Hello board! I've been away for a while, I know. I've been busy with school, work and debating morons on other boards. I was wondering if you would
like to comment on the argumentation by one poster on another board who makes some nasty comments about me, Nad, TalkOrigins and evolution in general. If
nothing else, ammuse yourself:
Brad,
I have read your posts on this board with much amusement . In particular, I find it hilarious that someone with such a tentative grasp of the issues surrounding evolutionary theory feels qualified to ridicule the genuine misgivings held by anyone else . The fact of the matter is evolutionary theory is a philosophy unsupported by the weight of genuine scientific evidence, despite your efforts to present the evidence as indisputable.
You state that "I love science, logic and a persuasive argument". It's quite ironic then that you should take the stance that you do. What is even more laughable is that you continue on to say "My greatest aptitude is my clear thinking and sincerity" . What is evident to most of us by now is your need to be perceived as intellectually gifted by your peers. Why else would you be so dismissive of differing opinion if not your need to feel intellectually superior?
Perhaps you could reason upon why you think the fossil evidence supports the claim of evolutionary theorists. I am largely unimpressed by the website links which you have provided, and many other rational people should be also. Much of the "evidence" you have provided as proof that evolution can be supported by fossil records, holds little credibility. It is merely an attempt by a scientist to present common characteristics between species as proof of descent from a common ancestor.
To illustrate my point, examine the evolutionary lineage of the Modern Horse, Equus. The website which you have cited provides examples of numerous evolutionary intermediaries between Hyracotherium and Equus, following which it invites us to "Compare Equus to Hyracotherium and see how much it has changed". The very fact that this particular theory of equine evolution was discredited over half a century ago seems to have eluded you. Consider the comments of G.G. Simpson (widely accredited as the 20th Century's greatest evolutionary paleontologist) in his 1953 publication "Life of the Past". On page 119, he states "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature."
His comments still hold their validity today. Dr. David Raup comments "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50(1), 1979, p 25)
It may interest you to know that in the case of equine fossils, the fossils of the earlier species in the supposed evolutionary chain have, in some cases, been discovered in higher rock strata than that of the more advanced latter species. Fossils of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensls and Equus accidentalis. Although this clearly contravenes the theory of Darwinian evolution, the scientific community saw no problem in failing to mention this (tailoring the evidence to fit the theory is the term I would use in this particular case).
Despite all of this, the website you have cited quotes the evolutionary path from Hyracotherium to Equus, as valid proof that the fossil records support the theory of evolution. The scientific community, in their anxiousness to provide evidence which underpins their claim, have selectively used evidence to promote the false belief that such common ancestry exists. The website information amounts to nothing more than a 21st century attempt at "Piltdown Man".
I would be interested to hear your explanation for the Cambrian explosion, where the basic animal groups appear suddenly and without any evidence of an evolutionary ancestor. Why is it that scientists struggle to account for this? Why are there large gaps in the fossil record in general? I find the explanation given in www.talkorigins.org woefully inadequate. The explanation that stratigraphic discontinuities, the skeletal fragility of certain species and inadequate exploration is largely to blame merely confirms that the theory is founded on incomplete and structurally weak evidence. The suggestion, which is akin to saying "the evidence from the fossil records supports the theory, but we haven't found it yet and we are not certain that it exists in its entirety" would cause any open minded person to view the claims of the scientist with suspicion.
Yet you claim that one of your strengths is logical thinking! Is it logical to assume that incomplete evidence makes the case for evolution? I have a strong suspicion that if you were a member of a jury, such patchy and incomplete evidence would not sufficiently convince you to believe the person making the case, so why is it logical to subscribe so wholeheartedly to evolutionary theory?
Niles Eldredge, a pre-eminent expert in the field of marine invertebrate fossils, notes when speaking of the fossil records that paleontologists discover "zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change - over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution" (Reinventing Darwin: A Great Debate at the High Table of evolutionary Theory, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995 p.95)
The fact is that the overall fossil record is extremely disappointing to the evolutionists. Even if we are to accept the idea that much of the evidence remains undiscovered, this does not account for the fact that if the theory were true, then the evidence to support it would be most abundant in the areas where the fossil record is most complete - among marine invertebrates. Yet this evidence is conspicuously absent, which is why experts in marine invertebrate fossils use hominid examples to argue the case for evolution.
