NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial

[McNasty]

The Puppet Master?

 

That was awesome. Now, I can't stop doing the puppet master.

 

Oh, and the grass was yellow in that clip. Coincidence? I think not.

[TheGrunt]

I think some of you are getting tripped up on the word "evil" being distinctly human. Maybe "suffering" would serve the discussion better.

It is my understanding that the definition of "evil" in this discussion is this: Misery, harm, suffering.

 

So yeah, some people appear to be stretching the meaning of the word "evil" a bit, but it should be assumed that "evil" is misery, harm, and suffering. This includes the suffering of animals, humans, and such.

[Azazello1313]

Well, the male lion is more dominant than the one he deposed, so he is taking the other's offspring out of the gene pool. Survival of the fittest...not evil.

I think from "hard wiring" Ursa is referring to the animals in the animal kingdom (well, not man) that react on instinct, not with thought and realization of consequences, etc.

 

the lion realizes the consequences when he chomps down on the neck of the cubs, too. and you could just as easily say that a dude who rapes a chick is acting on instinct to propagate his own gene pool.

 

i will grant that humans with their increased intelligience have a MUCH greater capacity for and understanding of evil -- thus a greater culpability as well...but i don't see some bright where if a human does something it is "evil" but if another animal does it it is "only instinct", mostly because so many terrible human actions that are undeniably "evil" are driven by instinct and hard-wiring as well.

[Ursa Majoris]

Well, the male lion is more dominant than the one he deposed, so he is taking the other's offspring out of the gene pool. Survival of the fittest...not evil.

I think from "hard wiring" Ursa is referring to the animals in the animal kingdom (well, not man) that react on instinct, not with thought and realization of consequences, etc.

That was my point indeed. Well stated.

 

the lion realizes the consequences when he chomps down on the neck of the cubs, too. and you could just as easily say that a dude who rapes a chick is acting on instinct to propagate his own gene pool.

 

i will grant that humans with their increased intelligience have a MUCH greater capacity for and understanding of evil -- thus a greater culpability as well...but i don't see some bright where if a human does something it is "evil" but if another animal does it it is "only instinct", mostly because so many terrible human actions that are undeniably "evil" are driven by instinct and hard-wiring as well.

You are right - it is the capacity for and understanding of a course of action prior to taking that action and therefore the ability to choose that is the point.

 

The missing element in the discussion is societal mores - in a lion pride it is both expected and accepted that an alpha lion will kill his rivals offspring but in human society an entirely different set of mores prevails. Even the most depraved (other than the truly insane) know that their actions are wrong ("evil"), even if they are also "instinctual". It is the putting aside of the known societal more that is the evil.

[Yukon Cornelius]

well....let's take the example of a male lion who murders the cubs of his rival. on some level, i assume this lion knows what he is doing. is that evil? i just think these bright lines between (human) consciousness and (animal) instinct would logically lead more to the religious "man is in god's image (but with sin), unique among all creation" theory than to the naturalistic "man is just the most mentally evolved animal" type theory.

what is evil to some humans is not to others , cultural, geographical and other things come into play for what is consider evil... even murder.....

 

social mores, while many are common in most cultures ,change from place to place...

[cre8tiff]

That Madness map is one convoluted motherlipolymphohemangiomas hemihypertrophyer. I'm trying to play it and have no idea at all what the neighbors do, if anything?

[TheGrunt]

That Madness map is one convoluted motherlipolymphohemangiomas hemihypertrophyer. I'm trying to play it and have no idea at all what the neighbors do, if anything?

OK, so I've been trying to puzzle out the truth of the matter to the end. Blunderingly up creek, such a person unpropitious be destined bother consign in the neighborhood of lump it.

[bushwacked]

OK, so I've been trying to puzzle out the truth of the matter to the end. Blunderingly up creek, such a person unpropitious be destined bother consign in the neighborhood of lump it.

 

 

I nominate Grunt for the best short term pseudo intellectual C- on his term paper.

