.
Just like everyone else I went to public school and was taught evolution. I've heard all the evidence supporting it and found it lacking. Seeker went to NC State and got a degree in biochemistry and chemistry. I went to a Christian university and was taught by one of the leading scientists in our state. He worked to produce the first test tube baby in the state (he has since left the field). He currently researches the genetic variations within species, even having a farm at his home where he raises the animals and observes first hand. He was recently recognized as one of the top science professors in the state. Having a PhD, he gives lectures on creation, even Young Earth Creation.
It is not the data that we disagree on Cineaste and Sam. It is the interpretation of that data. You have an a priori stance against anything outside of our limited understanding of nature. I believe it foolish to rule that out before hand.
But since we've had fun with this, I will go post the answer now.
Cineaste, there is a big difference between your two examples. We see the hearts and know scientifically that what is inside the human is a heart, there can be no other explanation.
For the fossils, what you have is something preserved from the past. You have no way of scientifically proving that it is what you say it is – a transitional form. You can make an educated guess, but that is completely different from opening up every human being that dies and seeing a heart. I can see a heart in a morgue today, I can't see a transitional form today.
What you call a transitional form may simply be a similar animal, a fake (China has factories), a combination of several animal fossils to make one, or may be (as today's Their Two Cents will illustrate) going well beyond the evidence we have.
With the hearts people have observed them and will continue to observe them. No one has ever observed a transitional form in action. That is a large leap to make between the two.
Actually, I am refuting evolution with scientific facts, or more specifically, pointing up the lack of facts, and the self-deceptions involved in thinking macroevolution fact.
And your refutations have been refuted. Now, perhaps you could address some of the gaping holes in creationism like if species were designed intelligently, why are 99% of all species that ever lived extinct like the woolly mammoth, the saber tooth tiger, and the most intelligently designed animal of all, the Dodo bird? How can creation even be science if its not falsifiable? What is the mechanism of creationism? How did complex biological features come into existence if it was not through natural selection?
I dare say I've had more and better science education than you, having degreed in Honors Biochemistry and Chemistry from NC State University.
Then, perhaps you can explain the science involved in making the female human gender from a rib? Why would Adam be created a male, with a penis, even though the idea of creating a woman hadn't occured to God yet? If creationism is the science education you recieved at N.C. you got ripped off. I dare say, you could have learned the same thing at Oral Roberts University.
P.S. Go Wolfpack.
Aaron… sigh, what's the use? The best evidence I can give you that fossils exist is to point to a creationist skull, knock on it, and verify that is indeed "hard as a rock!" :)
How does extinction disprove creation? Just because they died doesn't mean they weren't created.
ID is falsifiable – if it can ever be proven that life can evolve with no intelligence involved from nonlife, that would do it. If it can be shown that a single cell organism can exist without any of the parts needed to make it up, etc.
Mechanism of creation is creation. A D[d]esigner made them, which is beyond our current understanding of the natural world.
Complex biological features – Depends on the question, animals were created complex to start with, but again no one doubts microevolution and adaptation within animal kinds.
I'll explain the science involved in making a female from a rib, if you can explain the science involved in life coming from nonlife – both are beyond our natural understanding of science. One allows for something outside our understanding to compensate for that, the other has no means to accomplish itself.
Why a penis before woman – God exists outside of time, so He "knew" He would create a woman as well and knew sex would be part of His plan.
I don't think seeker got creationism at NC State. He got evolution there just like every other public institution. He just found the evidence lacking.
I know fossils exist Cineaste. I am not debating that. I am debating your interpretation of what the fossils mean.
This is the part of the debate that grates on me. I never said that fossils weren't real. I said I didn't agree with what you claimed they meant and for that I am denying that fossils are real.
Interpretation of date does not equal fact automatically. Just as with polls or any other data, the interpretation is where the spin (and debate) lies.
How does extinction disprove creation? Just because they died doesn't mean they weren't created.
Because extinctions indicate design flaws. A lack of "intelligent" design. Non-intelligent design indicates natural selection.
ID is falsifiable – if it can ever be proven that life can evolve with no intelligence involved from nonlife. If it can be shown that a single cell organism can exist without any of the parts needed to make it up, etc.
How do you prove this scientifically? How do you show this scientifically? It's not a valid scientific falsification.
Mechanism of creation is creation. A D[d]esigner made them, which is beyond our current understanding of the natural world.
At least your honest here. So, it's not science, it's religion.
I'll explain the science involved in making a female from a rib, if you can explain the science involved in life coming from nonlife.
Evolution does not, and never has, dealt with how life was created. That's a religious and philisophical debate between atheists and theists, not scientists.
Evolution can tell you about sexual and asexual reproduction if you really want to know. But obviously, the bible has a different explanation for the human female gender than evolution; women came from a rib. The fact is, you can't tell me the science involved in making the human female gender from a rib, because there is none. You're serving me a red herring to cover for your faith.
Why a penis before woman – God exists outside of time, so He "knew" He would create a woman as well and knew sex would be part of His plan.
As soon as I posted this, it occured to me you would say exactly what you did. I walked right into this one. So, granted, you believe your God to be omnicient but how do you know He is omnipotent? Because the bible says so? Or scientifically?
