Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 10847 Location: Where the wind don't blow so strange
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:16 pm Post subject:
lemon boy wrote:
There is no fossil record connundrum it is a lie made up by creationists/ID supporters.
I suppose Darwin himself was a part of this christian cabal?
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 1872
"Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."
"From the several considerations, it cannot be doubted that the geological record, viewed as a whole, is extremely imperfect; but if we confine our attention to any one formation, it becomes much more difficult to understand why we do to therein find closely graduated varieties between the allied species which lived at its commencement and at its close."
"But we continually overrate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage."
"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer. ...Nevertheless, the difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian is very great... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."
"...and lastly, although each species must have passed through numerous transitional stages, it is probable that the periods, during which each underwent modification, though many and long as measured by years, have been short in comparison with the periods during which each remained in an unchanged condition. ...He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in successive stages of the same great formation?"
"I have felt these difficulties far too heavily during many years to doubt their weight. But it deserves especial notice that the more important objections relate to questions on which we are confessedly ignorant...how imperfect is the geologic record."
"I can answer these questions and objections only on the supposition that the geological record is far more imperfect than most geologists believe...That the geologic record is imperfect all will admit; but that it is imperfect to the degree required by our theory, few will be inclined to admit."
A little from Mr. Dawkins too:
"The paradox has often been noted that the first edition of The Origin of Species makes a better case than the sixth. This is because Darwin felt obliged, in his later editions, to respond to contemporary criticisms..." (Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p. xvi.)
Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 15744 Location: Ponderosa
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:20 pm Post subject:
It seems clear from your quotes that Darwin did not see a conundrum...he only foresaw the basis on which his theory would be attacked by minds unable to grasp the meaning of geologic time. And as for Mr. Dawkins, I am sure one can find better quotes in his material that tear the "conundrum" theory to shreds. That is, after all, a major focus of his work. _________________ Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.
There is no fossil record connundrum it is a lie made up by creationists/ID supporters.
The only problem with the fossil record is the holes. Those are being filled everyday with new discoveries. Those discoveries never result in turning the idea of Evolution on its head, but it does lead to new directions, if appropriate. I remember something about a large dino having the wrong head displayed on it. Science isn't perfect, never will be, but it does involve a process to incorporate new discoveries which lead to refinements. I want to emphasize the refinement part.
Of the fair amount of reading I have done on the subject of Evolution, seems the ones that have an issue with evolution will always have an issue with it.
A buzz word the opponents love to toss out is 'Transitional Fossils', or claimed lack thereof. Wrong, wrong, wrong. More reading please.
... It was once a reasonable hypothesis that any physical object or being or system must necessarily be created by some more sophisticated object or being nor system. Taken to its limit, such a hypothesis demands that an all-powerful God exist. Of course, Darwin blew that hypothesis to pieces.
Actually, David Hume conclusively trashed the design argument. His critique was published posthumously in 1779. (Had he tried to publish it earlier, his death date would have been moved up to match.) William Paley tried to revive the argument in 1802 and failed - in logical terms. In terms of numbers of believers, it's never been stronger than it is today. (But then - that's true of every belief. )
Charles Darwin discovered an alternative hypothesis that explained the diversity of living things and marshalled an army of supporting evidence. Prior to Darwin, a true skeptic could only say "I do not know" when asked about the origins of living things - honest, but not very intellectually satsifying, in Dawkins' view.
Darwin provided an answer to replace the one that Hume refuted.
But, as proposed, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection lacked one fundamental part. I'm not talking about fossils, carbon-dating, geological surveys, taxonomies, or any of that et cetera - no, I mean a fundamental requirement without which the theory would not work - without which evolution would have been logicallly unpossible, like saying 1+1=0.
Extra credit if you know who pointed it out first and when.
For every missing link that is found, two more are created.
True! ... But I think mtele is just helping to construct an educational dialogue in the tradition of Plato, Galileo, and Hume.
Fleeming Jenkin reviewedThe Origin of the Species in 1867. He panned it - not on religious grounds, for he had little love of dogma.
His key point was that blending inheritance would rapidly destroy genetic variation, leaving natural selection with nothing to operate on.
In his defense, Darwin had already noted that - regardless of how that variation was created and preserved - it clearly did exist. And that was sufficient for natural selection to work.
Presequently (1866), Mendel discovered particulate inheritance. By 1918, Mendel's work had been rediscovered and Fisher described how particulate inheritance could account for quantitative genetic traits. Fleshing out these key insights led to an updated Darwinian theory now known as the Modern Synthesis.
But William Thomson - aka Lord Kelvin - would have been a good guess too.
Joined: 08 Dec 2004 Posts: 2793 Location: Bay Area
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject:
David Witherspoon wrote:
Interesting, thanks for the clarification.
Actually, all the "Darwin was wrong about this"/ "Darwin's theory failed to explain that" talk that IDers like to wave around (and which mtele wields to give the appearance of rebutting my last posting) is beside the point.
First, scientific theory (unlike Christian doctrine) doesn't even claim to be comprehensive absolute truth. Scientific theories get refined, and sometimes substantially disproven. That's a strength; Christian dogma about natural history has fared badly in recent centuries most particularly becase it refuses to question itself as new evidence emerges.
Also, it is a fallacy to assign a particular basket of historical folklore with the status of default alternative. If Theory A is weakened, or even utterly disproven, it doesn't actually add credibility to Theory B; there could be more than two possibilities as to, say, what motivates and enables natural processes. If "ID" wants to stand up as a plausible theory, it can do so with or without evolution theory failing, but either way, it would need to demonstrate a strong evidentiary basis.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!