|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2011 : 04:23:50 [Permalink]
|
Hmm. I see you’ve been pretty well picked over already, so I’ll keep it brief.
As I stated somewhere in this thread or another, that the oldest fossils known are some 3.5 billion years old. These can be seen today in the form of Stromatolites. The oldest animal fossil known is about 630 million years old and is a demosponge.
Now, this is all in the Precambrian and you don’t need a lot of algebra to figure out that we have one hell of a gap between them. Therefore, we have a lot of time for evolution to fill a vast number of niches in the seas.
The Precambrian covers some 7/8 of the world’s history.
The Cambrian “explosion” is actually the earlier creatures developing the hard, chitinous body parts the Arthropods. The trilobites and sea scorpions of 550 MY ago are good examples. The real explosion was a slow one that went off much earlier, ‘way back in the Archaean.
Darwin was correct in that the Theory of Evolution predicted these finds.
So Darwin's detractors were correct in his day and we still are today; because in 150 years no further evidence has been discovered that would show macroevolution via small incremental changes over time. Instead we see relatively sudden appearances on planet earth: saltation.
|
Tiktaalik roseae. The Synapsids.
Saltation is no more than an hypothesis with little to back it up beyond rhetoric, most of it speculative.
The actual percentage of extinct species is 99 & change. That does not speak well for the intelligence of some hypothetical designer, even with the major extinction events taken into consideration: Permian/Triassic, Triassic/Jurassic, and the notorious Cretaceous-Tertiary Event; the one that gave rise to the mammals (and it‘s been all downhill ever since  ).
We can get into a little more later, if you wish.
Now, I know that you don’t like to open the links of others and some of those I’ve put up are pretty complete. But the studious researcher, one that really wants to learn something besides creationist apologetics will take the time to delve into them.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 04:56:00 [Permalink]
|
This "Gradualism" - "Punctuated Equalibrim" stuff is no more than a grasp at a straw. In context, they both work; the first in an environment that is pretty much stable and the other when conditions are in flux. By "in flux" I don't mean rapid, radical environmental change such as we might be seeing now, but a lot quicker than the long, warm days of, say, the Jurassic.
Individuals do not evolve; populations do. An isolated, pocket population of an established species will evolve faster than the larger popuations of it's cousins as it fills it's own, tiny niche. Nevertheless, it's all the same, damned old evolution. Micro & macro, same sort of creationist straw. It's all evolution; it's been happening for 3.5 billion years and we should be used to it by now.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 01/10/2011 05:00:39 |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 05:56:25 [Permalink]
|
Actually. it is a misunderstanding on the part of Darwinists that the terms micro and macroevolution are invented by creationists. Microevolution can be defined as small, incremental changes in the gene pool of a population over time. Macroevolution is intense change wherein the population morphs into another species.
A Russian biologist named Filipchenko first coined these terms in a book in 1927.
The Oxford handbook of philosophy of biology //Link edited for layout. Dr. Mabuse
Your point concerning the Precambrian era is well taken. What is simply missing is that there are no transitionals between the Precambrian and the Cambrian. Perhaps you missed this in my post:
".....Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution. He had even devoted a substantial chapter of The Origin of Species to solving this problem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
This relatively sudden appearance (80 million years or so) of organisms with no antecedents (transitional fossils) leading up to them is where Darwinism fails. Darwin himself once wrote in The Origin of Species in describing the conditions that had to be met for his theory to be true: if one could find an organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," his "theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1859, 191).
So, I will go one better for Mr. Darwin. Not only could I show him organs and structures that did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications, I could show him entire organisms that arrived without them.
As to a 99% extinction rate, that is close enough for me to accept, however, it says nothing about a designer. It speaks instead to evolution. It shows evolution to be little more than devolution. It is change in the gene pool of a population over time, yes, but it is not change into more complexity as Darwinism might predict, but change into disorder as ID would predict--in fact, absolute disorder: extinction.
|
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/10/2011 07:31:10 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2011 : 06:09:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Not one rebuttal to Darwinian Gradualism with references? |
You're the one trying to rebut a cartoon version of Darwinian Gradualism, or have you forgotten already which side of the argument you're on? Is there any need to provide references against a straw man? And since you haven't made a convincing case yet, I, for one, am still waiting for answers to a bunch of questions:- What, exactly, is a "science concept?"