I know fossils exist Cineaste. I am not debating that. I am debating your interpretation of what the fossils mean.
What else, besides evolution, can fossils of animals in transitional forms mean? If you say they don't exist, I refer you to my previous post showing that this is a creationist lie.
And your refutations have been refuted. Now, perhaps you could address some of the gaping holes in creationism
Let me say this very clearly. I did not abandon evolution as an explanation for origins because the fossil record, or any other science, *proved* creationism. It actually started when I began examining the evidence, and realizing that there were so many holes in the data, so many unspoken assumptions, so many disagreements among evolutionary scientists, and so many apparrently bogus assumptions (like vestigial organs and junk DNA) which arose, not out of science, but out of an evolutionary world view that tried to explain things without understanding them.
I realized that it was entirely possible that evolution was not an undisputable, or even undisputed FACT. I had been duped by the science and education establishment, who taught me so many other valid truths, but in this case, they had whitewashed the data and presented evolution as some foregone conclusion, when the data was seriously lacking in many many cases.
And it pissed me off. I don't like being lied to. Another thing which got me questioning evolution is that most evolutionists are totally unwilling to admit or entertain the idea that evolution has a philosophical and world view component. I saw that many had a strong, emotional comittment to evolution as an ideology rather than a theory, as evidenced by their strong reactions when I questioned it. The fact that they were unaware of how they depended on it for answering questions of faith (what is man like, what is god like, where did we come from) as well as questions of morality and such was very telling to me.
I realized that the fossil evidence, as well as evidence from the other sciences, could be harmonized with the creationist view as easily as with the evolutionary view, and in some cases, I thought that it worked better as a model. It fit the data better, and predicted what we should find better.
It fit, in a general way, some of the general laws that we see operating in nature, like entropy and genetic regression to the mean.
And although this is an argument from ignorance (and statistics ;), it answered the question of the incredible complexity of life – you have to admit that to think that our incredibly complex and integrated biological systems arose from chance over time is unbelievable. Sure, there may be as of yet some simple mechanism that explains what evolutionists like to call "the appearance of design" (Wolfram, for example), but just from a heuristic point of view, it beggars belief that random chance really created this.
So all that is to say that, though you have offered up some possible examples of transitional forms, this information is not enough to be convincing, not because of some prior committment to creationism, but because the possibility that you are wrong is still very real. So you've got one or 10 possible transitional fossils? Is that an ironclad case, when there are so many other problems with your theory? Have you disproved creationism with these few examples?
Of course not. You have not "refuted" creationism, just presented some data countering the creationist interpretation. That's dandy. I could not *prove* creationism any more than you can prove evolution with such skimpy data, and with so many other challenges to your theory and mine.
I am not convinced that the facts prove creationism. I am convinced that the facts do not irrefutably support macroevolution, and that some facts do contradict it, and that it is entirely possible that evolution did not happen. Further, the creationist model fits the facts as well, an in some cases, better than the evolutionary model. Added to the lack of convincing data for evolution and the contradictory evidence, evolution is also weakened by it's association with it's natural philosophical and religious implications (eugenics, social Darwinism, man is just a higher animal).
Cin, you've made a nice case for Darwinism. But the fact that you can't or haven't come clean on the weaknesses and holes in your theory indicates to me that you believe it for more than scientific reasons, as do many. If the question "what if evolution is not true" sounds rediculous and upsetting to you, you can bet that more than science is in play.
Seeker, you said something that makes it very clear you do not understand the theory of evolution. It's this…
you have to admit that to think that our incredibly complex and integrated biological systems arose from chance over time is unbelievable. Sure, there may be as of yet some simple mechanism that explains what evolutionists like to call "the appearance of design" (Wolfram, for example), but just from a heuristic point of view, it beggars belief that random chance really created this.
Evolution is not random chance at all. Not at all! Think of the term "Natural Selection." Does that sound random to you? Nature selects, it's not a random process.
Seeker, think of this please…
it very clear you do not understand the theory of evolution.
No, I understand it well, it's just that mutations are random. Sure, you could argue that natural selection is now adding some "selective pressure" which preserves "good" mutations while eliminating bad, but I don't really think this really diminishes the unintelligent and random nature of evolution.
Further, as I have said, while natural selection may preserve certain adaptations or mutations, the pattern is not to eventually get to some quantum change, but rather, the genome reverts back to a genetic mean, in a sense, undoing any genetic mutations in the population. However, I'm sure some evolutionist totally disagrees and is poised to call me names while "refuting" such claims.
Regarding Russell's quote, while there are invalid ways of proving design, that doesn't invalidate all approaches to the question. But he makes a good point about the logical error (I'm sure there's a name for it) that many who approach design make.
But he makes a good point about the logical error (I'm sure there's a name for it) that many who approach design make.
And what is the "logical error" that many who approach design make?
that evolutionists will ever respond to reason ;)
Aaron, please just make sure your quotes are taken in context…
Not all mutations are random. Were it true that all mutations are random, however, that would not change the fact that conditions of life favor only neutral and beneficial mutations. Those that are truly deleterious tend to produce death of the offspring.
7th grade genetics explains why mutations in survivors spread.
Is there evidence you understand evolution? I don't see it. Can you offer some?