Question 1: The Fossil Record

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 8:25 pm

According to Darwin, the absence of intermediate fossil forms "is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:32 am

In the asking of the question, you find the answer to the definition of the terms. Darwin noticed a lack of something. The question is, has that lack been found since his time?

PS - Read Dembski.

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:38 am

Simon wrote:In the asking of the question, you find the answer to the definition of the terms. Darwin noticed a lack of something. The question is, has that lack been found since his time?

que?

Now about those transitional fossils - what does SIMON (PS that is you) think they are and what do they look like?

Simon wrote: PS - Read Dembski.

As I said I have read enuf...

Is he motivated by dogma or science?

Dembski in his own words...

"I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed." He continued, "And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done -- and he's not getting it."

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:41 am

You haven't addressed Dembski's arguments. That's because you haven't read his research. You should remedy that.

By the way, what do you think it means to be motivated by science?

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:48 am

Simon wrote:What new fossil finds, if any, have occurred since Darwin wrote these words nearly 150 years ago? Do they overturn Darwin's bleak assessment of evolutionary theory? If the absence of intermediate fossil forms holds as much today as it did back then, why should anyone accept evolution?

with this question you appear to be papaphrasing (incorrectly I might add) Dembski in Design Revolution where he states:

"....in attempting to account for the emergence of biological complexity, all evolutionists have done is describe supposedly possible mechanisms, in highly abstract and schematic terms, to which, in the case of Darwinism, no significant details have been added since the time of Darwin (and one can argue, none has been added even since the time of Empedocles and Epicurus two thousand years earlier) and for which other naturalistic evolutionary scenarios remain even more speculative. "(p. 270).

He seems to overlook a few things...

The mathematical basis of natural selection in the form of population genetics; the unravelling of the genetic code; the identification of the specific proteins comprising numerous complex biological systems and in many cases the underlying genetic basis for these proteins; endless field studies of natural selection in the wild; laboratory experiments in which multi-part systems (usually in microoganisms) can be seen to evolve in a relatively small number of generations; countless computer simulations in which selection acting on random variation can be seen to produce complexity, including "irreducible complexity"; and, best of all, for numerous complex systems impressively detailed descriptions of plausible sequences of intermediates. Systems so explained include the blood clotting cascade, the Krebs cycle, the immune system and the eye.

Do you think Demski is HONEST?

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 6:50 am

Simon wrote: By the way, what do you think it means to be motivated by science?

You first...

what is your definition of a transitional fossil and what do you think one would look like?

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:00 am

You got your little paragraph from here: http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004_ ... chive.html

For those reading, search for the text that begins with "Here are some details regarding the emergence of complexity that have been added since Darwin" and you'll find bern's little paragraph.

Stop using google and get some critiques of your own.

The fact of the matter is, whenver you can't answer a question you ask me a question. That's weak.

What did you mean earlier when you said, "motivated by science"?

bernee51 · Post by **bernee51** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:09 am

Simon wrote:You got your little paragraph from here: http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004_ ... chive.html

GONG...Actually I got it from a previous referenced source

So what?

Simon wrote: The fact of the matter is, whenver you can't answer a question you ask me a question.

Simon you have been asked the same question by at least four different people and you have ignored it completely.

To use your own words"That's weak."

What is your defintion of a transitional fossil and what do you think one would look like?

If you don't want to or can't answer why don't you just say so.

Simon · Post by **Simon** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:17 am

The answer to your question is in the first post on this thread. Darwin knew what Darwin meant.

Lotan · Post by **Lotan** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:53 am

Darwin would have loved Lucy!

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 9:09 am

Simon wrote:You can't answer the question.

We could answer the question if you would make it more clear. So far, you've left it too muddy for anyone to deal with. We need additional clarification from you: What is your definition of a transitional fossil? What do you expect one to look like?

It's silly, of course, to ask whether any fossils have been found since Darwin. I have a large collection of fossils I've found myself. Lots of kids have their collections, too. There are jillions of reports in the scientific literature of others. You know this, of course.

And, of course, the first few posts in this thread have listed a variety of transtional fossils, which you have ignored. The charitable explanation is that you don't consider them to be transitional fossils. Why not? This is why you need to tell us what your definition of "transitional fossil" is.

The alternative explanation is that you recognize that they really are transitional fossils, and that your question has been fully answered, but you don't want to hear the answer.