The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of transitional fossils.

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Kant

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 1:09:17 AM9/9/05
to
The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
transitional fossils.
If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form
to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find
as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the
distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be
considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and distinctly
set apart from each other as they are today.Instead of finding a record of
fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large
gaps.
This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
Consider well these immense Gaps:
1. The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition
of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the works
of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.

2.There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.

3.The evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates is
completely missing.This is absolutely incredible since evolutionists propose
100 million years of developmental time between the two,which would have
involved billions of transitional forms,Yet,not one has ever been found.

4.The evolutionary advance from fishes to Amphibians is totally
nonexistent.The timeline allegedly took millions of years....(30
million)...and yet no one has been able to produce even one fishibian.

5.There are no connecting links between and the altogether different
reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs
in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had
already appeared.

6.There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.

7.There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and
birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since
been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.

8.There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
either fossils of ape or a man or neither.There is no valid Scientific
evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between
men and apes.

I an attempt to explain the complete lack of transitional forms,some
scientists have recently proposed the idea that evolution occurs via sudden
large leaps rather than through gradual small modifications.This
concept,known as punctuated equilibrium,has been advanced by paleontologists
Gould and Eldredge (1977).This concept has also been termed the "hopeful
monster" mechanism by Goldschmidt who proposes that at one time a reptile
laid an egg and a bird hatched from it!
Creationists prefer to believe are the ones who have laid an egg,maintaining
that such ideas are pure speculation,completely devoid of any scientific
evidence.
To summarize,the fossil record reveals a sudden appearance of highly diverse
and complex forms with no evolutionary ancestors,demonstrates fixity in
kinds,and is devoid of the all-important transitional forms.These facts are
however,in complete agreement with the expectations of the Biblical creation
model.The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"


--
"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
history."
Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]

Bobby D. Bryant

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 1:44:12 AM9/9/05
to
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005, "Kant" <Kan...@inhell.com> wrote:

> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.

Why is that a defect in the theory? The theory doesn't predict that
an example of every organism will be fossilized, let alone found by
us, let alone found by us by now.

Learn something about the material you are attempting to criticize.

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

mvil...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 1:54:15 AM9/9/05
to

Kant wrote:
[snip]

>The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"

Without using circular reasoning, please show evidence for the
existence of this creator.


> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
> history."
> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]

Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...

muldoon

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 2:06:43 AM9/9/05
to

Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
arguing with the believers?

Steven J.

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 2:09:02 AM9/9/05
to

"Kant" <Kan...@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:0O8Ue.84$Ij1....@news.uswest.net...

> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
> If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one
> form
> to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to
> find
> as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of
> the
> distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be
> considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
>
First of all, evolutionists do not insist that life has always been in a
continual stream of transmutation (phyletic gradualism). Quite aside from
the wide acceptance of Gould and Eldredge's theory of "punctuated
equilibria" (with short intervals of rapid evolution separated by long
periods of stasis), there are Darwin's original suggestions on the subject:
in the _Origin of Species_ he suggested that lineages spent more time not
evolving than they did evolving. He also argued that fossilization was a
very rare and haphazard process. If you don't get regular samplings of a
lineage, even phyletic gradualism will result in "distinct kinds" rather
than a continuous pattern of change, just as if you take a few dozen stills
at random from a movie, you will see entirely disconnected scenes rather
than a smooth progression of scenes and poses.

Second, there are Cambrian fossils that show mixtures of traits that would
be expected from transitional forms between phyla (or, more properly, from
somewhat modiefied descendants of common ancestral forms to two or more
phyla). _Wiwaxia_ and _Halkeria_ show traits linking them to both annelids
and molluscs; _Anomolocaris_ shows traits linking it to both lobopods and
arthropods. None of these, of course, is a plausible ancestor of these
different phyla. Then, of course, there are the "carpoid" enchinoderms of
the Cambrian, which are plausible transitionals between the echnioderms and
the chordates (our own phylum).


>
> From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and
> distinctly
> set apart from each other as they are today.Instead of finding a record of
> fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large
> gaps.
> This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
> Consider well these immense Gaps:
> 1. The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition
> of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the
> works
> of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.
>

I am uncertain as to what a transitional fossil between "dead matter" and
living cells (these would be prokaryotes, surely, rather than "protozoans,"
which term is used for single-celled eukaryotes) would look like. The
oldest claimed fossils of bacteria are controversial; not every expert is
convinced they are really fossils at all, rather than specks of graphite.


>
> 2.There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
> complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.
>

There is not even such a gap today; there are small colonial organisms with
multiple undifferentiated cells, and larger colonial organisms (like
sponges) with some differentiation of cells, and so forth. Fossils of such
organisms exist also.


>
> 3.The evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates is
> completely missing.This is absolutely incredible since evolutionists
> propose
> 100 million years of developmental time between the two,which would have
> involved billions of transitional forms,Yet,not one has ever been found.
>

Again, there are the "carpoid" enchinoderms. There are a host of primitive
chordates, from the lancelet-like _Pikaia_ to the primitive vertebrates, the
conodont animals.


>
> 4.The evolutionary advance from fishes to Amphibians is totally
> nonexistent.The timeline allegedly took millions of years....(30
> million)...and yet no one has been able to produce even one fishibian.
>

Are you perhaps an evolutionist troll? The fossil record here is less rich
than would be liked, but includes a number of spectacular finds, like
_Ichthyostega_ and _Acanthostega_. Note, by the way, that strictly speaking
this is not a transition from "fish" to "amphibians," but from lobe-finned
fish to early tetrapods (the amphibians are a particular group of
descendants of those early tetrapods, highly evolved in their own
non-amniote ways).


>
> 5.There are no connecting links between and the altogether different
> reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs
> in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had
> already appeared.
>

And _Amphioxus_, the lancelet, a chordate apparently very similar to
_Pikaia_, exists today. If a particular body plan is well-fitted to a
stable ecological niche, it can persist with little change even after far
more derived evolutionary cousins have evolved. Such "living fossils" have
existed throughout the history of life. That _Seymouria_ is known from
after the time more advanced reptiles appeared does not preclude it from
being a transitional; it represents a little-changed descendant of the
ancestors of reptiles.


>
> 6.There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.
>

Here you seem to be in rather severe disagreement with the overwhelming
majority of paleontologists, who regard the transitional series between
"reptile-grade" and "mammal-grade" synapsids as the "crown jewel of
paleontology." The astonishing transformation of the reptilian jaw joint
into the mammalian jaw joint and bones of the inner ear is shown by several
different fossil species; whole slews of species of cynodonts,
ictidosaurians, etc. have been discovered and described.