[TheGrunt]

I nominate Grunt for the best short term pseudo intellectual C- on his term paper.

[Thews40]

Tim C - Saved from what?"

 

ignorance of the truth.

 

" Atomic CEO - This is going to be a difficult concept for you to understand, but I do not fear hell or desire heaven... because according to my deeply held beliefs, they do not exist. So... thanks anyway.

 

I brought up hell because JJ implied that believing in evolution would send you to hell and then said he wasn't threatened by evolution. If you believe in hell, and you believe that thinking a certain way will send you there... then I'd say you're threatened by it."

 

I don’t believe JJ implies anything about who does and who doesn’t go to hell… quite the inverse actually. Your preconceived bias towards organized religion may paint that picture, but that’s not a generic “Christian” viewpoint, though some Christians may project it. Knowing what it takes to be saved doesn't mean you will be, but rather you believe you know what it takes. Judgment on either side of this argument is wrong, because to say someone will go to hell for whatever reason is wrong, as that’s God’s call. To say someone is wrong because they believe in some act or thought process will send you to hell is equally as wrong, because if that’s what they believe, then so friggin what. If you take offense to someone telling you that they believe you’ll go to hell, then I’d say you sound threatened by it.

 

You don’t fear hell and don’t desire heaven... ok. What is it you desire? Dust? Are you grasping at the straws that your soul doesn’t exist as a best-case scenario? Isn’t that a rather defeatist stance? Are you that sure you don't believe in anything other than what can be proven? Are you 100% sure that science in its infinite wisdom will come up with a plausible explanation for the existence of the universe? From what… anti-matter? What is the null hypothesis here? Without trying to place judgment, it really sounds like you don’t want to believe in anything that can’t be proven to you. For the record I’m not saying you're wrong… I just don’t see the logic.

 

bushwacked -

"Except scientists use a multitude of observations to come up with a scientific theory. Sorry, but the comparison to whatever JJ is doing is a gigantic reach."

 

Give me one tiny shed of a theory that can explain the existence of the universe. A big bang…? What caused it? Doesn’t something have to exist to blow up? To use the scientific method as a crutch in not being able to acknowledge this is a cop out. How can you observe something that doesn’t exist (anti-matter)? Wouldn’t anti-matter then be something with properties that can be explained and observed? If the theory that explains it falls under the scrutiny of the scientific method, then you must explain everything from time zero. Time is infinite… it’s impossible. The scientific method is held to the existing universe. If you’re ok with all these infinite concepts someday being explained or theorized, then I guess it’s your base in logic, or more poignantly “belief”… a gigantic reach. Again, I don’t see the logic.

 

I enjoy the evolution debate as much as anyone and have read a few books on this subject. But, to me evolution is not the real issue. Even if one were to prove that evolution is true, It doesn't answer the bigger question which is how did the first life form originate. It had nothing to evolve from. Did it just spring up from nothing? How about the universe, how did it begin? Again, out of nothing? For non believers to argue evolution is fine, but there are much more tougher questions that need to be answered. Scientific evidence seems to point to the big bang theory being correct. This is bad for non believers because it indicates a beginning, thus a beginner or creator. To say that the universe just came into existence out of nothing, and then was so finely tuned to allow for life on this planet, and then life just happened to form - again - from nothing is to me much much harder to believe than the alternative which is that we were created. If you are comfortable believing that then fine, but these are all issues that I have had to study and decide for myself and there is no doubt in my mind that there is a God and he created everything and his son is Jesus Christ who rose from the dead 3 days after he was crucified.

I agree with your foundation in logic.

 

Even if we knew what created or started the Big Bang I highly doubt we would be able to comprehend it. Thus we assign it names like God or Jesus to humanize it. Since, of course, the whole thing HAS to be about us and for our benefit.

I don’t understand your point... please explain.

 

'bushwacked' date='11/19/07 11:45pm' post='2295371']

This is brought up in almost every evolution discussion on this board and Cr8tiff was already making a counterpoint to this.

