Expert
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 4,131
|
Quote:
Which is why people who are smarter than you, JCL and Marco, have been able to converse with me on the subject.
Maybe you are the smartest of all, since you seem to see clearly what all scientists with training and experience miss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have conversed with you at length about the subject, but the fact is, there is little reason to use scientific arguement when you are incapable of seperating evidence from your own biases.
For instance, I have repeatedly mentioned that there are clear genetic relationships between humans, chimpanzees, and likely all other lifeforms. The genetic seperation is generally in line with the morphological differences, with chimps sharing 96% of our DNA, and being the most morphologically like humans.
This seems conclusive.
I have heard no possible refutations, and certainly you have offered none. Do you deny that these facts are accurate? Or do you suppose that modern genetic science is inherently flawed?
Given these simple genetic facts, it seems that no other arguements for the reality of evolution are needed. The proof is in the genes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But all the other evidence gives more weight to the conclusion. The evidence from the fossil record seems very strong, with many transitional forms having been found since Darwin's day-- from Archeaopteryx to this new fossil, Tiktallik, which I have mentioned in another thread.
These can be certainly be considered "transitional" forms, and your arguments are insufficient to disprove this. Even if they are NOT, this doesn't disprove evolutionary theory. Fossils are certainly not preserved for every species, nor do we need fossils to conclude that evolution happens. Darwin already did it without fossils.
But as we have the fossils, we should use them, and they are conclusive.
To get the meat of the thing, what about hominid fossils such as Homo Erectus? Can you deny that this species is related to modern humans? It seems that such a denial is impossible, given the obvious similarities. What the exact place of H. Erectus is in the human family tree is not certain, but what seems certain is that is HAS a place.
Homo Erectus was so like us that he could walk down the street wearing modern clothes and not draw too much attention. He could use and make tools, he could probably make fire, and may have had some language skills.
How then does Homo Erectus fit into the world if not as a human ancestor? Is he a freak of nature, without precedent or antecedent?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you may see, the fossil record is not really a search for the precious transitional forms, but a search for species with dates. We can reconstruct the evolutionary tree, however approimately, from any specimens with dates. Why do all vertebrates seem to share important characteristic, such as 4 limbs, when most lifeforms like arthropods, etc have more limbs/legs?
Is it not sensible to conclude that the this is because there is a line of descent between the vertebrate species, and that they are related? To deny this is to posit that each species is entirely seperate from all others. Is then a lion completely divorced from a tiger? They share may features, they can even interbreed. Yet according to your philosphy, they must be seperate and the lines unbroken from the beginning of time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What about the sequence of the appearance of species in the fossil record? Why do only very simple and primitive forms seem to exist from the earliest ages, to be followed by more and more complex creatures in latter? Did creation happen again and again? Why do we not see God creating new species even now, under our very noses. Bing, out pops an alligiraffe!
The answer is, speciea take long time to develop. But it is ongoing, even now. There are new species forming as we speak, out there in the jungles, in the misted ranges of the Costa Rican cloudforests, in the perenially flooded wetlands of the Amazon Basin, and in your backyard.
This is why I say species always in transition, fomr one form to another. Species are after all populations, not discreet blocks. As Darwin saw, birds can differentiate based on environment and habit and opportunity. They speciated in the Galapogos over a fairly short time, in the scheme of the Ages of the Earth. I see no reason to contradict Darwin, as his conclusions and observations have stood for over 150 years. It will take more than you to knock them down.
|