Of course, a strict cladist would insist that reptiles and synapsids are
separate branches off the amniote trunk; no reptile was ever ancestor to any
mammal (rather, "mammal-grade synapsid amniotes" were) and thus there can no
more be a reptile-mammal transitional than there can be a bird-bat
transitional. But unless you are a strict cladist, the transitional fossils
between the groups exist in abundance.


>
> 7.There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and
> birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since
> been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.
>

_Archaeopteryx_ was a "true bird" with a reptilian tail, reptilian muzzle
and teeth, reptilian claws on its reptilian hands; even its hips were more
reptilian than avian. It's skeleton differs very little from that of small
theropod dinosaurs like _Compsognathus_ . The skin covering of small
theropods from the Jurassic and Triassic is not known, but several
Cretaceous specimens show nonavian theropods with downy coverings (e.g.
_Sinosauropteryx_ and some small dromeosaurs), or even true feathers (e.g.
_Microraptor_).


>
> 8.There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
> ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
> either fossils of ape or a man or neither.There is no valid Scientific
> evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between
> men and apes.
>

Of course, creationists cannot agree among themselves whether certain good
fossil skulls (e.g. ER1470, _Homo heidelbergensis_) are "fully-fomed humans"
or "fully-formed apes." There is no place to put a dividing line between
these two supposedly disparate "kinds" that does not have a fossil hominid
squatting astride it.


>
> I an attempt to explain the complete lack of transitional forms,some
> scientists have recently proposed the idea that evolution occurs via
> sudden
> large leaps rather than through gradual small modifications.This
> concept,known as punctuated equilibrium,has been advanced by
> paleontologists
> Gould and Eldredge (1977).This concept has also been termed the "hopeful
> monster" mechanism by Goldschmidt who proposes that at one time a reptile
> laid an egg and a bird hatched from it!
>

No, this is incorrect. "Punctuated equilibria" is the belief that
*speciation* (not the evolution of drastic new adaptions, but relatively
small modifications of previous species, on the order of the difference
between, e.g. a zebra and donkey, or between a coyote and wolf) arise
rapidly (over thousands rather than millions of years) in isolated
populations. Gould and Eldredge were dealing with the problem of marine
invertebrates whose fossils were found in profusion in layers laid down over
millions of years, in which one species was replaced suddenly by another,
very similar but distinct species (of the same "kind"). They were not
discussing the origin of complex adaptions like eyes or wings (eyes are soft
tissue, and transitional stages in the evolution of bird wings are known).


>
> Creationists prefer to believe are the ones who have laid an
> egg,maintaining
> that such ideas are pure speculation,completely devoid of any scientific
> evidence.
>

One might suppose that creationists are experts in pure speculation devoid
of scientific evidence, but apparently they cannot reliably distinguish
between this and theories built on large quantities of evidence.


>
> To summarize,the fossil record reveals a sudden appearance of highly
> diverse
> and complex forms with no evolutionary ancestors,demonstrates fixity in
> kinds,and is devoid of the all-important transitional forms.These facts
> are
> however,in complete agreement with the expectations of the Biblical
> creation
> model.The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
>

To summarize, you are quite wrong. Furthermore, the principle evidence for
evolution is not the fossil record (though that is probably sufficient to
make the case), but the consistent nested hierarchy of homologies among
living species, the pattern of vestigial and parahomologous organs,
structures, and DNA, and the patterns of biogeography.


>
> --
> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any
> profane history."
> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
>

-- Steven J.


Roger Tang

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 2:16:54 AM9/9/05
to

Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
think scientists approach science with faith.

Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
the same.

--
Roger Tang
Producer, Pork Filled Players, oi...@porkfilled.com
Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue, www.
aatreuve.com

Wakboth

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 2:23:33 AM9/9/05
to

Kant kirjoitti:

> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.

[Snip erroneous, possibly dishonest, creationist claims]

See the section CC200 and subsections in Talk.Origins Archive:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

This stuff has been dealt with before. Stop besmirching Kant's name
with your ignorance.

-- Wakboth

muldoon

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 2:30:32 AM9/9/05
to

Roger Tang wrote:
> On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
>
> >
> > mvil...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Kant wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >>> The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
> >>
> >> Without using circular reasoning, please show evidence for the
> >> existence of this creator.
> >>
> >>
> >>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
> >>> history."
> >>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
> >>
> >> Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
> >
> > Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
> > arguing with the believers?
>
> Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
> EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
> think scientists approach science with faith.
>
> Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
> evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
> the same.

I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
"Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact." That you would assert
that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."

Craig T

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 2:38:53 AM9/9/05
to
"I an attempt to explain the complete lack of transitional forms,some
scientists have recently proposed the idea that evolution occurs via
sudden
large leaps rather than through gradual small modifications.This
concept,known as punctuated equilibrium,has been advanced by
paleontologists
Gould and Eldredge (1977)."

Recently??? Is this just a reprint of a creationist rant from the past
or is Kant thinking in geologic time? By the way, Goldschmidt proposed
his Hopeful Monsters slightly less recently- in 1940. PE is no hopeful
monster. It suggests that a new species develops rapidly from another
species, then spends most of its existence as it was first established.
The change is what creationists call microevolution. PE theory has
intermediates between species, they just rapidly disappear as the two
populations become stable.

DougC

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 2:51:18 AM9/9/05
to

Kant wrote:

> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.

> This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.

Now you will want to pose for a photograph with your boot planted on
top of Darwin's corpse. Have you thereby proven that there is a
Creator? Is this evidence for Intelligent Design?

Doug Chandler

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 2:53:13 AM9/9/05
to
muldoon wrote:

>
> Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
> arguing with the believers?

ToE is well supported by physics, chemisry and biology (especially
genetics). It has empirical content, it can be tested empirically and it
can be falsified empirically. So whether ToE is right or wrong it is a
science. Whereas Creationism and ID are not.

My guess is that in some context ToE is wrong, but that context has not
yet been found. Just about everyone of our favorite theories will be
empirically falsified when we learn enough facts. Being falsified does
not mean beinng useless. Classical Physics is false but it has great
heuristic value. You can use it for making machines and instruments.

