Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: The radicalism of natural selection/Darwin Strikes Back

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Gluadys: Don Lindsay links to four examples here,with references: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/punk_eek.html Charles P: (quoting from link)
    Message 1 of 75 , Feb 28, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Gluadys: Don Lindsay links to four examples here,with references:
      http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/punk_eek.html

      Charles P: (quoting from link) "Is There Any Evidence For Punctuated
      Equilibrium? Yes. Several examples of this exact scenario are known. For
      example, there's a marine microfossil, a trilobite, a brachiopod, and some
      dinosaurs (including a Tyrannosaurus)".

      Charles P: Sounds pretty good. Where is the physical evidence?
      1. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/globorotalia.html "There is
      a location in the South Pacific where this species gradually turns into a
      transitional species, *G. tosaensis*, and then into *G.
      truncatulinoides.*The gradual change took 500,000 years".
      2. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/phacops.html "There is a
      particular class of trilobites called Phacops that shows this exact pattern.
      The gradual change in the population is found in a single quarry in New
      Hampshire. The more general fossil finds show a gap in the Phacops line of
      great (apparent) significance. In short, in most locations, the fossils show
      a sudden appearance. But the fossils in one small place reveal that the
      trilobite species evolved there, and then migrated to the other places".
      3. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/kutchithyris.html
      "Specifically, the species *Kutchithyris acutiplicata* is found below the
      species *K. euryptycha.* They differ enough that some have argued they
      should be classified into different genera. In one small locality, there is
      a 1.25 meter sedimentary layer where these fossils are found. In the narrow
      (10cm ) layer that separates the two species, both species are found along
      with transitional forms. In other localities, no transitional forms are
      found, and the species are not found together. The "sudden" transition in
      those rocks is explained as migration from the place where the transitional
      forms occur.
      4. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/horner.html "Until these
      transitional fossils were found, these dinosaur groups were known only from
      the large Judith River Formation. There, the fossils showed 5 million years
      of evolutionary stasis, followed by the apparently abrupt appearance of the
      new forms. It is now known that the sea level rose, drowning the Judith
      River Formation for 500,000 years. The dinosaurs were forced to move to
      smaller areas such the place in Montana. Being under pressure, all of these
      species evolved fairly rapidly, as shown by the transitional fossils in
      Montana. When the sea level fell again, the new forms spread back to the
      Judith River area. So, the new forms appear "suddenly" in the Judith River
      fossils.

      Charles P: Maybe some pictures would help? I do not doubt that these
      scientists are believers in neo-Darwinism. I do not doubt that they all
      agree with each other's conclusions. Maybe these are examples
      of pareidolia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia .


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • D R Lindberg
      ... long ... to be ... with ... As long as you understand that it refers to an obsolete explanation no longer accepted by modern scientists (see your own next
      Message 75 of 75 , Apr 19, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > D R Lindberg: All the mechanisms we know about to explain how changes
        > originate, even the genetic mutations you mention, were discovered
        long
        > after he died. So it seems misleading to me to refer to any of them as
        > "Darwinian mechanisms." And to say they are insufficient doesn't seem
        to be
        > new news.
        >
        > Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Darwinism Would it be OK
        with
        > you if we use the term "neo-Darwinism?
        >
        As long as you understand that it refers to an obsolete explanation no
        longer accepted by modern scientists (see your own next paragraph), so
        not really something worth arguing about.

        Most people who use the phrase give the impression that they have no
        clear idea of what it means, but only think it sounds impressively
        "scientific."


        > Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis "In addition
        to
        > rejecting Neo-Darwinian evolution as an explanation for diversity (on
        the
        > grounds of her belief that random mutation and differential survival
        are
        > insufficient to account for speciation), Margulis holds a number of
        opinions
        > outside of mainstream science".
        >
        And despite claims by the Discovery Institute and others about
        "Darwinian fundamentalist orthodoxy" and "thought police" and , she is
        not being persecuted for any of them.


        I think the point is that scientists recognize that we still do not
        understand all the mechanisms involved in evolution, so it is misleading
        to pretend that this is an argument against the theory. Scientists still
        do not completely understand gravity (indeed some say we understand
        evolution BETTER than we do gravity) but this is no reason for rejecting
        it. Science is an on-going endeavour, and there is probably nothing that
        we know everything about or completely understand.

        But this is not a weakness of science. It is one of its strengths,
        because science can always learn from its errors and goof-ups.

        Cheers!







        "if evolution is true, why haven't people evolved beyond moronic
        statements?"

        "megapokerw
        <http://www.cbc.ca/membercentre/ViewMember.aspx?u=9397273> "
        http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/05/11/nwt-sponges.html#socialc\
        omments
        <http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2009/05/11/nwt-sponges.html#social\
        comments>






        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.