Creationist Ham appearing at Cork + UCD

robindch

> For example, in Darwinian thinking, most if not all current life
> forms could be considered intermediate forms as evolution
> continues.

Quite right. Amongst the creationists whom I know, a denial of this consideration seems to be a basic tenet, and they consequently, they believe that every life form is a 'finished product', which, incidentally, is also the reason why such people need to deny the existience of vestigial artefacts + transitional forms, as we've seen JC do.

An interesting analogy arises with human language, the evolution of which is analagous in many respects to biological evolution -- a full explanation of this assertion is off-topic to this discussion, though Darwin himself made the necessary connections at various points and it's worth a brief ponder the next time you've a few minutes to spare. Anyhow, what's interesting, though, is that current linguistic usage, (or more usually, the usage of the recent past, whenever such people were in their late teens/early 20's), seems to be generally viewed as being a language's final, perfect form, with any changes being seen as detrimental (think here of the derision which many conservative people heap upon 'political correctness', originally an attempt to introduce terminology into the language which was not loaded with traditional prejudice of one kind or another, and which became, surpisingly quickly, an entirely meaningless boo-phrase). Such people are unable, for whatever reason, to view a language's current usage as a single step in an ongoing process of linguistic evolution -- this goes back to my earlier comment in which I suggested that such people are simply lousy at abstraction, and specifically, the process of looking at complex, time-dependant systems and deducing the common and deeper, rules which govern their behaviour.

On a more general note, such conservative people also tend to rail against any changes at all to society, instisting that things were just perfect the way they were ten, twenty, thirty years ago, whenever they were, as I said, in their late teens/early 20's (in the last year, I've heard three separate people in their 50's + 60's do this -- an Irish fundamentalist catholic looking back wistfully on the 1950's as a time of societal perfection, an upper-class Russian moon on tediously about how good things were under communism (free health care, you know!), and a Cuban lady tell me how wonderful the revolution and its effects are, each one in rank denial of the facts). It simply seems to be the way that some people are built -- additional marks will be awarded to people who can propose any biological benefits which can be conferred by such beliefs (not difficult!)

I could make a similar comment too about conscious throw-backs and rejection of the ideas of the present, when I see a picture of the ever-grinning Ken Ham and his monumental, seething, and frightfully Victorian, muttonchops, but I won't.

- robin.

Myksyk

I really don't mean to be facetious here but I'm guessing that we can all agree that if JC wrote down his understanding of evolution, we would all wholeheartedly agree that it was untenable and concur that there was no evidence for it and that it was mathematically impossible etc etc. But I think this is because his understanding of evolution bears no resemblance to current scientific understanding of evolution. Likewise, creationist schools of thought constuct and present such fundamentally flawed and twisted views of what science is supposed to be saying about evolution (one thinks 'deliberately' sometimes) that it is next to impossible not to agree with their position.

All this goes to show that we should not rely on creationists to teach us evolutionary biology.

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote:

Likewise, creationist schools of thought constuct and present such fundamentally flawed and twisted views of what science is supposed to be saying about evolution (one thinks 'deliberately' sometimes) that it is next to impossible not to agree with their position.

It is like the mouse trap metphor ... creationists say "a cell is like a mousetrap, all the parts work together and a mouse trap could never work without each part present. So how can a cell develop without all the parts already there."

You find yourself trying to argue how a mouse trap could function with a part missing when the thing to remember is that a cell is not like a mousetrap

J C

Robin
Quote
To our eyes, light is a 'constant' phenomenon and to explain what we 'see', we don't need to resort to wave/particle duality. Looking deeper, with instruments of one kind or another, we find that such duality is necessary to explain the phenomena observed, though since we don't 'see' them ourselves, such speculation is exactly that -- speculation. Consequently, any notion upon out part that such duality is, in some sense 'real', is based upon a belief, so your assertions above are entirely, and very precisely, wrong.
To repeat myself the established scientific Theories of Light are NOT speculative – they are precisely based on direct repeatable observation and experimentation.
As I have previously pointed out, most scientific experiments actually use instruments to measure the effects of various phenomena and are a central component of The Scientific Method. I don’t have to BELIEVE in the particulate or wave aspects of light - I can VERIFY them both through observation and experimentation.

Quote
Natural selection, discarded years ago in favour of the more accurate and specific 'differential reproductive success'
Natural Selection INCLUDES the variables of sexual selection and reproductive performance.
However, 'differential reproductive success' is only ONE of the factors leading to success as posited by the Theory of Natural Selection – it can be negated by for example, differential mortality failure!! The Theory of Natural Selection is STILL it’s proper scientific title.