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 3:01:59 AM9/9/05
to
Steven J. wrote:
>
> To summarize, you are quite wrong. Furthermore, the principle evidence for
> evolution is not the fossil record (though that is probably sufficient to
> make the case), but the consistent nested hierarchy of homologies among
> living species, the pattern of vestigial and parahomologous organs,
> structures, and DNA, and the patterns of biogeography.

The DNA is the giveaway. All living things on this planet are DNA
cousins. This clearly suggests a common origin to living things on this
planet.

Bob Kolker

VoiceOfReason

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 3:04:37 AM9/9/05
to

If you deny that biological evolution is an observed fact, then either
you haven't studied evolution, or you've spent too much time reading
junk from the anti-science crowd.

> That you would assert
> that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."

Actually, it indicates his status as scientifically literate.

muldoon

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 3:24:14 AM9/9/05
to

Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?

muldoon

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 3:37:17 AM9/9/05
to

And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?

stew dean

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 4:04:01 AM9/9/05
to

Kant wrote:
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.

ALL fossils are transitional fossils!

> If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form
> to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find
> as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the
> distinct kinds themselves.

Evolution is NOT a continual stream but moves at different speed
according to environmental pressure.

Rest snipped.

Stew Dean

Ian H Spedding

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 4:00:28 AM9/9/05
to
muldoon wrote:

[...]

> I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
> "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."

Are you denying that animals can change form over time which has
allowed us to breed horses that run faster or all the different breeds
of dogs and cats?

Ian

--
Ian H Spedding

muldoon

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 4:10:51 AM9/9/05
to

That's micro-evolution.

stew dean

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 4:15:27 AM9/9/05
to

We know more about evolution than we know about gravity in some ways,
we still don't know what causes gravity, only how it works. Evolution
we understand well enough to put it to good practical uses.

If anything in science is a fact then evolution is, it's been proved in
too many different ways for it to not exist. We use it in areas ranging
from medicine to designing jumbo jets (and running the airports they
land in). You can model evolution on you PC if you want and play with
it (not actual biological evolution but the same process with the same
kinds of behavour).

Be careful of the anti-science folks - they tend to make arguments
based upon bad information. For more about how to desipher what is
likely to be true try and get a copy of Carl Sagan's 'A Demon haunted
world'. It really puts the whole world of the esoteric into
perspective.

Stew Dean

Ross Langerak

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 4:31:06 AM9/9/05
to

"Kant" <Kan...@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:0O8Ue.84$Ij1....@news.uswest.net...
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.

One of these days, we are all going to be shocked when a creationist
actually checks the archive before posting an argument that has already been
demonstrated to be false. The following page lists examples of transitional
fossils. I particularly like the transition between reptiles and mammals.
It lists 30 transitional fossil species, including at least nine that used
both the reptilian and the mammalian articulation of the jaw: something that
creationists claim can't happen. See:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Now that the most serious defect in evolutionary theory has been
dispatched,....

[snip]

James Picone

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 4:41:39 AM9/9/05
to
Muldoon wrote:
[snip]

>
> Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
>

Evolution and the Big Bang are facts. Not "facts", but facts. There is
no other way to explain the cosmic microwave background and Hubble
redshifts, and the Big Bang model predicted the ratios of light nuclei
in the universe before they were observed, and the predictions matched.

It isn't a religion, incidentally. You obviously don't understand how
science works.

stew dean

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 5:02:05 AM9/9/05
to

muldoon wrote:
> muldoon wrote:

> > Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?

The big bang is a best guess. Cosmology is a very tubulant area of
study and is not an absolute area. As far as we know the big bang is a
very good theory that is open to question but has so far stood up well.


> And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?

That one is easy. Consciousness is an emergent property of the mind
which is defined by the connections within the brain. No brain, no
mind, no mind, no conscousness.

So no consciousness cannot exist without the connections of the mind as
that is what it is a property of.

To go beyond human consciousness anything that can process connections
based upon input in the right way and was complex enough could be
conscious so there is no reason why we could not, one day, create
something else that was conscious, even beyond our own level or in a
new unique way.

If you find this idea rediculous, ask yourself why you find it such a
bad idea? Is it because it is impossible or is it simply you don't like
the idea that what you are is the product of the interplay of neurons?

Stew Dean

Glenn

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 6:14:58 AM9/9/05
to

"stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126253459....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>
> muldoon wrote:
> > muldoon wrote:
>
> > > Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
>
> The big bang is a best guess. Cosmology is a very tubulant area of
> study and is not an absolute area. As far as we know the big bang is a
> very good theory that is open to question but has so far stood up well.

Many articles in the popular press describe the bb as being "confimed" and through
"multiple lines of evidence." So you have to ask yourself, with the help of Larry
Moron, is the bb "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold
provisional consent".

What is "absolute area"? What does "very good" mean? What does "stood up well" and
to what do you comare it to?


>
>
> > And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> > and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
>
> That one is easy. Consciousness is an emergent property of the mind
> which is defined by the connections within the brain. No brain, no
> mind, no mind, no conscousness.
>

You really think that inference is a "fact"? Provide your evidence that
consciousness does not exist for an individual before, and after, life (or "no
brain"). You claim it's "easy"?

James Picone

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 7:34:47 AM9/9/05
to
Before I get started, I would like to point out that I am not a
cosmologist or astrophysicist. I may or may not be correct.

Glenn wrote:
> "stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126253459....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>muldoon wrote:
>>
>>>muldoon wrote:
>>
>>>>Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
>>
>>The big bang is a best guess. Cosmology is a very tubulant area of
>>study and is not an absolute area. As far as we know the big bang is a
>>very good theory that is open to question but has so far stood up well.
>
>
> Many articles in the popular press describe the bb as being "confimed" and through
> "multiple lines of evidence." So you have to ask yourself, with the help of Larry
> Moron, is the bb "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold
> provisional consent".
>
> What is "absolute area"? What does "very good" mean? What does "stood up well" and
> to what do you comare it to?

I'm not sure about 'absolute area', Glenn, but I think it means it isn't
as old as biology, and we haven't done as much study in it. Compared to
evolution, the Big Bang is a very recent theory. Of course, compared to
creationism, the Big Bang theory has barely been born. Very good means
that it explains most of the evidence very well. It has predicted the
ratios of various light elements in the universe, it explains Hubble
redshifts and the cosmic microwave background. It does have a few minor
flaws: We can't calculate what happened at the split second in which the
Bang is supposed to have occurred, because quantum mechanics and
relativity don't mix too well. Additionally, the current Big Bang model
requires a period of rapid inflation soon after it occured to explain
the distribution of matter in the galaxy. Thus, it has its problems, but
it explains several seperate phenomena rather well.