 

Your question has nothing to do with validating or discrediting theory of evolution. Might be more relevant to a discussion of the Big Bang Theory, but it might be a philosophical question more than a scientific one.

 

Regardless, the inability to answer the question to one's satisfaction does little or nothing to support the argument our world was created by God, the Giant Spaghetti monster, or Alannis Morissete 6,000 years ago. There is a preponderance of scientific evidence and observations that almost certainly indicates our world is millions upon millions of years in the making."

 

I have no idea what your point is here, but you do make a point in defining “to one’s satisfaction” as it is relevant. Neither side is wrong, but neither argument (existence or non-existence of God) has a greater weight without proof, and would then require a belief or faith to explain it. If you believe that science will someday explain how nothing (for the 1000th time “nothing” is something if it has properties that can be observed or explained) exploded, then that’s where I assume you place your belief. In theory, you accept the alternative hypothesis (non-existence of God) based on advances in science in the last 50 years. If that makes sense to you so be it, but it really doesn’t make sense to me.

 

There have been all kinds of breakthroughs with science and technology over the last 40-50 years. Surely, you must be absolutely amazed by what one does on a computer today that they couldn't do 100 years ago? Do you doubt it is actually happening or attrbute it to a sheer miracle? Do you rationalize it by claiming man is only a few thousand years old, so it is logical we have done this in the last 40-50 years?

I'll admit, along with the scientific community, that it's impossible to be be completely objective while researching and explaining ideas developed from observing a plethora of data and making all the puzzle pieces fit.

 

But, you keep saying that, and to me it almost certainly indicates () you have a high degree of bias towards evolutionary science because you have issues with scientifically substantiated theories convincingly contradicting literal verses from the Bible. A lot of Christians can differentiate that without feeling as though their faith is violated. You can't.

 

It would also say that if you truly believe the sentence you wrote above, you have very little understanding of the Scientific Method.

Since you have a great understanding of the scientific method, please explain to me how it’s possible to observe an infinite timeline prior to the big bang. Did time start then? Can you observe something that doesn’t exist? Seriously… claiming a lack of understanding of the scientific method is somehow ignorant would then require the burden of proof on you to explain the theory… which doesn’t exist… and is impossible. If you disagree that it will someday be possible, or theorized based on observation, then we’ll agree to disagree. Your spaghetti monster is the belief that science will explain infinite concepts… I’m not buying it, and I’m also not telling you you’re wrong… just don’t see the logic.

 

If you want someone who doesn't believe some manifestation of God or a Creator is possible, you need to ask the question to someone else. However, I do think you are more interested in trying to make a point. The "if you can't explain how it all started, then it must be bunk" point of view is simplitisticly fallacious.

 

"You cannot prove that George Washington chopped down the cherry tree, therefore America doesn't exist."

This is a complete contradiction, or just really bad sarcasm. Using your logic, I guess what makes sense to you is right and any differing opinion is wrong.

 

ton, you cannot be convinced of anything on this subject because you dismiss facts and evidence that you don't agree with, while supplying no facts or evidence of your own (except for a creationist refutation of carbon dating which is clearly marred with inaccuracies).

 

Seacrest out.

Who is the one dismissing facts they don't agree with? Facts… you exist and time is infinite. Please supply me with some evidence to explain how the chemicals that comprise your extremely complicated body came to exist. Still grasping at the straws that chemical happenstance just aligned the stars to create the first living cell from random chemicals that came from anti-something? Who’s drinking the Kool-aid here? The happenstance part seems like a plausible theory to explain the origin of life, but it’s hardly a fact supported by evidence.

 

You have become a bible thumping babbler that embarrasses other Christians.

I thought JJ explained his beliefs very well. They disagree with yours, but your statement is a judgment while I don't believe his was.

