Freethought & Rationalism Archive

08-10-2003, 04:14 AM

I have invited him to post here, but I'm not at all sure he will. In this thread Charles Darwin (yes, it is a bit cheeky of him, don't you think?) wrote:

Quote:

The naturalistic models of how the likes of the DNA code or echolocation evolved amount to this: "well, since evolution is true then these must have evolved somehow, let's speculate about it."

I do agree with you that there is a heap of evidence for macro evolution, there also is for the flat earth theory and geocentrism. You can even predict ecclipses with geocentrism. But I assume you think the evidence for macro evolution is compelling. This is not the case -- each evidence, in fact, can be used to argue *against* evolution.

For example, the fossils often shows new species arising fully formed, as though they were planted there. Then they don't change for eons. Even the sequence of horse-like fossils, that old favorite of museums and textbooks, is now admitted to be a series of different, overlapping in time, species. If the different species evolved from each other, then it must have been rapidly so as not to have left any fossils of the transition. As Niles Eldredge admitted:

"There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."

Or as paleontologist Robert Carroll explains, the fossil record "emphasizes how wrong Darwin was in extrapolating the pattern of long-term evolution from that observed within populations and species." So to the rescue comes punctuated equilibrium, which isn't so much a theory as a label. We don't observe gradual evolution and the fossil species are static, so evolution must proceed by fits and starts.

There are, of course, many fossil species with similarities, and these rightfully are evidence for evolution. But the many "explosions" with strange and new species appearing out of nowhere are strong arguments against evolution. We certainly cannot simply conclude that the fossils are strong evidence for evolution. As paleontologist Henry Gee of Nature wrote:

"Many of the assumptions we make about evolution, especially concerning the history of life as understood from the fossil record, are, however, baseless. The reason for this lies in the scale of geological time that scientists deal with, which is so vast that it defies narrative. Fossils, such as the fossils of creatures we hail as our ancestors, constitute primary evidence for the history of life, but each fossil is an infinitesimal dot, lost in a fathomless sea of time, whose relationship with other fossils and organisms living in the present day is obscure. Any story we tell against the compass of geological time which links these fossils in sequences of cause and effect�or ancestry and descent�is, therefore, only ours to make. We invent these stories, after the fact, to justify the history of life according to our own prejudices."

Well, I'm afraid it gets worse from here. I'll spare the details, but the comparative anatomy evidence has all kinds of problems for evolution (calling for all sorts of "convergent" evolution and lateral gene transfer). For instance, we are constantly finding similar designs in otherwise distant species. IOW, the similar designs must have been repeated. Good old echolocation, in fact, probably had to have evolved multiple times if evolution is true. Sometimes these similarities are quite striking.

Some of the habitues from here might care to tackle him there if he doesn't turn up here. BTW he claims to be a physicist.

Data · 08-10-2003, 04:29 AM

Quote:

I'll spare the details, but the comparative anatomy evidence has all kinds of problems for evolution (calling for all sorts of "convergent" evolution and lateral gene transfer). For instance, we are constantly finding similar designs in otherwise distant species. IOW, the similar designs must have been repeated. Good old echolocation, in fact, probably had to have evolved multiple times if evolution is true. Sometimes these similarities are quite striking.

He doesn't say why this causes problems for evolution, I can't actually see how it could.

MrDarwin · 08-10-2003, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DMB
In this thread Charles Darwin (yes, it is a bit cheeky of him, don't you think?) wrote:

I shall have to give him a stern talking-to!

charlie d · 08-10-2003, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin
I shall have to give him a stern talking-to!

Indeed!

Happy Wonderer · 08-10-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

For example, the fossils often shows new species arising fully formed, as though they were planted there. Then they don't change for eons.

Well, I'm afraid it gets worse from here. I'll spare the details, but the comparative anatomy evidence has all kinds of problems for evolution (calling for all sorts of "convergent" evolution and lateral gene transfer).

Any of you at a university should really take the time to sneak a recent copy or two of Nature into both the physics and engineering departments. There have been a couple of discoveries since 1950 that may provide tantalizingly new evidence for evolution...

hw

08-10-2003, 11:02 PM

More from the desk of Charles Darwin:

Quote:

I would argue from science that naturalistic theories of origins are not good. I'm not saying naturalistic theories are literally impossible; simply that from everything we know about science, it is informing us that naturalistic theories are consistently failing, except in circles where only naturalistic theories are allowed, and therefore there is less critical review (ie, naturalistic theories are viewed critically only to the extent that they are inferior to *other* naturalistic theories).

wade-w · 08-10-2003, 11:29 PM

I just gave him "official" notification that discussions of evolution are off topic in GRD, and if he wishes to continue to discuss the subject he should post here.

From what he has said in various threads in GRD, he seeems to believe in some variation of ID. And he also claims to have a PhD in physics.

I really hope he shows. Should be intersting to watch.

/me wanders off to get the popcorn ready...

08-11-2003, 10:41 AM

This gem from another thread in GRD (he is explaining the impossibility that bats could have evolved echolocation by Natural Selection):

Quote:

Anyone familiar with today�s sonar or radar systems knows the immense complexity involved with such systems: the problems of sensing the echo in the presence of the transmitted signal which can be billions of times stronger, of filtering out spurious signals such as echoes of older transmissions, of combining the echo information with knowledge of your own motion, and so forth. Yet the bat�s detection abilities are superior to those of the best electronic sonar equipment. To think that things like this just happen to occur via a series of mutations is not scientific thinking.

KC · 08-11-2003, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin
I shall have to give him a stern talking-to!

And you can actually say to him, "That's Mr Darwin to you"...

KC

Roland98 · 08-11-2003, 10:55 AM

Hmm, how bizarre that he chooses to discuss that in GRD but not over here. I look forward to his first thread in this folder...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-10-2003, 11:29 PM	#7
wade-w Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Silver City, New Mexico Posts: 1,872	I just gave him "official" notification that discussions of evolution are off topic in GRD, and if he wishes to continue to discuss the subject he should post here. From what he has said in various threads in GRD, he seeems to believe in some variation of ID. And he also claims to have a PhD in physics. I really hope he shows. Should be intersting to watch. /me wanders off to get the popcorn ready...

08-11-2003, 10:55 AM	#10
Roland98 Contributor Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Gilead Posts: 11,186	Hmm, how bizarre that he chooses to discuss that in GRD but not over here. I look forward to his first thread in this folder...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.