The model to compare it to would be the steady-state model, in which the
universe has been in existence forever. This requires matter to be being
created continuously, although at a very slow rate, to stave off the
second law of thermodynamics. Steady-state didn't fare quie as well as
the big bang. Its predictions weren't as good, and it couldn't explain
hubble redshifts or the CMB.

Of course, one of the major problems with the Big Bang is why in all
hell the universe decided to appear as an infintesmal speck. Or, in a
less anthropomorphic way, why did it happen? If you really want, Glenn,
you can insert a god there with no danger of that gap being filled.

>
>>
>>>And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
>>>and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
>>
>>That one is easy. Consciousness is an emergent property of the mind
>>which is defined by the connections within the brain. No brain, no
>>mind, no mind, no conscousness.
>>
>
> You really think that inference is a "fact"? Provide your evidence that
> consciousness does not exist for an individual before, and after, life (or "no
> brain"). You claim it's "easy"?
>

I suspect that by 'That one is easy', he was referring to his answer
being easy, and the one above it being more difficult for him to work out.

Glenn, provide some evidence that conciousness isn't a property of the
brain, and doesn't continue after people die. When people are
unconcious, the brain doesn't work quite as hard, and death leads to a
complete stoppage of brain activity. That's a strong suggestion that
that is where conciousness resides. Not to mention that damage to the
brain affects your conciousness, and your mind in general.

muldoon

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:13:43 AM9/9/05
to

Your contented acceptance of your beliefs is quaint.

stew dean

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:21:54 AM9/9/05
to

Glenn wrote:
> "stew dean" <stew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126253459....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > muldoon wrote:
> > > muldoon wrote:
> >
> > > > Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
> >
> > The big bang is a best guess. Cosmology is a very tubulant area of
> > study and is not an absolute area. As far as we know the big bang is a
> > very good theory that is open to question but has so far stood up well.
>
> Many articles in the popular press describe the bb as being "confimed" and through
> "multiple lines of evidence." So you have to ask yourself, with the help of Larry
> Moron, is the bb "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold
> provisional consent".

Larry Moron. The BB is right according to all we know. But cosmology
is a very turbulant area and we are only beginning to understand the
nature of the big bang. Incidently the big bang got it's name from
Hoyle who named it as a joke - it stuck.


> What is "absolute area"? What does "very good" mean? What does "stood up well" and
> to what do you comare it to?

So many questions. Only maths and religion are absolutes in this
world, and only one of those is real. It is a very good theory in that
it covers a great deal of ground. Until an alternative theory comes up
the big bang is the only show in town but I won't pretend for a second
it's anywhere as solid as evolution. We can model evolution but don't
know what caused the big bang (although there are some good ideas
floating around from the likes of Lee Smolin).

> >
> >
> > > And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> > > and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?
> >
> > That one is easy. Consciousness is an emergent property of the mind
> > which is defined by the connections within the brain. No brain, no
> > mind, no mind, no conscousness.
> >
> You really think that inference is a "fact"?

Inference. It's an explaination of conscoiusness. What we currently
know is that consciousness is an emergent property of the way the brain
works. An emergent property is something that is 'more than the sum of
the parts'. In simple terms put three lines together and you get a
triangle - yet take them apart and they become lines again and you have
no triangle. So it is with brain/mind/consciousnes.

> Provide your evidence that
> consciousness does not exist for an individual before, and after, life (or "no
> brain"). You claim it's "easy"?

Yes. I can measure that someone is conscious if they are alive and
here. If they are dead then they have no conscious. Tada! What test
would you do to show consciousness before and after life? To be honest
consciousness is a mental process - and there has never been a single
objective case where someone has been able to think something if they
have no brain!

Does the triangle exist before and after the three lines come together?
No. Why would it be any different for conscousness. We are all more
than the sum of the parts, but take the parts away and that 'more than'
disappears with them.

Unless you can think of a reason why this is not the case I think I can
claim i'm correct on this.

Stew Dean

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:27:02 AM9/9/05
to
muldoon wrote:
>
>
> Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?

It is a hypothesis well supported by the science of physics and
cosmological obsersvations.

Neither you nor I could call it a fact since we were not there to see it
happen. We postulate the big bang from the observed expansion of the cosmos.

Bob Kolker

>

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:28:12 AM9/9/05
to
muldoon wrote:

>
>
> And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?

Consciousness is one of the functions of the brain which is made of
physical atoms. There is no evidence that consciousness is anything
other than that.

Bob Kolker

>

stew dean

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:29:27 AM9/9/05
to

Let me quickly explain why these are not beliefs. Simply put the above
objective, if you don't trust my answer you can go and look it up
yourself. If you choose to instead fall back on your own subjective
views then you're outside of the realm of logic.

So no these are not beliefs. I am non religious and whilst there are
somethings I do believe the nature of consciousnes is not a belief but
based up on commonly available knowledge.

You also did not answer my question so I'm not sure why you are so
overly defensive.

Stew Dean

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:34:35 AM9/9/05
to
Glenn wrote:

>
> You really think that inference is a "fact"? Provide your evidence that
> consciousness does not exist for an individual before, and after, life (or "no
> brain"). You claim it's "easy"?

No such evidence exist. No such evidence -can exist-. However the
hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent of brain function is
heavily supported by emprical evidence. Science is not a system of
absolute knowledge. It is a system of testable hypotheses supported (or
refuted) by empircal data. There is no reproducable evidence whatsoever
that consciousness exists in any other way but an effect of brain
functioning.

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:30:58 AM9/9/05
to
stew dean wrote:

>
>
> We know more about evolution than we know about gravity in some ways,
> we still don't know what causes gravity, only how it works. Evolution
> we understand well enough to put it to good practical uses.

No one knows the ultimate cause of gravitation, but it is well enough
understood to put it to use. For example: aircraft, spacecraft and the
Global Positioning System.


>
> If anything in science is a fact then evolution is, it's been proved in
> too many different ways for it to not exist. We use it in areas ranging
> from medicine to designing jumbo jets (and running the airports they
> land in). You can model evolution on you PC if you want and play with
> it (not actual biological evolution but the same process with the same
> kinds of behavour).

That is a presumption. Just because an algorithm is -called- genetic
does not mean real genetic systems work the same way.