- Where is there evidence that there is purpose in the universe?
- Has ID, as "a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts," ever done so?
- What are the "tenets" of design?
- How have paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics used the "tenets" of design?
- Where is the evidence for a QM intelligence?
- What model does ID provide for "initial design?"
- How can ID provide a model for anything when there is no "theory of ID?"
- How does ID fit into a study of the study of the natural world?
- What do you think the "tenets of science" are, exactly?
- What do you think the differences between Darwinism and evolution are, exactly?
- How can ID provide a non-religious alternative for Darwinism when Mike Gene declared that all of science is based on faith?
- Can you provide a citation for your claim that "Darwinism claims there is no such thing ['limits']?"
- Why would anyone call a quantum-mechanical intelligence "God?"
- Why would you use Boltzmann's equation on a system that you know isn't in equilibrium?
- Can you provide citations that the fossils of the Cambrian are "as we see [animals] today."
- Why do you think that no organisms have evolved into a more complex "something else?"
- How can ID explain anything when there's no "theory of ID?"
- How is "As a population becomes interbred over a long period of time, genomes tend to degrade via deleterious mutations" an explanation based on the idea that an intelligence created life?
- How does Muller's Ratchet apply to sexual species?
- How does one get from "life is intelligently designed" to "mutational meltdown occurs" in logical steps?
- What metric do you use to measure "complexity?"
- How does ID predict the observed increase in "complexity" over time in the fossil record?
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 06:11:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
HINT: Jerry, you are ignorant is not a rebuttal in debate. 
|
No, it's not a rebuttal, it's a statement of fact.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 06:44:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Actually. it is a misunderstanding on the part of Darwinists that the terms micro and macroevolution are invented by creationists. Microevolution can be defined as small, incremental changes in the gene pool of a population over time. Macroevolution is intense change wherein the population morphs into another species.
A Russian biologist named Filipchenko first coined these terms in a book in 1927.
The Oxford handbook of philosophy of biology //Link edited for layout. Dr. Mabuse
Your point concerning the Precambrian era is well taken. What is simply missing is that there are no transitionals between the Precambrian and the Cambrian. Perhaps you missed this in my post:
".....Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution. He had even devoted a substantial chapter of The Origin of Species to solving this problem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
This relatively sudden appearance (80 million years or so) of organisms with no antecedents (transitional fossils) leading up to them is where Darwinism fails. Darwin himself once wrote in The Origin of Species in describing the conditions that had to be met for his theory to be true: if one could find an organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," his "theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1859, 191).
So, I will go one better for Mr. Darwin. Not only could I show him organs and structures that did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications, I could show him entire organisms that arrived without them.
As to a 99% extinction rate, that is close enough for me to accept, however, it says nothing about a designer. It speaks instead to evolution. It shows evolution to be little more than devolution. It is change in the gene pool of a population over time, yes, but it is not change into more complexity as Darwinism might predict, but change into disorder as ID would predict--in fact, absolute disorder: extinction.
|
Well, the ten mile link you've put up has totally screwed up the format of the page. You need to learn to hyperlink. Oh, and avoid PDF files. They are a pain in the ass.
There can be no doubt that the Precambrian was filled with transitionals that will never be found simply because soft tissue very rarely fossilized. This has been pointed out for you before.
What do you think of the couple of transitionals I put forth?
To re-quote: So, I will go one better for Mr. Darwin. Not only could I show him organs and structures that did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications, I could show him entire organisms that arrived without them.
|
Fine. Show 'em, and whilst you're about it, riddle me this: how many micros do you think it might take to mke a macro?
There is no such thing as "de-evolution." Evolution, haphazard as it is, always progresses.
It matters not at all who coined the terms; the creationists have embraced them for their own.
Even though Darwin was correct right down the line, he is outdated. He had no access to things such as genetics that we don't give a second thought to.