Perhaps you would benefit from the realization that authorities do not establish facts. Facts are established by evidence which stands the test of cross examination. The mere fact that you appeal to authorities to substantiate your position is evidence of your intellectual weakness and inability to analyze information and determine independently the validity of its content. Maybe you should address this obvious academic weaknesses before you comment on what you perceive to be other people's flaws. Contrary to your misguided beliefs, Golda's open mindedness and her need for supporting evidence is not a sign of lack of intelligence, but a quality adopted by the best academics.
I would also be interested in hearing about the mechanism of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Despite rigorous efforts to find a more credible alternative, the only existing mechanism of evolution which is agreed upon is the two part process which Darwin outlined in "On the Origin of the Species" - random mutation and natural selection. Whereas scientists can provide evidence of a mechanism that can account for minor changes such as the variations in the length of finch beaks, as studied by Peter and Rosemary Grant, in the Galapagos islands (Wiener, J. "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time", Vintage, 1995.), evidence of an evolutionary process which can grow organs like brains, eyes and ears is absent. When the mechanism is subjected to detailed criticism, evolutionists quickly run out of evidence. To hide the shortage of evidence in this particular issue, evolutionists have for years attempted to establish the "fact of evolution" (the fact that organisms with certain similarities such as DNA are grouped in patterns) as proof of evolutionary theory, conveniently disregarding the mechanism.
If proof were needed that the current explanation is inadequate and that Neo-Darwinists are uncomfortable with the established mechanism of the Macro-evolutionary process (the two fold mutation-natural selection model), it is evident from the position held by Harvard Professor Steven Jay Gould, who states that new mechanisms are about to be discovered that will produce a more complicated theory, in which strictly Darwinian selection of individual organisms will play a reduced role.
The idea that random mutation and natural selection is an effective mechanism for Macro-evolution is further severely undermined by the recent discovery that Homo Erectus, Neanderthal Man and Modern Humans co-existed as recently as 30,000 years ago, in Java. Until recently, scientists believed that human evolution followed a neat lineage from one species to another. Under Darwinist principles, it should not be possible for more primitive species to co-exist with advanced ones for any prolonged length of time (natural selection should prohibit this!).
To further fuel doubt, fossil evidence is occasionally unearthed which contravenes the Darwinian theory that more advanced species could not pre-exist the more primitive ones. These include the discovery of a fossilized hammer, in what is accepted as 140 million yr old cretaceous limestone at London, TX. The earliest human ancestor proposed by evolutionists, Australopithecus afarensis dating back only 3.5 million years, lacked the ability to use tools. The reason for its classification as a human ancestor was bipedalism. Also consider the fossilized footprint of a cat found in middle cretaceous rock at Glen Rose, TX (an area famous for successful dinosaur excavations). Common belief is that this species did not exist at that time. These examples are far from isolated (Also consider the case of malachite man; 10 articulated skeletons discovered beneath Lower Cretaceous sandstone in South Dakota, and the fossilized human footprint discovered in the Robledos Mountains of New Mexico, dating back to the Permian period)
The implications of this are given in Niles Eldredge's quote that "We have been looking at the fossil record as a general test of the notion that life has evolved: to falsify that general idea, we would have to show that forms of life we considered more advanced appear earlier than the simpler forms." (Monkey Business, p.46, 1982)
Certain contemporary evolutionists, in particular Richard Dawkins, subscribe to the Gene Selection theory of evolution (The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, 1989). Put simply, it is a theory that postulates that natural selection selects genes, not primarily whole organisms. In particular, it asserts that particular genes improve their chances of survival by creating/improving organisms that are themselves good at survival and reproduction. The implicit assumption is that everything can be reduced to matter, including life itself.
Hence, the only purpose of life is DNA survival. A person is merely a vehicle through which DNA can replicate itself.
There are two potent criticisms of this viewpoint. The first is provided by the pioneer of the gene selection hypothesis, George Williams (The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995). Williams claims that everything is NOT reducible to matter, that information is distinct from matter and in fact pre-exists matter. In particular, Williams proposed that genetic information and the medium through which this information was held are two distinct entities. The identification of the information-matter duality has powerful implications on reductionism and hence evolutionary theory, since the existence of information which is independent of matter implies intelligent causation. Interestingly, the gene selection theory also implies that human thought and emotion is a worthless by product of DNA's mechanical need to reproduce, which would render much of Dawkins' theories meaningless.
The second argument which undermines the gene selection process of evolution is the presented by Prof. Michael Behe. He asserts that certain biological functions (such as blood clotting) are irreducibly complex. By this, he means that certain molecular mechanisms consist of many parts which interact in complex ways, requiring all the parts to be present for the function to work. The implication of this is that such functions could not be developed by a step by step Darwinian process.