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:38:52 AM9/9/05
to
James Picone wrote:

> Muldoon wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
>>Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?
>>
>
>
> Evolution and the Big Bang are facts. Not "facts", but facts. There is
> no other way to explain the cosmic microwave background and Hubble
> redshifts, and the Big Bang model predicted the ratios of light nuclei
> in the universe before they were observed, and the predictions matched.

No other way is currently known.

There was a time when physicists asserted there was no other way than
lumeniforous aether for electromagnetic waves to be transported through
empty space. We know better. There are photons (which are particles)
which can manage to go through space very nicely without aether.

Beware of using the phrase "no other way". That phrase has meaning only
in the context of what is currently known or supposed.

You know, all those little thingies, particles which "must exist" may
turn out to be strings and loops.

Bob Kolker

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:35:43 AM9/9/05
to
muldoon wrote:
>
>
> Your contented acceptance of your beliefs is quaint.

Quaint and empirically supported. Emprically based science with its
associated engineering art is what makes it possible to post nonsense on
USENET.

Bob Kolker

>

Robert J. Kolker

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 8:50:11 AM9/9/05
to
stew dean wrote:

>
> So many questions. Only maths and religion are absolutes in this
> world,

Not so. The consistency of several of the major mathematical theories is
not provable. And religion is dreck. It is the cause of much death,
blood and misery.

Bob Kolker

Richard Smol

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 9:01:45 AM9/9/05
to

Kant wrote:

> To summarize,the fossil record reveals a sudden appearance of highly
> diverse and complex forms with no evolutionary ancestors,demonstrates
> fixity in kinds,and is devoid of the all-important transitional forms.

Except of course that there are transitional forms in abundance in the
fossil record.

> These facts are however,in complete agreement with the expectations of
> the Biblical creation model.The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"

*Anything* can be made to fit creation. It's a non-falsifiable
hypothesis,
therefore scientifically useless.

And if evolution is a religion, then it is the *only* religion which
is backed up by massive amounts of scientific evidence.

RS

shane

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 9:01:37 AM9/9/05
to
muldoon wrote:


<snip>

>
> I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
> "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact." That you would assert
> that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
>

IIRC, you made the same "I'm not religious" claim a few months ago and
then started repeating and defending all the tired old pratts against
evolution.

<goes and gets duck book: walk, check; quack, check; looks, check. It
seems we have a duck here>

--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.

maff

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 9:18:19 AM9/9/05
to

muldoon wrote:
> Roger Tang wrote:
> > On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
> >
> > >
> > > mvil...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Kant wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >>> The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
> > >>
> > >> Without using circular reasoning, please show evidence for the
> > >> existence of this creator.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
> > >>> history."
> > >>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
> > >>
> > >> Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
> > >
> > > Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
> > > arguing with the believers?
> >
> > Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
> > EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
> > think scientists approach science with faith.
> >
> > Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
> > evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
> > the same.
>
> I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
> "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact." That you would assert
> that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."

So are you going to give up medicines and other fruits of science?

Practical Applications of Evolutionary Biology
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/ad05bd62e37d7bdc

Why People Accept Evolution --> Because it fits thescientific
observations!
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.politics/msg/2f3f8113503320b8

Ben Standeven

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 9:30:10 AM9/9/05
to

Kant wrote:
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
> If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form
> to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find
> as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the
> distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be
> considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
> From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and distinctly
> set apart from each other as they are today.Instead of finding a record of
> fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large
> gaps.
> This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
> Consider well these immense Gaps:
> 1. The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition
> of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the works
> of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.
>
> 2.There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
> complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.
>

Single-celled life-forms don't fossilize well.

> 3.The evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates is
> completely missing.This is absolutely incredible since evolutionists propose
> 100 million years of developmental time between the two,which would have
> involved billions of transitional forms,Yet,not one has ever been found.
>

Actually, there are several _extant_ transitional forms between
vertebrates and echinoderms. The hemichordates spring to mind
immediately; there are also chordates which are not vertebrates.

[...I don't know much about amphibian evolution...]

> 5.There are no connecting links between and the altogether different
> reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs
> in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had
> already appeared.
>

Which "altogether different reptiles" did you have in mind? Squamates
and Turtles? Squamates and Archosaurs?

> 6.There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.
>

Except for the so-called mammal-like reptiles, of course; plenty of
those...

> 7.There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and
> birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since
> been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.
>

Unfortunately for Creationists, there are also plenty of transitionals
between "true birds" (aka dinosaurs) and other archosaurs.

> 8.There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
> ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually
> either fossils of ape or a man or neither.

Neither? That sounds like a transitional form to me...

[...]
> Creationists prefer to believe are the ones who have laid an egg,maintaining
> that such ideas are pure speculation,completely devoid of any scientific
> evidence.

Creationists lay eggs, but don't believe that eggs exist? Riiight...

Dan Luke

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 9:36:50 AM9/9/05
to

"muldoon" wrote:

>> Are you denying that animals can change form over time which has
>> allowed us to breed horses that run faster or all the different
>> breeds
>> of dogs and cats?

>
> That's micro-evolution.

<groan>

You science-deniers are really going to have to try harder.

"Evolution is a Religion?"

"That's micro-evolution?"

You are boring me to tears with this tired old crap.

If you must post nonsense, at least try to use a little more
imagination.

--
Dan

"Did you just have a stroke and not tell me?"
- Jiminy Glick


Dave

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 9:55:15 AM9/9/05
to
muldoon wrote:
>
> Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste
> time arguing with the believers?

Yeah get back to your head bobbing.

Roger Tang

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 10:49:30 AM9/9/05
to
On 2005-09-08 23:30:32 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:

>
> Roger Tang wrote:
>> On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
>>
>>>
>>> mvil...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Kant wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
>>>>
>>>> Without using circular reasoning, please show evidence for the
>>>> existence of this creator.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
>>>>> history."
>>>>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
>>>>
>>>> Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
>>>

>>> Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
>>> arguing with the believers?
>>

>> Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
>> EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
>> think scientists approach science with faith.
>>
>> Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
>> evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
>> the same.
>
> I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
> "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."

What part of verified in the field and the lab do you have a problem with?

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 11:01:46 AM9/9/05
to
Kant wrote:

...something that he undoubtedly cut and pasted from some creationist
web site, without attribution.

> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.

No problem then. Since there are many transitional fossils, we're saved.
Next defect?