You still got nothing, Jerry.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 01/10/2011 07:31:53 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 07:23:31 [Permalink]
|
Here's another very interesting fossil:Sahelanthropus.
But what is it? Is it a human ancestor or an earily gorilla? Nobody really knows and review of it has gone on for years.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 08:02:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Darwin himself once wrote in The Origin of Species in describing the conditions that had to be met for his theory to be true: if one could find an organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," his "theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1859, 191). |
When Darwin wrote his book, even the word "paleontology" was barely invented. There was no systematic collection or study of fossiles. From Wikipedia, on the history of paleontology: The last half of the 19th century saw a tremendous expansion in paleontological activity, especially in North America. The trend continued in the 20th century with additional regions of the Earth being opened to systematic fossil collection, as demonstrated by a series of important discoveries in China near the end of the century. Emphasis mine, more below[1].
When Darwin wrote Origins all his references to fossils, paleontology as a science was barely out of the cradle. The number of discovered fossils and knowledge of the physical and chemical processes creating them has increased by magnitudes.
Darwin laid the foundation of evolutionary theory, but what he wrote isn't gospel. A lot has changed the last 150 years. Some of his ideas about evolution is simply outdated. Quoting Darwin as a refutation of modern evolution is a strawman, and you should know that.
[1] Do you understand the significance of the bolded part from the quote?
Why aren't there Kangaroos in Africa, or North America?
Answer: because they didn't evolve there. Animals can evolve in a localised area of the planet, isolated from the rest of world. Then a geological event, say a vulcano open up a land bridge to the rest of the world, and suddenly the evolved animal (which looks different than the rest of them) can migrate to North America where they die and fossilize. If we could locate that isolated area from which they came, maybe we would discover more proto-animal fossils. The sun has orbited twice around the galaxy since the Cambrian Explosion, and there has been 2 super continents like Pangea (and a lot of geological activity which could have destroyed such habitats)...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 08:17:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
So, I will go one better for Mr. Darwin. Not only could I show him organs and structures that did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications, I could show him entire organisms that arrived without them.
|
Well, no, that would just be more poof and you have essentially been down the ICS path on more than one occassion. If you want ID to be consider science or maybe you don't want it to be considered science since you have stated that there is no theory of ID. Which means to me that ID has no explanatory power or predictive use for understanind naturally occurring phenominon or what we should find in the gaps in our knowledge. But so many others have already said the same thing in these two threads. So...
Back to my original point "If you want ID to be considered science, then I would say a good place to start is by addressing the questions raised by your critics and now provided as a list by Dave W." Seems to me that like Darwin did you should have anticipated the concerns of your critics. Short of that it really does just read as Kil has pointed out here. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 08:45:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Not one rebuttal to Darwinian Gradualism with references? HINT: Jerry, you are ignorant is not a rebuttal in debate.
|
HINT: You started this thread and called it "An Intro to Intelligent Design For Skeptics". |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 09:13:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JerryB
Macroevolution is intense change wherein the population morphs into another species. |
In your opinion, does macroevolution require morphological changes ("morphs")?| Your point concerning the Precambrian era is well taken. What is simply missing is that there are no transitionals between the Precambrian and the Cambrian. |
Your ignorance of the evidence isn't evidence for ID. ID doesn't hinge on the absence of evidence for some other theory, does it?| This relatively sudden appearance (80 million years or so) of organisms with no antecedents (transitional fossils) leading up to them is where Darwinism fails. |
No, it's nothing more than a gap where a little bit of evidence is missing. Since theories rise or fall on the preponderance of evidence, one little "hole" can't do evolutionary theory in.Darwin himself once wrote in The Origin of Species in describing the conditions that had to be met for his theory to be true: if one could find an organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," his "theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1859, 191).