 

So here we go again… I like discussing this by the way. If I could just get the angst out of the stereotypical judgmental Christian, my argument may make more sense regarding God and Christianity to the atheists, but it’s really a double edged sword. If anyone told me what God was going to do to me based on what I did or didn’t believe, I’d tell them to fek off… they aren’t God. On the same note, if someone tells me I’m a judgmental Christian because some dork on TV said so and it “represents” a Christian belief, then I’d also tell them to fek off. Believe what you want… it’s your choice and you are neither conclusively right or wrong, regardless of which side you’re on. As long as it makes sense to you, that’s all that matters. For the record, a lot of Christians don’t get it IMO.

 

The average intelligence (IMO) of the people in here is far above the mean when you break down the entire populace of the world. People like Dr. Love know and understand things like quantum physics that I can’t even grasp conceptually… I know that, but it’s not required to form an opinion regarding God. You may argue that ignorance is bliss and if I did I’d change my mind, but I don’t think so. It’s all interesting, but at some point you have to make a decision and take a leap of faith choosing either God, or science explaining how we came to be without God. You have to believe in one or the other, or choose not to form an opinion.

 

Here’s one I had a hard time getting my arms around…the point Bushwhacked makes in asking why God would plant fossils and have animals evolve just to mess with us. What if God came down every Sunday and told us all how we were doing… would you believe in God if he showed himself to you? Of course you would. Would you then fear death knowing that God exists? I wouldn’t… not at all. What would you learn in life if you knew God existed with tangible proof? Earth would just be a temporary holding place for your soul, and when a tsunami came and took hundreds of lives, we’d all be happy for the victims of it. We aren’t happy for the victims, and we feel and see the pain.

 

This question has two parts… why and how. How doesn’t matter if you believe in your answer to why, or that why even matters. Without God there is no question regarding why, because you’re just a freak happenstance in some cosmic boom… that just sorta *happened*… you know, cause something that didn’t exist just decided to exist and create everything. They’re both infinite concepts and you have to accept that as a variable. That’s a fact… both infinite. Who made matter, and who made God? I'm not infinite, so I can't answer who made God, but I believe God created matter. Regardless of your stance, that is a foundation in logic based on the facts. Where I fail to see the opposing logic is assuming we'll someday come up with a theory to explain how nothing became something and created everything. That would be your God in that scenario... the something that created matter.

 

So, to answer the question Bushwhacked, what if God did plant those seeds of doubt just to ensure you’d believe in the possibility he doesn’t exist? What if that was the master plan, and you just weren’t smart enough to figure that part out? Are you doomed to eternal damnation for your beliefs? I don’t believe so, but it’s not my call and I can’t think for God. I am going to die and that’s a fact. Do I embrace faith in God as a crutch to deal with pain? You may think so, but I don’t… it’s the only thing that makes sense to me. I'm here to learn the truth and gain the knowledge of good and evil... life's purpose to the soul... which I believe exists.

 

You know how people that smoke react when you tell them they’ll die if they don’t quit… they get pissed. They know you’re right, but they also know they don’t need you telling them because they already know. Unlike that scenario, when a vegetarian tries to tell me the horrors of eating meat, I get pissed because I believe they’re wrong. You don’t want to eat meat… fine, but I love a nice T-bone, and I don’t need someone telling me I’m wrong for loving it so… it’s a judgment. Are all vegetarians pushy hummus-eatin’ pricks… no (except for the ones that live in Boulder), but it’s the first assumption that the label “vegetarian” conjures up with me. I think it’s analogous to the impression the stereotypical judgmental “Christian” label brings to non-Christians. We’re not all on that page. My relationship with God is between me and God, and I’m not better than anyone for believing I’ll be saved. “Saved” takes on its own spin and I won’t get into that one, other than I don't like the term “saved” in personal definition as it’s a forgone conclusion… a judgment. We may believe we know what it takes to be saved, but God calls all the shots.

 

I know I’m rambling on. It’s 2:00 AM right now as I sit in the hospital room with my daughter fighting for her life. This is pain… bigtime pain. Why? I don’t know, but what I do know is I don’t control things. I can control me (well sort of), but there’s things I can’t control, and bad things happen to all of us.