> If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one form
> to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to find
> as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of the
> distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be
> considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
> From the very beginning these organisms were just as clearly and distinctly
> set apart from each other as they are today.Instead of finding a record of
> fine gradations preserved in the fossil record,we invariably find large
> gaps.
> This fact is absolutely fatal to the general theory of evolution.
> Consider well these immense Gaps:
> 1. The imagined jump from dead matter to living protozoans is a transition
> of truly fanciful dimension,one of pure conjecture which overlooks the works
> of Redi,Spallanzi, and Pasteur,who disproved spontaneous generation.

You would expect fossils for this? Remember the supposed subject of this
rant. Origin of life research is a whole nother field, and fossils in
the traditional sense obviously play no part in it.

> 2.There is a gigantic gap between one-celled microorganisms and the high
> complexity and variety of the metazoan invertebrates.

Well, that's not quite true. The intermediates are just hard to
interpret. What are the ediacarans, anyway? If you get away from
fossils, there are plenty of good intermediates in the various colonial
(Volvox, e.g.) and facultatively colonial (Dictyostelium, e.g.)
protists. And I would consider sponges to be pretty good intermediates too.

> 3.The evolutionary transition between invertebrates and vertebrates is
> completely missing.This is absolutely incredible since evolutionists propose
> 100 million years of developmental time between the two,which would have
> involved billions of transitional forms,Yet,not one has ever been found.

Hardly true. There are a great many soft-bodied fossils from the
Chengjiang, some of which are clearly vertebrates (by technical
definition -- no actual vertebrae) and others of which are not. Some are
candidates for ancestral deuterostomes, in fact. Look up Haikouichthys,
Myllokunmingia, etc. There is also Pikaia from the Burgess fauna. And of
course the various living invertebrate chordates like Branchiostoma. I
have no idea, by the way, where you (or the site you stole this from)
got that "100 million years of development" figure.

> 4.The evolutionary advance from fishes to Amphibians is totally
> nonexistent.The timeline allegedly took millions of years....(30
> million)...and yet no one has been able to produce even one fishibian.

Silly. This is a fairly good record. Try Panderichthys, Ichthyostega,
Acanthastega, Elginerpeton for a start.

> 5.There are no connecting links between and the altogether different
> reptiles.Seymouria has been offered as such a link,but it allegedly occurs
> in the geologic column some 20 million years after other reptiles had
> already appeared.

You left out a word, and I'm guessing it's "amphibians". You also
misunderstand the nature of transitional fossils. They don't have to be
actual ancestors. They can be cousins of the ancestors that preserve
intermediate forms, and these can survive long after the derived group
exists too.

> 6.There are no transitional forms between mammals and reptiles.

This is expecially silly, because it's one of the best documented
transitions there is. Probainognathus is my favorite, but there are
others all the way from Dimetrodon through Sinoconodon.

> 7.There is no connecting evolutionary link between reptiles and
> birds.Archaeopteryx was once highly acclaimed as such a link but has since
> been acknowledged by Paleontologists to have been a true bird.

Here, you mistake an arbitrary dividing line for some Platonic truth.
It's a true bird because we define birds (either Aves or Avialae,
whichever you like) as including Archaeopteryx and Neornithes, plus
everything descended from their common ancestor. This is especially
silly in light of all the feathered theropods being found in China, of
which my personal favorite is Microraptor gui.

> 8.There are no intermediate fossils leading up to man from an apelike
> ancestor.Fossil hominids and hominoids cited by evolutionists are actually

> either fossils of ape or a man or neither.There is no valid Scientific
> evidence to suggest that they are fossils of animals intermediate between
> men and apes.

Once again you mistake an arbitrary dividing line for capital T Truth.
Please put all the hominid fossils into the proper ape, man, and neither
bins for me, because I can't seem to do it. The fun thing to do is to
get different creationists to sort the fossils, because they end up
sorting them in different ways.

> I an attempt to explain the complete lack of transitional forms,some
> scientists have recently proposed the idea that evolution occurs via sudden
> large leaps rather than through gradual small modifications.This
> concept,known as punctuated equilibrium,has been advanced by paleontologists
> Gould and Eldredge (1977).This concept has also been termed the "hopeful
> monster" mechanism by Goldschmidt who proposes that at one time a reptile
> laid an egg and a bird hatched from it!

You misunderstand both PE and Goldschmidt. Congratulations. PE doesn't
involve any sudden transitions, except by a geological definition (i.e.
100,000 years counts), and the transitions in question are not as big as
you seem to think, being between closely related and similar species. I
would discuss Goldschmidt, but who today cares?

> Creationists prefer to believe are the ones who have laid an egg,maintaining
> that such ideas are pure speculation,completely devoid of any scientific
> evidence.

How can they do this if they don't even understand the theories they
ridicule?

> To summarize,the fossil record reveals a sudden appearance of highly diverse
> and complex forms with no evolutionary ancestors,demonstrates fixity in

> kinds,and is devoid of the all-important transitional forms.These facts are


> however,in complete agreement with the expectations of the Biblical creation

> model.The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"

To summarize, transitional fossils are plentiful, and what's more, they
are scattered throughout the Phanerozoic, a period of considerably more
than 500 million years, not 600 years. The rocks proclaim that Genesis
is a nice story, and I especially like the talking snake, but not
something you should be teaching in science class.

Steve Schaffner

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 11:11:23 AM9/9/05
to
"muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> writes:

> I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.

> "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact." That you would assert


> that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."

It is a fact that life has changed over the course of Earth's history,
and it is a fact that life continues to change. Those facts, along
with lots and lots of details, are what the theory of evolution
explains.

--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 11:10:33 AM9/9/05
to
Steven J. wrote:

> "Kant" <Kan...@inhell.com> wrote in message
> news:0O8Ue.84$Ij1....@news.uswest.net...
>

>>The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
>>transitional fossils.

>>If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one
>>form
>>to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to
>>find
>>as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of
>>the
>>distinct kinds themselves.Yet no fossils have been found that can be
>>considered transitional between the major groups of Phyla.
>>
>

> First of all, evolutionists do not insist that life has always been in a
> continual stream of transmutation (phyletic gradualism).

I have always found that term to be an annoying strawman.