So, I will go one better for Mr. Darwin. Not only could I show him organs and structures that did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications, I could show him entire organisms that arrived without them. |
Darwin didn't say "did not," but instead "could not." But why don't you show us?| As to a 99% extinction rate, that is close enough for me to accept, however, it says nothing about a designer. It speaks instead to evolution. It shows evolution to be little more than devolution. |
So what is the ID narrative on how life went from single cells to "more complex" forms? How does that narrative logically follow from any ID "tenets?"| It is change in the gene pool of a population over time, yes, but it is not change into more complexity as Darwinism might predict... |
Do you have a citation from anyone entrenched in "Darwinism" claiming that it predicts "change into more complexity?"| ...but change into disorder as ID would predict... |
How does ID predict that? What is it about ID that entails "change into disorder?" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 10:44:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JerryB
HINT: Jerry, you are ignorant is not a rebuttal in debate.
|
No, it's not a rebuttal, it's a statement of fact.
|
Thanks for fixing that I cannot figure out how to place a link into certain words on here like I do in other forums. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 10:54:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JerryB
Not one rebuttal to Darwinian Gradualism with references? |
You're the one trying to rebut a cartoon version of Darwinian Gradualism, or have you forgotten already which side of the argument you're on? Is there any need to provide references against a straw man? And since you haven't made a convincing case yet, I, for one, am still waiting for answers to a bunch of questions:- What, exactly, is a "science concept?"
- Where is there evidence that there is purpose in the universe?
- Has ID, as "a methodology that employs science and mathematics to detect purposeful design in systems and artifacts," ever done so?
- What are the "tenets" of design?
- How have paleontology, archeology, cryptography and forensics used the "tenets" of design?
- Where is the evidence for a QM intelligence?
- What model does ID provide for "initial design?"
- How can ID provide a model for anything when there is no "theory of ID?"
- How does ID fit into a study of the study of the natural world?
- What do you think the "tenets of science" are, exactly?
- What do you think the differences between Darwinism and evolution are, exactly?
- How can ID provide a non-religious alternative for Darwinism when Mike Gene declared that all of science is based on faith?
- Can you provide a citation for your claim that "Darwinism claims there is no such thing ['limits']?"
- Why would anyone call a quantum-mechanical intelligence "God?"
- Why would you use Boltzmann's equation on a system that you know isn't in equilibrium?
- Can you provide citations that the fossils of the Cambrian are "as we see [animals] today."
- Why do you think that no organisms have evolved into a more complex "something else?"
- How can ID explain anything when there's no "theory of ID?"
- How is "As a population becomes interbred over a long period of time, genomes tend to degrade via deleterious mutations" an explanation based on the idea that an intelligence created life?
- How does Muller's Ratchet apply to sexual species?
- How does one get from "life is intelligently designed" to "mutational meltdown occurs" in logical steps?
- What metric do you use to measure "complexity?"
- How does ID predict the observed increase in "complexity" over time in the fossil record?
|
Dave, it would take me hours to properly answer all those questions. I'll just answer one pertinent to the discussion and you can ask the others one at a time if you wish:
"Can you provide citations that the fossils of the Cambrian are "as we see [animals] today."
Yes, and I did:
"Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s......"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
|
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 11:12:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by JerryB
Actually. it is a misunderstanding on the part of Darwinists that the terms micro and macroevolution are invented by creationists. Microevolution can be defined as small, incremental changes in the gene pool of a population over time. Macroevolution is intense change wherein the population morphs into another species.
A Russian biologist named Filipchenko first coined these terms in a book in 1927.
The Oxford handbook of philosophy of biology //Link edited for layout. Dr. Mabuse
Your point concerning the Precambrian era is well taken. What is simply missing is that there are no transitionals between the Precambrian and the Cambrian. Perhaps you missed this in my post:
".....Charles Darwin considered this sudden appearance of many animal groups with few or no antecedents to be the greatest single objection to his theory of evolution. He had even devoted a substantial chapter of The Origin of Species to solving this problem."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
This relatively sudden appearance (80 million years or so) of organisms with no antecedents (transitional fossils) leading up to them is where Darwinism fails. Darwin himself once wrote in The Origin of Species in describing the conditions that had to be met for his theory to be true: if one could find an organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," his "theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1859, 191).
So, I will go one better for Mr. Darwin. Not only could I show him organs and structures that did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications, I could show him entire organisms that arrived without them.