I expect that at this point, you will implore me to read Keith Robinson's rebuttal of Behe's work. I have read over 30 such criticisms, including Robinson's, and have found that most of them to be weak arguments based Ad Hominem criticisms and/or willful misrepresentations of Behe's work. If you wish to seek an honest appraisal of Behe's work, consider reading Prof. James Shapiro's (who is a leading academic in the field of molecular biology) pre-publication evaluation of the material.
Far from demonstrating your intellectual ability, logical reasoning and clear thinking, your posts on this board have served only to demonstrate your shortfall in these areas. As an example, I take this quote from one of your posts:
"And, of course, there are plenty of intermidiate fossils from this timespan, including Australophithicus afarensis which I cited to you earlier"
Are you aware that Australopithecus afarensis is not an intermediate fossil but the supposed common ancenstor of man? I would recommend that you follow the advice you gave to Golda and that you
"educate yourself on the fundamentals of evolution before you tackle the weightier issues. One must learn their a,b,c's before they can read Shakespeare."
The purpose of this post was not to debate the issue of evolution with you. I say this principally for two reasons. Firstly, I do not wish to dominate the board with an issue which most members are now fed up with. Secondly (and more importantly) I have encountered more well reasoned, cohesive and persuasive arguments from school children, let alone one of my undergrads, and therefore am not prepared to waste any more of my time on you.
I am not a biblical fundementalist, am not and never have been a JW (In fact, I used to believe in the theory of evolution until not so long ago!). My issue is not with your beliefs, but in the manner you present them to other people. You assume that you have been gifted with some higher form of understanding and repudiate the valid opinions of others who disagree with you.
My intention in making this post is to highlight to people that you are not the intelligent, logical thinking scholar which you proclaim yourself to be, but rather an intellectually inept moron with an overdeveloped sense of self importance.
I can understand your overwhelming desire to subscribe to evolutionary theory at all costs. It must be hard to believe that a loving god could ever have created anything quite as stupid as yourself. Perhaps you can take comfort in the fact that your friend Nad is even further down the intellectual chain than you are.
In your post about describing yourself in 200 words or less, you state that "My worst quality is judging other's harshly". My worst quality is that I don't suffer fools gladly, and you are one of the most foolish people I have ever encountered.
Despite all of this, I wish you well in life
Angel
Brad,
I have read your posts on this board with much amusement . In particular, I find it hilarious that someone with such a tentative grasp of the issues surrounding evolutionary theory feels qualified to ridicule the genuine misgivings held by anyone else . The fact of the matter is evolutionary theory is a philosophy unsupported by the weight of genuine scientific evidence, despite your efforts to present the evidence as indisputable.
You state that "I love science, logic and a persuasive argument". It's quite ironic then that you should take the stance that you do. What is even more laughable is that you continue on to say "My greatest aptitude is my clear thinking and sincerity" . What is evident to most of us by now is your need to be perceived as intellectually gifted by your peers. Why else would you be so dismissive of differing opinion if not your need to feel intellectually superior?
Perhaps you could reason upon why you think the fossil evidence supports the claim of evolutionary theorists. I am largely unimpressed by the website links which you have provided, and many other rational people should be also. Much of the "evidence" you have provided as proof that evolution can be supported by fossil records, holds little credibility. It is merely an attempt by a scientist to present common characteristics between species as proof of descent from a common ancestor.
To illustrate my point, examine the evolutionary lineage of the Modern Horse, Equus. The website which you have cited provides examples of numerous evolutionary intermediaries between Hyracotherium and Equus, following which it invites us to "Compare Equus to Hyracotherium and see how much it has changed". The very fact that this particular theory of equine evolution was discredited over half a century ago seems to have eluded you. Consider the comments of G.G. Simpson (widely accredited as the 20th Century's greatest evolutionary paleontologist) in his 1953 publication "Life of the Past". On page 119, he states "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature."
His comments still hold their validity today. Dr. David Raup comments "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50(1), 1979, p 25)
It may interest you to know that in the case of equine fossils, the fossils of the earlier species in the supposed evolutionary chain have, in some cases, been discovered in higher rock strata than that of the more advanced latter species. Fossils of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensls and Equus accidentalis. Although this clearly contravenes the theory of Darwinian evolution, the scientific community saw no problem in failing to mention this (tailoring the evidence to fit the theory is the term I would use in this particular case).