> Quite aside from
> the wide acceptance of Gould and Eldredge's theory of "punctuated
> equilibria" (with short intervals of rapid evolution separated by long
> periods of stasis), there are Darwin's original suggestions on the subject:
> in the _Origin of Species_ he suggested that lineages spent more time not
> evolving than they did evolving. He also argued that fossilization was a
> very rare and haphazard process. If you don't get regular samplings of a
> lineage, even phyletic gradualism will result in "distinct kinds" rather
> than a continuous pattern of change, just as if you take a few dozen stills
> at random from a movie, you will see entirely disconnected scenes rather
> than a smooth progression of scenes and poses.
>
> Second, there are Cambrian fossils that show mixtures of traits that would
> be expected from transitional forms between phyla (or, more properly, from
> somewhat modiefied descendants of common ancestral forms to two or more
> phyla). _Wiwaxia_ and _Halkeria_

Halkieria, in case anyone is googling.

> show traits linking them to both annelids
> and molluscs; _Anomolocaris_

Anomalocaris.

> shows traits linking it to both lobopods and
> arthropods. None of these, of course, is a plausible ancestor of these
> different phyla. Then, of course, there are the "carpoid" enchinoderms of
> the Cambrian, which are plausible transitionals between the echnioderms and
> the chordates (our own phylum).

Hardly anyone believes this; Jefferies, basically. Of course echinoderms
and chordates are fairly closely related, so the carpoids could be
displaying primitive deuterostome characters. But the unique calcite
skeleton of echinoderms is a pretty good synapomorphy.

[snip]

Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 11:37:31 AM9/9/05
to
Kant wrote:

> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.

What is it today - is it the yearly day of babblical cretinist idiocy
celebration or what?

--
Regards

Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig

Bob Pease

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 11:38:15 AM9/9/05
to

"Dave" <gal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126274115.8...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Most folks cannot justify their belief in Evolution any better than on
trust of authority .
This is why ID is particularly dangerous, as it encourages Mortimersnerdism
as the preferred social norm by diluting the already abysmal coverage of
Basics.

RJ P


Dave

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 11:42:32 AM9/9/05
to
Kant wrote:
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils. If life has always been in a continual stream
> of transmutation from one form to the other...
> [...]

No, what needs to be understood is that it is primarily the animals
with very small populations that evolve. The closer a species is to
extinction the more likely it is to evolve rapidly. A small gene pool
is easily influenced. These small populations are unlikely to leave
fossils because fossil formation itself is rare. The dominant
populations are the ones who leave fossils behind. They have the huge
numbers. The domanant populations have large stagnant gene pools and
thus they aren't evolving.

gregwrld

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 11:44:24 AM9/9/05
to

muldoon wrote:
> muldoon wrote:
> > VoiceOfReason wrote:

> > > muldoon wrote:
> > > > Roger Tang wrote:
> > > > > On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:


> And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?

Why don't you try conducting this little experiment:

Give a friend a hammer. Tell him (or her) to strike you in the head
hard enough to render you dead. Then demonstrate for us the continued
existence of your consciousness. You may use any method you can figure
out to do so.

That would be convincing enough for me...

Elf M. Sternberg

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 11:56:41 AM9/9/05
to
"muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> writes:

> Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?

I consider the astronomical facts to favor big bang theory over
the alternatives.

I consider the biological facts, including the witnessing of
speciation in our lifetime, to favor evolutionary theories over the
alternatives.

Elf

Elf M. Sternberg

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 11:57:44 AM9/9/05
to
"muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> writes:

> And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
> and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?

The correct answer to this is "I do not know," and to begin a
research program in that direction. To "believe" either way does not
matter, although an inclination one way better serves the research
program as the alternative is essentially fatalist.

Elf

John Harshman

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 12:07:05 PM9/9/05
to
Dave wrote:

Why should that be true? Show your work. Not the failure to leave
fossils, but the assertion that small populations are more likely to
evolve and large populations have "stagnant gene pools".

Dana Tweedy

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 12:07:11 PM9/9/05
to

"muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:1126253451....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ian H Spedding wrote:
>> muldoon wrote:
>>
>> [...]

>>
>> > I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
>> > "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."
>>
>> Are you denying that animals can change form over time which has
>> allowed us to breed horses that run faster or all the different breeds
>> of dogs and cats?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> --
>> Ian H Spedding
>
> That's micro-evolution.

So, you do admit evolution is a fact.

Your carping about "micro-evolution" is like saying that a girl is only
"micro-pregnant".

DJT

er...@swva.net

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 12:20:32 PM9/9/05
to
muldoon wrote:
> Roger Tang wrote:
> > On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
> >
> > >
> > > mvil...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Kant wrote:
> > >> [snip]
> > >>> The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
> > >>
> > >> Without using circular reasoning, please show evidence for the
> > >> existence of this creator.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
> > >>> history."
> > >>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
> > >>
> > >> Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
> > >
> > > Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
> > > arguing with the believers?
> >
> > Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
> > EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
> > think scientists approach science with faith.
> >
> > Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
> > evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
> > the same.
>
> I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
> "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact." That you would assert
> that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."

How do you figure?

Eric Root

CreateThis

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 12:21:21 PM9/9/05
to
Bob Pease wrote:

> Most folks cannot justify their belief in Evolution any better than on
> trust of authority.

We can validate our authority better.

CT

VBM

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 12:35:04 PM9/9/05
to

"Kant" <Kan...@inhell.com> wrote in message
news:0O8Ue.84$Ij1....@news.uswest.net...
> The most serious defect in the evolutionary theory is the absence of
> transitional fossils.
> If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one
form
> to the other,as evolutionists insist,then we should certainly expect to
find
> as many fossils of the intermediate stages between different forms as of
the
> distinct kinds themselves.

[snip rest since they are based on this assumption]

First, there are a LOT of transitional fossils out there, and lists of them
have been provided over and over again.

Second, it is not correct that we should "certainly" expect to as many
intermediate stage fossils as distinct forms themselves. This has two
problems:

1. First, it shows a clear misunderstanding of the concept of evolutionary
development. In evolution EVERY fossil is a transition between something
that had been and something that will be. There are never expected to be
any creatures that are simply a "transition" between two "real" species.
Every step along the way is complete in and of itself, it does not have a
goal of reaching some other form. As far as it is concerned, it is the "end
product". Thus, you might have a sequence of A to J, where if we found a
fossil D, it could be considered a "transitional" between A and J. But F
could be considered a transitional between D and J, etc. So, every fossil
we ever find is a transitional.

But even with that caveat, we have plenty of fossils that are clearly on the
sequence of change between two other fossils we have. A list can be
provided if you like.