As to a 99% extinction rate, that is close enough for me to accept, however, it says nothing about a designer. It speaks instead to evolution. It shows evolution to be little more than devolution. It is change in the gene pool of a population over time, yes, but it is not change into more complexity as Darwinism might predict, but change into disorder as ID would predict--in fact, absolute disorder: extinction.
|
Well, the ten mile link you've put up has totally screwed up the format of the page. You need to learn to hyperlink. Oh, and avoid PDF files. They are a pain in the ass.
There can be no doubt that the Precambrian was filled with transitionals that will never be found simply because soft tissue very rarely fossilized. This has been pointed out for you before.
What do you think of the couple of transitionals I put forth?
To re-quote: So, I will go one better for Mr. Darwin. Not only could I show him organs and structures that did not arise by numerous, successive, slight modifications, I could show him entire organisms that arrived without them.
|
Fine. Show 'em, and whilst you're about it, riddle me this: how many micros do you think it might take to mke a macro?
There is no such thing as "de-evolution." Evolution, haphazard as it is, always progresses.
It matters not at all who coined the terms; the creationists have embraced them for their own.
Even though Darwin was correct right down the line, he is outdated. He had no access to things such as genetics that we don't give a second thought to.
You still got nothing, Jerry.
|
I DID show them: the many seemingly new species appearing in the Cambrian explosion without transitional fossils leading to them.
But soft tissue DOES fossilize and you will not convince me that soft tissues morphed into shell and bone with no intermediate semi-hard structures:
"The oldest fossil evidence of multicellular animals, or metazoans, is burrows that appear to have been made by smooth, wormlike organisms. Such trace fossils have been found in rocks from China, Canada, and India, but they tell us little about the animals that made them apart from their basic shape."
http://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/AnimalEvolution.shtml
What do I think about the transitionals you have put forth? I chuckled because you have no idea WHAT you are showing. Take the skull.
What is that a man, a monkey or some intermediate? You have no idea and never will and that applies as well to the other transitionals.
It could just be another species. It could be a deformed human or monkey skull. It could be a sub-species of either, much like European men's skulls would differ from African pigmies. There is just no science involved here, it is all supposition. |
|
|
|
JerryB
Skeptic Friend
279 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2011 : 11:21:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by JerryB
Darwin himself once wrote in The Origin of Species in describing the conditions that had to be met for his theory to be true: if one could find an organ or structure that could not have been formed by "numerous, successive, slight modifications," his "theory would absolutely break down" (Darwin 1859, 191). |
When Darwin wrote his book, even the word "paleontology" was barely invented. There was no systematic collection or study of fossiles. From Wikipedia, on the history of paleontology: The last half of the 19th century saw a tremendous expansion in paleontological activity, especially in North America. The trend continued in the 20th century with additional regions of the Earth being opened to systematic fossil collection, as demonstrated by a series of important discoveries in China near the end of the century. Emphasis mine, more below[1].
When Darwin wrote Origins all his references to fossils, paleontology as a science was barely out of the cradle. The number of discovered fossils and knowledge of the physical and chemical processes creating them has increased by magnitudes.
Darwin laid the foundation of evolutionary theory, but what he wrote isn't gospel. A lot has changed the last 150 years. Some of his ideas about evolution is simply outdated. Quoting Darwin as a refutation of modern evolution is a strawman, and you should know that.
[1] Do you understand the significance of the bolded part from the quote?
Why aren't there Kangaroos in Africa, or North America?
Answer: because they didn't evolve there. Animals can evolve in a localised area of the planet, isolated from the rest of world. Then a geological event, say a vulcano open up a land bridge to the rest of the world, and suddenly the evolved animal (which looks different than the rest of them) can migrate to North America where they die and fossilize. If we could locate that isolated area from which they came, maybe we would discover more proto-animal fossils. The sun has orbited twice around the galaxy since the Cambrian Explosion, and there has been 2 super continents like Pangea (and a lot of geological activity which could have destroyed such habitats)...
|
Well, it doesn't take much to refute that whole ball of wax in my estimate. You've had over 150 years since Darwin to uncover those fossils, where are they? Nuff said. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
An intro to Intelligent Design for skeptics