Despite all of this, the website you have cited quotes the evolutionary path from Hyracotherium to Equus, as valid proof that the fossil records support the theory of evolution. The scientific community, in their anxiousness to provide evidence which underpins their claim, have selectively used evidence to promote the false belief that such common ancestry exists. The website information amounts to nothing more than a 21st century attempt at "Piltdown Man".
I would be interested to hear your explanation for the Cambrian explosion, where the basic animal groups appear suddenly and without any evidence of an evolutionary ancestor. Why is it that scientists struggle to account for this? Why are there large gaps in the fossil record in general? I find the explanation given in www.talkorigins.org woefully inadequate. The explanation that stratigraphic discontinuities, the skeletal fragility of certain species and inadequate exploration is largely to blame merely confirms that the theory is founded on incomplete and structurally weak evidence. The suggestion, which is akin to saying "the evidence from the fossil records supports the theory, but we haven't found it yet and we are not certain that it exists in its entirety" would cause any open minded person to view the claims of the scientist with suspicion.
Yet you claim that one of your strengths is logical thinking! Is it logical to assume that incomplete evidence makes the case for evolution? I have a strong suspicion that if you were a member of a jury, such patchy and incomplete evidence would not sufficiently convince you to believe the person making the case, so why is it logical to subscribe so wholeheartedly to evolutionary theory?
Niles Eldredge, a pre-eminent expert in the field of marine invertebrate fossils, notes when speaking of the fossil records that paleontologists discover "zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change - over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution" (Reinventing Darwin: A Great Debate at the High Table of evolutionary Theory, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995 p.95)
The fact is that the overall fossil record is extremely disappointing to the evolutionists. Even if we are to accept the idea that much of the evidence remains undiscovered, this does not account for the fact that if the theory were true, then the evidence to support it would be most abundant in the areas where the fossil record is most complete - among marine invertebrates. Yet this evidence is conspicuously absent, which is why experts in marine invertebrate fossils use hominid examples to argue the case for evolution.
Perhaps you would benefit from the realization that authorities do not establish facts. Facts are established by evidence which stands the test of cross examination. The mere fact that you appeal to authorities to substantiate your position is evidence of your intellectual weakness and inability to analyze information and determine independently the validity of its content. Maybe you should address this obvious academic weaknesses before you comment on what you perceive to be other people's flaws. Contrary to your misguided beliefs, Golda's open mindedness and her need for supporting evidence is not a sign of lack of intelligence, but a quality adopted by the best academics.
I would also be interested in hearing about the mechanism of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Despite rigorous efforts to find a more credible alternative, the only existing mechanism of evolution which is agreed upon is the two part process which Darwin outlined in "On the Origin of the Species" - random mutation and natural selection. Whereas scientists can provide evidence of a mechanism that can account for minor changes such as the variations in the length of finch beaks, as studied by Peter and Rosemary Grant, in the Galapagos islands (Wiener, J. "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time", Vintage, 1995.), evidence of an evolutionary process which can grow organs like brains, eyes and ears is absent. When the mechanism is subjected to detailed criticism, evolutionists quickly run out of evidence. To hide the shortage of evidence in this particular issue, evolutionists have for years attempted to establish the "fact of evolution" (the fact that organisms with certain similarities such as DNA are grouped in patterns) as proof of evolutionary theory, conveniently disregarding the mechanism.
If proof were needed that the current explanation is inadequate and that Neo-Darwinists are uncomfortable with the established mechanism of the Macro-evolutionary process (the two fold mutation-natural selection model), it is evident from the position held by Harvard Professor Steven Jay Gould, who states that new mechanisms are about to be discovered that will produce a more complicated theory, in which strictly Darwinian selection of individual organisms will play a reduced role.
The idea that random mutation and natural selection is an effective mechanism for Macro-evolution is further severely undermined by the recent discovery that Homo Erectus, Neanderthal Man and Modern Humans co-existed as recently as 30,000 years ago, in Java. Until recently, scientists believed that human evolution followed a neat lineage from one species to another. Under Darwinist principles, it should not be possible for more primitive species to co-exist with advanced ones for any prolonged length of time (natural selection should prohibit this!).
