[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Fyron]

What do you say of the fossils that are of dinosaurs with half-evolved (I would have used developed, but that word does not fit very well in this sense) wings?

Pure creationism has no valid evidence at all. Evolution has some valid evidence.

Your distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution does not show the theory of evolution to be false. "Micro" evolution is actually good evidence supporting the theory of "macro" evolution, because it is one of the things necessary for "macro" evolution to be possible. A theory is, after all, the best available model that explains the evidence at hand. As I have stated repeatedly, the current theory of evolution is undergoing re-evaluation, and could be not 100% accurate. This does not prove that evolution is wholely wrong, only that our current model is flawed. Once all of the evidence can be taken into account, the theory will be adjusted to fit. This happens in science constantly, and will happen with the theory of evolution.

The evidence we have supports evolution, and not pure creationism. Please stop just saying "evolution vs. creation". That is a bad distinction to make, because the two do not actually speak of the same events. Creation is a hypothesis about what happened at the beginning of the universe. Evolution is a theory that _does not_ make any conjectures as to what happened at the beginning of the universe. If you refuse to believe this, I am sure I can find you an exact quote on the theory of evolution to prove that it does not speak of the beginning, only what happens now, and in the distant past. They are not actually mutually exclusive, because they do not address the same issues. It is hypothetically possible that both are true. I think you are making the same mistake that a lot of people do in associating evolution with an anti-thesis of creation.

[raynor]

Very simply, the fossil record does not support macro evolution. In order for macro evolution to hold water, there must be an equal or greater number of fossils showing intermediate-species transition steps. This evidence just doesn't exist.

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
What do you say of the fossils that are of dinosaurs with half-evolved (I would have used developed, but that word does not fit very well in this sense) wings?

Quote replay: Please show me. I never ever heard of these. As far as I recall from my bio professor there are no such fossils.

General:
Archeopteryx: This fossil is exactly NOT an indication how reptiles become birds. It is already a creature able to fly and hence is subject to natural selection in his �habitat�, i.e. will be improved to a better bird. It doesn�t show us what gain a creature without usable forelegs and not able to fly had above birds and hence why wings were invented. We can guess but have no fossil prove for it up to now. Look here:

�On the whole, though, this is still a gappy transition, consisting of a very large-scale series of "cousin" fossils.�
and
�GAP: The exact reptilian ancestor of Archeopteryx, and the first development of feathers, are unknown. Early bird evolution seems to have involved little forest climbers and then little forest fliers, both of which are guaranteed to leave very bad fossil records (little animal + acidic forest soil = no remains). Archeopteryx itself is really about the best we could ask for: several specimens has superb feather impressions, it is clearly related to both reptiles and birds, and it clearly shows that the transition is feasible�. (from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...rt1b.html#bird )

People, not everyone that points out weak spots in the �natural selection� theory is a creationist. I�m not, for all it matters. It just means that there may be other �forces� that drive evolution that we have not yet discovered. Maybe nature likes to jump every now and then with the gene pool and new species evolve. We don�t now. But keep asking and thinking of other possibilities! That�s what science is all about.

[Andr�s]

I agree there might be some missing factors in evolution and a few little details that might need to be fixed or filled up. But overall the theory proves to be consistent with current knowledge.
Unless you are a fanatic believer, (claiming creation must be literally as it is written in Genesis or whatever religious text you beileve in) there's nothing wrong in considering that God might be one of the missing factors and that this was just the mechanism He used to create the modern shape of life.

Up no now I haven't heard of a 3rd theory.
The only alternative theory I've heard from people who deny evolution is creationism or some attempts to make a compromise between evolution and creationism.
Nothing that does not involve some kind of divine intervention.

Let's face it there is no solid argument to suggest it might be wrong, there is no better theory, and no evidence at all to support an alternative theory, so evolution remains the best fitting theory that exists today.

Archeopteryx is an excellent example of a transitional fossil. It resembles both, reptiles and birds.
Some scientists argue it could not have flown, others that it must have been a bad flier, limited to flap from tree to tree.

I don't have time to search now, but there are some examples of non-flying dinosaurs with feathers, that apparently were first developed for heat insulation.