 

What if… you grew up with June and Ward Clever as parents, had many siblings that you got along with your entire life, won the lottery, married the perfect mate, lived in perfect health and died in your sleep at 85 with many grandchildren and your spouse by your side? Cool scenario right? What pain would you learn? This is where it’s gonna get wordy (like it’s not now).

 

Here’s how I see it… life is a lesson to the soul. The “knowledge” of good and evil is why were here. To live without God is to have that knowledge; that’s what the apple represents. It’s not a punishment for eating an apple, it’s what you get when you defy God. Once you cross over you’ll have that knowledge… my interpretation of hell. This is hell, because evil (pain) exists here. If evil didn’t exist (aka heaven), then you wouldn’t know pain. Once you grasp this in concept, why matters far more than how.

 

The Matrix really encompasses this concept IMO. In the matrix, everything is real to the person inside of it, but outside of it it’s just a dream. You have freewill and can choose to believe what you want. What you learn from it is the lesson your soul takes with you and it’s all based on truth. The bible is one word to teach the entire population. The lower 20% of the intelligence spectrum may only be able to grasp do bad things and go to hell. If you’re above the upper 60%, then you should prolly be able to figure it out. Again, one word for all people. To shoot holes in what doesn’t make sense to you may be because it wasn’t meant for you… just how I see it, but it makes sense to me.

 

To answer the topic of this thread, while I believe in ID, I don’t think teaching it in school is gonna work. The zealots will spin it, and you’d be taught differently in Utah vs. California. On the same note, I think it’s also wrong to teach the big bang and humans evolving from chemical happenstance as fact, because it’s not a fact. Evolution amongst animals is factual (though I believe is more selective breeding of an existing species), but the chemical mix creating life “theory” is just that… it’s just looking at a finished puzzle and finding a plausible answer that could have happened to define it factually. This is where it gets fuzzy, as you can teach what isn’t a fact but a theory, but only if when you apply separation of church and state. To Rover’s point, I agree it’s up to the parents to teach their kids and let them figure it out.

 

Whatever it is you believe is up to you and no one is wrong. The idiot that worships Satan is an idiot IMO just because it’s a choice to worship evil, but even in that scenario I can’t say it’s wrong… just not what I believe. It has to make sense… figure it out and be good with it. For the record I don’t think matter exists except to serve its purpose. Strip away the human form and we are but souls. I don’t know what happens to them when our lives are over, but I can’t know now… if I did I wouldn’t learn anything.

 

When you lose control of your life and bad things happen, it’s instinctual to ask yourself why. Why would a loving God do this or that? I don’t know… I’m not God. Do you ask yourself that when love happens? When success happens? Just because bad things happen and if you were God they wouldn’t, doesn’t mean it’s not for a purpose and God isn't loving when they do. Life isn’t fair, but whatever it is you’ve figured out is just your opinion and differing opinions aren’t wrong or stupid. Judgment of right vs. wrong in those opinions is wrong, because you don’t call that shot. It’s your life… figure it out. JMHO.

[bushwacked]

I know I’m rambling on. It’s 2:00 AM right now as I sit in the hospital room with my daughter fighting for her life. This is pain… bigtime pain. Why? I don’t know, but what I do know is I don’t control things. I can control me (well sort of), but there’s things I can’t control, and bad things happen to all of us.

 

 

Let us know what we can do to help. We are here if you need us Thews.

[billay]

I'm on page 11 of this monster. Thought I was going to make it until I saw that behemoth of of post by Thews on page 28 and suddenly felt exhausted...

 

ETA: Just read about the hospital, didn't mean to make light of your daughter's illness Thews.

Edited December 8, 2007 by billay

[billay]

Ok, I'm 12 pages out. Can I start commenting on things yet?

 

Someone help me out here. What exactly is MACRO evolution? I was under the impression that all evolutionary changes occurred on very small scales, the generation of minor alterations in charateristics that time, and change in venue proved beneficial to survival? In that sense isn't all evolution micro evolution. Does macro-evolution reference the emergence of 1 species out of another? If all evolution is tiny alterations, then changes in species is little more that sufficient time to make movement along the evolutionay line more obscured?