To further fuel doubt, fossil evidence is occasionally unearthed which contravenes the Darwinian theory that more advanced species could not pre-exist the more primitive ones. These include the discovery of a fossilized hammer, in what is accepted as 140 million yr old cretaceous limestone at London, TX. The earliest human ancestor proposed by evolutionists, Australopithecus afarensis dating back only 3.5 million years, lacked the ability to use tools. The reason for its classification as a human ancestor was bipedalism. Also consider the fossilized footprint of a cat found in middle cretaceous rock at Glen Rose, TX (an area famous for successful dinosaur excavations). Common belief is that this species did not exist at that time. These examples are far from isolated (Also consider the case of malachite man; 10 articulated skeletons discovered beneath Lower Cretaceous sandstone in South Dakota, and the fossilized human footprint discovered in the Robledos Mountains of New Mexico, dating back to the Permian period)
The implications of this are given in Niles Eldredge's quote that "We have been looking at the fossil record as a general test of the notion that life has evolved: to falsify that general idea, we would have to show that forms of life we considered more advanced appear earlier than the simpler forms." (Monkey Business, p.46, 1982)
Certain contemporary evolutionists, in particular Richard Dawkins, subscribe to the Gene Selection theory of evolution (The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, 1989). Put simply, it is a theory that postulates that natural selection selects genes, not primarily whole organisms. In particular, it asserts that particular genes improve their chances of survival by creating/improving organisms that are themselves good at survival and reproduction. The implicit assumption is that everything can be reduced to matter, including life itself.
Hence, the only purpose of life is DNA survival. A person is merely a vehicle through which DNA can replicate itself.
There are two potent criticisms of this viewpoint. The first is provided by the pioneer of the gene selection hypothesis, George Williams (The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995). Williams claims that everything is NOT reducible to matter, that information is distinct from matter and in fact pre-exists matter. In particular, Williams proposed that genetic information and the medium through which this information was held are two distinct entities. The identification of the information-matter duality has powerful implications on reductionism and hence evolutionary theory, since the existence of information which is independent of matter implies intelligent causation. Interestingly, the gene selection theory also implies that human thought and emotion is a worthless by product of DNA's mechanical need to reproduce, which would render much of Dawkins' theories meaningless.
The second argument which undermines the gene selection process of evolution is the presented by Prof. Michael Behe. He asserts that certain biological functions (such as blood clotting) are irreducibly complex. By this, he means that certain molecular mechanisms consist of many parts which interact in complex ways, requiring all the parts to be present for the function to work. The implication of this is that such functions could not be developed by a step by step Darwinian process.
I expect that at this point, you will implore me to read Keith Robinson's rebuttal of Behe's work. I have read over 30 such criticisms, including Robinson's, and have found that most of them to be weak arguments based Ad Hominem criticisms and/or willful misrepresentations of Behe's work. If you wish to seek an honest appraisal of Behe's work, consider reading Prof. James Shapiro's (who is a leading academic in the field of molecular biology) pre-publication evaluation of the material.
Far from demonstrating your intellectual ability, logical reasoning and clear thinking, your posts on this board have served only to demonstrate your shortfall in these areas. As an example, I take this quote from one of your posts:
"And, of course, there are plenty of intermidiate fossils from this timespan, including Australophithicus afarensis which I cited to you earlier"
Are you aware that Australopithecus afarensis is not an intermediate fossil but the supposed common ancenstor of man? I would recommend that you follow the advice you gave to Golda and that you
"educate yourself on the fundamentals of evolution before you tackle the weightier issues. One must learn their a,b,c's before they can read Shakespeare."
The purpose of this post was not to debate the issue of evolution with you. I say this principally for two reasons. Firstly, I do not wish to dominate the board with an issue which most members are now fed up with. Secondly (and more importantly) I have encountered more well reasoned, cohesive and persuasive arguments from school children, let alone one of my undergrads, and therefore am not prepared to waste any more of my time on you.
I am not a biblical fundementalist, am not and never have been a JW (In fact, I used to believe in the theory of evolution until not so long ago!). My issue is not with your beliefs, but in the manner you present them to other people. You assume that you have been gifted with some higher form of understanding and repudiate the valid opinions of others who disagree with you.
My intention in making this post is to highlight to people that you are not the intelligent, logical thinking scholar which you proclaim yourself to be, but rather an intellectually inept moron with an overdeveloped sense of self importance.
I can understand your overwhelming desire to subscribe to evolutionary theory at all costs. It must be hard to believe that a loving god could ever have created anything quite as stupid as yourself. Perhaps you can take comfort in the fact that your friend Nad is even further down the intellectual chain than you are.
In your post about describing yourself in 200 words or less, you state that "My worst quality is judging other's harshly". My worst quality is that I don't suffer fools gladly, and you are one of the most foolish people I have ever encountered.
Despite all of this, I wish you well in life
Angel