The main answer of the "lack of transitional fossils" argument is here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...l#transitional

And the explanation of rarity of these fossils and more details.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Andr&eacutes Lescano:
Let's face it there is no solid argument to suggest it might be wrong, there is no better theory, and no evidence at all to support an alternative theory, so evolution remains the best fitting theory that exists today.
Archeopteryx is an excellent example of a transitional fossil. It resembles both, reptiles and birds.

It is surley not wrong. It might be incomplete. That's the point.
And again, Archeopteryx is not a good example because it has already fully developed wings. The missing link would be a creature in between legs and wings. And such a fossil we have never found up to now. Archeopteryx shows us, that reptils and birds are related to each other but Archeopteryx is already quite on the "bird" site.

[Krsqk]

since you're obviously not reading the pages we link to.

I assume, since you've been posting links to talkorigins, that you have some idea of the vastness of the site. Be patient. I'm assuming that you actually wanted me to read the links, not just shift-click them so they'd change color on my screen.

Pure creationism has no valid evidence at all. Evolution has some valid evidence.

Pure creationism would not leave evidence of origins. There's not going to be a big digital clock stuck in the ground somewhere that says, "6184 years, 2 months, 3 days, 13 hours, and 28 minutes since creation." Or, "God was here." Creation doesn't purport to be scientifically provable (I get this odd feeling of deja vu every time I say that). It does claim that all the evidence we see is a result of post-creation activities. Is there any way to falsify that? No, since there's no way to scientifically falsify creation. Don't acknowledge creation is unproveable with one breath and demand proof for it in the next. Whether or not creation is true, there will never be any "evidence" for it.

[Chronon]

I'm getting the feeling that what we are arguing about is not really evolution. No one seems to be arguing for a set creation date and no change thereafter (as was argued in the Medieval period). It seems we'd all agree that species have changed over time. I think what we're really arguing about is natural selection (by random variation) versus guided selection (by God or some other Designer - alien or god-like).

The whole evolution versus creationism debate, in my view, is cultural. As Andres has pointed out, the issue that gets most people fired up about this is what to teach in school. Since the Scopes trial, it has been portrayed as a stark dichotomy between religion and science. As we have noted here in this forum, this is a false distiction. I think what we are arguing about is which epistemology should be primary in our cultures: scientific or religious. In other words, when trying to answer the ultimate question of life the universe and everything, do we use the scientific method (of course we know the answer is 42 ) or do we consult the Bible, Koran, Sutras, Zen masters or other spiritual/religious sources?

I, personally, think the two sources can be complementary - especially in one's own personal, individual journey through life. But what is being contested in our culture is which has the authority to define truth, science or Christianity (in the USA anyway - I doubt this is much of an issue in Japan). So, there is a lot at stake, and it's no wonder that sometimes the relative merits of a theory that we know is incomplete have been exaggerated to the point where it has become a secular religion.

For our purposes, then, I would propose that we stop emphasizing the evolution versus creation argument, and start defining our positions along the lines of natural selection versus intelligent design (or whichever theory applies).

[Fyron]

Don't acknowledge creation is unproveable with one breath and demand proof for it in the next.

I didn't do that.

[Fyron]

People, not everyone that points out weak spots in the �natural selection� theory is a creationist. I�m not, for all it matters. It just means that there may be other �forces� that drive evolution that we have not yet discovered. Maybe nature likes to jump every now and then with the gene pool and new species evolve. We don�t now. But keep asking and thinking of other possibilities! That�s what science is all about.

This is precisely what I have been saying all along.

[QuarianRex]

Originally posted by raynor:
The major problem with evolution is that the fossil record doesn't support it. At best, you can support micro-evolution--changes within one species. But there just isn't satisfactory fossil evidence to support the supposed transitional species. Without any evidence for macro evolution, you are left with waiting a million years. With a whole this large in evolution, creationism is equally valid.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a fossil? A creature has to die in mud and then be covered in mud before the scavengers move in (simplified, I know, but you get the point). There are millions of species that will never have a fossil record due to their environment. For example, a million years from now there will not be any fossil record of the buffalo (or just about any mammal currently living in australia). That doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Overall, we should cosider ourselves lucky that we have the fossils that we do. It is ludicrous to expect a member of every species to kindly travel to a mudpatch and drown itself so we can fill out our historical record. We work with what we have.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.