[billay]

You see, we have evidence that the Big Bang occured such as the Hubble redshifting of galaxies which indicate they are moving away from a central point, radiometric dating of stars and an ever cooling ambient temprature of the universe. Pretty sound evidence, if you ask me. Wheres your evidence that life was started by some god. Just one piece of evidence is all I ask.

Again, I'm no scientist, but the galactic redshift and the cooling of the universe are not evidence of the big bang, they are evidence of an expanding universe. The two are not the same. The big bang theory is an extrapolation of universal expansion, in reverse. If the universe is expanding, then in the past the universe was smaller. If we run that tape backwards, we assume that untimately, the expansion began from a single point of infinite mass, but we have no proof of this, at least not as far as I know. Take that for what its worth. And even if we did have proof, the temperature and pressure achieved in such a point of infinite mass are so off the scale of scientific measurement that we have no means to predict backwards past a certain point, something like 10/-34 seconds after the "explosion"

[Ursa Majoris]

Ok, I'm 12 pages out. Can I start commenting on things yet?

 

Someone help me out here. What exactly is MACRO evolution? I was under the impression that all evolutionary changes occurred on very small scales, the generation of minor alterations in charateristics that time, and change in venue proved beneficial to survival? In that sense isn't all evolution micro evolution. Does macro-evolution reference the emergence of 1 species out of another? If all evolution is tiny alterations, then changes in species is little more that sufficient time to make movement along the evolutionay line more obscured?

I guess macro refers to lots of micros strung together, producing one species from another over a long period. Macro is actually completely redundant.

[Thews40]

Let us know what we can do to help. We are here if you need us Thews.

Thanks... just a prayer... I believe in them.

 

I'm on page 11 of this monster. Thought I was going to make it until I saw that behemoth of of post by Thews on page 28 and suddenly felt exhausted...

 

ETA: Just read about the hospital, didn't mean to make light of your daughter's illness Thews.

No offense taken. I'm punch drunk and numb... this is without question the darkest hour of my life so far. When I can't sleep I wirte... it's cool that you guys actually read it.

 

Again, I'm no scientist, but the galactic redshift and the cooling of the universe are not evidence of the big bang, they are evidence of an expanding universe. The two are not the same. The big bang theory is an extrapolation of universal expansion, in reverse. If the universe is expanding, then in the past the universe was smaller. If we run that tape backwards, we assume that untimately, the expansion began from a single point of infinite mass, but we have no proof of this, at least not as far as I know. Take that for what its worth. And even if we did have proof, the temperature and pressure achieved in such a point of infinite mass are so off the scale of scientific measurement that we have no means to predict backwards past a certain point, something like 10/-34 seconds after the "explosion"

I see no flaw in your logic.

[Jumpin Johnies]

Thanks... just a prayer... I believe in them.

I just prayed for her.

In Christ Alone

[zmanzzzz]

Who posted in: NOVA: Intelligent Design on Trial

 

Poster Posts

Jumpin Johnies 146

bushwacked 63

Kid Cid 43

tonorator 43

Ursa Majoris 32

BiggieFries 30

The Irish Doggy 26

Pirate lookin' at 40 24

Azazello1313 21

TheGrunt 20

DemonKnight 19

I Like Soup 17

cre8tiff 14

Yukon Cornelius 13

TimC 12

Ill Nuts 12

Hugh 0ne 11

whomper 11

AtomicCEO 10

Caveman_Nick 10

Savage Beatings 9

Bill Swerski 7

Rovers 7

evil_gop_liars 7

tbimm 7

SF409ers 6

nickspicks 6

McNasty 5

dmarc117 5

untateve 5

godtomsatan 4

isleseeya 4

Pope Flick 4

alexgaddis 4

jetsfan 3

billay 3

gilthorp 3

Chavez 3

wiegie 3

The Holy Roller 3

montster 2

BeeR 2

Thews40 2

twiley 2

wherethefugowie 2

CaP'N GRuNGe 2

Dr. Love 1

polksalet 1

Miner 1

Easy n Dirty 1

Codwagon 1

Chief Dick 1

T_bone65 1

[Hugh 0ne]

Let us know what we can do to help. We are here if you need us Thews.