2. Second, this presumption fails to recognize the extreme rarity of
fossils and the effect of puncuated equilibrium. Fossils are extremely
rare, and only very specific types of creatures (which make up a small
percentage of the wide range of life) can even leave fossils. Then when you
add the very specific set of conditions which are required for fossils to
form, and then when you add that we have only looked in a tiny portion of
the areas where they could be, it is amazing that we have what we do. Since
the conditions must be perfect, it only makes sense that when those
conditions ARE perfect, we will have a lot of fossils available at that
"level". The conditions might not be good again to create fossils for a
very long time, and when it is, we will then get a bunch of fossils at a
much later level.

The lack of fossils in between these two exemplar points does not mean that
creatures "in between" did not develop, only that they did not leave
fossils.

Another factor that comes in is PE. The way evolution works is that
population groups tend to change only when selection pressures make it
necessary. If it works, there is nothing to fix. Thus, most creatures will
develop as needed to fit its niche as well as possible. When it has done
this, the rate of change would slow dramatically or nearly stop altogether.
A well-adapted species will not show any changes (at least skeletally) for a
VERY long time. Then something will begin to happen. A weather shift, a
new predator or a new source of food, etc. Now, there is a need to change
and the mechanics of natural selection, mutation, genetic drift and flow,
begin to create change. This still happens slow, but in geological terms,
it is very rapid. It may take 5,000 or even 10,000 years to make a
significant change, but this is a very small period, really.

So, how would the fossil record look? Let's say we only have exemplar
fossils every 20,000 years or so. If a species stayed in a form of stasis
for 200,000 years, we would find maybe nearly identical fossils. Then the
changes take place over, say, a 7,000 year period, then the species is
well-adapted again and remains in a new stasis for long period. What are
the odds of having an exemplar fossil being found during that developing
period?

Lastly, we usually only have bone fossils. While skeletons can tell us a
lot (an incredible amount, really), we can not always see what morphological
changes are occuring to soft tissue, skin, feathers, hair, etc.

So, basically, the fossil record is very much in line with what we would
expect from evolutionary development.


AC

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 12:54:58 PM9/9/05
to
On 8 Sep 2005 23:30:32 -0700,

You mean that hereditable traits don't change in populations over time?

--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com

AC

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 12:55:52 PM9/9/05
to
On 9 Sep 2005 00:24:14 -0700,
muldoon <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> VoiceOfReason wrote:

>> muldoon wrote:
>> > Roger Tang wrote:
>> > > On 2005-09-08 23:06:43 -0700, "muldoon" <bria...@dslextreme.com> said:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > mvil...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >> Kant wrote:
>> > > >> [snip]
>> > > >>> The rocks do indeed proclaim,"Creation!"
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Without using circular reasoning, please show evidence for the
>> > > >> existence of this creator.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> "There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane
>> > > >>> history."
>> > > >>> Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727]
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Newton was an alchemist nut who mutilated animals for fun, you know...
>> > > >
>> > > > Belief in Evolution is a Religious Faith for most - why waste time
>> > > > arguing with the believers?
>> > >
>> > > Nah. Most anti-evolutionists are like kids with hammers....they think
>> > > EVERYTHING can be fixed by a hmmer. They treat life with faith, so they
>> > > think scientists approach science with faith.
>> > >
>> > > Their problem is that there are a lot of Christians who also know that
>> > > evolution is a scientific fact, and know very well that the two aren't
>> > > the same.
>> >
>> > I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
>> > "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."
>>
>> If you deny that biological evolution is an observed fact, then either
>> you haven't studied evolution, or you've spent too much time reading
>> junk from the anti-science crowd.

>>
>> > That you would assert
>> > that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."
>>
>> Actually, it indicates his status as scientifically literate.

>
> Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?

It fits all the current observations. If you have an alternative scientific
theory that explains CMBR, nucleosynthesis and the observed expansion of the
Universe, then by all means provide it.

And what does this have to do with evolution? Why the topic change?

--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com

AC

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 12:57:09 PM9/9/05
to
On 9 Sep 2005 01:10:51 -0700,
muldoon <bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> Ian H Spedding wrote:
>> muldoon wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
>> > "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."
>>
>> Are you denying that animals can change form over time which has
>> allowed us to breed horses that run faster or all the different breeds
>> of dogs and cats?
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> --
>> Ian H Spedding
>
> That's micro-evolution.

Speciation has been observed as well. Care to continue moving the
goalposts?

--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com

Jack Dominey

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 1:07:05 PM9/9/05
to
In <1126251437.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "muldoon"
<bria...@dslextreme.com> wrote:

>
>muldoon wrote:
>> VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> > muldoon wrote:

<snip>

>> > > I'm not religious at all, and I've studied various writings re.
>> > > "Evolution," but "Evolution" is not a "fact."
>> >

>> > If you deny that biological evolution is an observed fact, then either
>> > you haven't studied evolution, or you've spent too much time reading
>> > junk from the anti-science crowd.
>> >
>> > > That you would assert
>> > > that it is, indicates your status as a "believer."

muldoon, do you have a response above the level of "is not"? I'll
make it easy for you. What are these "various writings" you refer to?

>> > Actually, it indicates his status as scientifically literate.
>>
>> Do you also consider the "Big Bang" to be a "fact"?

It is a firm scientific conclusion that the visible universe was
originally very hot and dense, and that space itself is expanding and
has been since the "birth" of the universe. (N.b. this has nothing to
do with biological evolution.)

>And do you consider that consciousness derives entirely from matter,
>and cannot exist independent of matter? Are these also "facts" for you?

Do you have some evidence of consciousness independent of matter?
Heck, do you have a useful definition of consciousness? (N.b. this
also has nothing to do with biological evolution.)

--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver

Bob Pease

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 1:16:42 PM9/9/05
to

"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.com> wrote in message
news:5EiUe.2164$jE2....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...


Snippage has changed the context of the above quote.

The people I am referring to do not understand the concept of "Validation"

RJ Pease


CreateThis

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 2:03:30 PM9/9/05
to
Bob:

>>>Most folks cannot justify their belief in Evolution any better than on
>>>trust of authority.

CT:


>>We can validate our authority better.

Re-Bob:


> Snippage has changed the context of the above quote.

Sorry. I responded to what it meant to me, which isn't changed by the
snippage. And I thought it was an insightful comment that gets closer
to our general problem than most of the (very learned and interesting)
discussion here.

CT

Robert Weldon

unread,
Sep 9, 2005, 2:12:33 PM9/9/05