 

+1. Thoughts and prayers from New York coming for your daughter Thews.

[tonorator]

Ok, I'm 12 pages out. Can I start commenting on things yet?

 

Someone help me out here. What exactly is MACRO evolution? I was under the impression that all evolutionary changes occurred on very small scales, the generation of minor alterations in charateristics that time, and change in venue proved beneficial to survival? In that sense isn't all evolution micro evolution. Does macro-evolution reference the emergence of 1 species out of another? If all evolution is tiny alterations, then changes in species is little more that sufficient time to make movement along the evolutionay line more obscured?

 

macro evolution marks the point where a major branch of the tree starts. taking the different classes of life, like reptiles, birds, mammals, humans, etc., what you generally find are those classes largely preserved in the fossil record, with the small modifications you talk about happening on a micro level. to jump classes, some pretty freaky transistional states would have to exist. in terms of the fossil record, these transistional states are in the massive minority and each single one is met with a good amount of debate. if we are talking about billions of years of micro-changes, it should not be hard to fill in all the gaps between the classes that we find. the fact of the matter is that it is very hard, to the point where the discovery of a single potential transitory fossil is a major breakthough, when in fact, they should be all over the place.

 

that's how i define it.

 

praying for you thews.

[Ursa Majoris]

macro evolution marks the point where a major branch of the tree starts. taking the different classes of life, like reptiles, birds, mammals, humans, etc., what you generally find are those classes largely preserved in the fossil record, with the small modifications you talk about happening on a micro level. to jump classes, some pretty freaky transistional states would have to exist. in terms of the fossil record, these transistional states are in the massive minority and each single one is met with a good amount of debate. if we are talking about billions of years of micro-changes, it should not be hard to fill in all the gaps between the classes that we find. the fact of the matter is that it is very hard, to the point where the discovery of a single potential transitory fossil is a major breakthough, when in fact, they should be all over the place.

 

that's how i define it.

 

praying for you thews.

You assume that evolutionary change takes place at the same constant rate but what if the transition period is much shorter? Wouldn't it make sense that an evolutionary "leap" would be precipitated by some event, perhaps a change in temperature or climate or the disappearance of a food source?

 

By the way, the strange bird/reptile Archaeopteryx may well be one of the transitional species you mention.

 

Despite its small size, broad wings, and ability to fly, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.

 

The features above make Archaeopteryx the first clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds. Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Ursa Majoris

[Yukon Cornelius]

macro evolution marks the point where a major branch of the tree starts. taking the different classes of life, like reptiles, birds, mammals, humans, etc., what you generally find are those classes largely preserved in the fossil record, with the small modifications you talk about happening on a micro level. to jump classes, some pretty freaky transistional states would have to exist. in terms of the fossil record, these transistional states are in the massive minority and each single one is met with a good amount of debate. if we are talking about billions of years of micro-changes, it should not be hard to fill in all the gaps between the classes that we find. the fact of the matter is that it is very hard, to the point where the discovery of a single potential transitory fossil is a major breakthough, when in fact, they should be all over the place.

 

that's how i define it.

jebus fraking balls stop it and or move to Kansas.... you would be a civic leader there

[NSab]

[billay]

Evolution speeding up.

 

This was in the paper this morning. Thought it was interesting and addressed some's concerns that why it has taken humans as long as it has to get to our current evolutionary point.

[tonorator]

Evolution speeding up.

 

This was in the paper this morning. Thought it was interesting and addressed some's concerns that why it has taken humans as long as it has to get to our current evolutionary point.

 

i couldn't tell from the article if i will be able to fly soon ...