Wicknight
Quote
It is not mathematically impossible, in fact it is chemcially probable. But even if it was very very rare, it only has to happen on one planet to create life. And considering their are probably close to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe, with at least 10% having planets, and given the space of 4 billion years since the universe cooled enough, saying it is rare and could not happen is silly.

GET THEE TO A SPREADSHEET!!!
You say there are 10 to the power of 21 stars in the Universe.
There are 10 to the power of 61 ELECTRONS in our Sun (which is an average star).
There are therefore ONLY 10 to the power of 81 Electrons in ALL of the STARS in the Universe.
The odds of RANDOMLY producing a specific amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 …… 100 times. This happens to be one over 10 to the power of 130.
There are 10 to the power of 26 nanoseconds (one thousand of one millionth of a second) in 5,000 million years.
If every ELECTRON in the KNOWN UNIVERSE, produced a random 100 amino acid sequence one thousand million times every second for 5,000 million years only 10 to the power of 107 permutations would be produced.
You would need 10 to the power of 23 Universes to guarantee the production of the specific sequence for a particular useful protein with a chain length of only 100 amino acids– and that is only the chance of getting the SEQUENCE right – never the problem of actually producing the protein. – and a protein is nothing compared to even a so-called “simple cell”.
We also have only ONE Universe – and not 10 to the power of 23 of them!!! Also an electron isn’t capable of producing a protein sequence and ALL stars are obviously too hot for life. There is simply not enough MATTER or TIME in the Universe to produce even the sequence for a simple protein.

Now don’t go telling me that Evolution is random – but it’s results are not random. It is either random or it isn’t – and if it’s random then it is simply a MATHEMATICAL impossibility, full stop, end of story!!

Also don’t tell me that there are many ways of making up the amino acid sequence for a useful protein – there aren’t – even one “wrong” amino acid along a critical sequence can utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.

Finally don’t tell me that Evolution is random but Natural selection will solve the problem – I am here talking about the chances of PRODUCING SEQUENCES for a simple protein – i.e. long before Natural Selection would have any role in “selecting out” anything.

Quote
It is true that in Darwins time there was a very imcomplete fossil record, but that is no longer the case.
Darwin himself acknowledged that the lack of transitions in the fossil record was an obvious and serious objection AGAINST his "theory". His explanation, at the time was that the fossil record was very incomplete and he predicted that as greater numbers of fossils were unearthed that the intermediate links would show up.
Today there are many more fossils - but the links are still MISSING and Darwin’s acknowledged objection to his own theory therefore still remains today. Darwin probably wouldn’t even accept his own theory if he were alive today!!!

Zombrex

J C wrote:

To repeat myself the established scientific Theories of Light are NOT speculative – they are precisely based on direct repeatable observation and experimentation.

The point he is making, and I was making originally, is that the two results contradict each other, which is why there has been so much puzzlement over what exactly is light. Modern experients that show light is a wave also tend to show that it is not a praticle, and vice-versa. Afaik from an article in New Scientist some scientist are beginnging to lean towards the idea that light is a particle, and that the wave like features are just by products of this. But they are not sure how it does this.

None of that is relivent to evolution, except for the point that because we don't know exactly how something works doesn't mean that theory that it exists is invalid.

J C wrote:

The odds of RANDOMLY producing a specific amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on a 100 amino acid chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 X 1/20 X 1/20 …… 100 times. This happens to be one over 10 to the power of 130.
...
There is simply not enough MATTER or TIME in the Universe to produce even the sequence for a simple protein.

Read my post again. You do not have to randomly produce an full modern amino acid sequence randomly. All you have to do is produce a simple repeating molecule, which is tricky but not in anyway impossible considering carbon likes joining together.

You seem to be purposely ignoring the FAQ from TalkOrigins that everyone has asked you to at least skim over :rolleyes:

"In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously ... Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA."

J C wrote:

Now don’t go telling me that Evolution is random – but it’s results are not random. It is either random or it isn’t – and if it’s random then it is simply a MATHEMATICAL impossibility, full stop, end of story!!

For a "trained scientist" you seem to come out with some rather ridiculous statements. The genetic mutation in evolution that forms the basis for natural selection is a random process. Natural selection is not necessarilary random, though random events play a part, such as a volcano exploding.

Instead of random maybe a better choice would be chaos theory. Nothing is completely random in nature but the systems that are at work in genetic mutation contain so many variables as to be nearly impossible to predict.

J C wrote:

Also don’t tell me that there are many ways of making up the amino acid sequence for a useful protein – there aren’t – even one “wrong” amino acid along a critical sequence can utterly change the three dimensional shape of the protein – making it functionally USELESS.

Again you are looking at what life is like now, after 4 billions years of evolution and saying that it is impossible that a protein could just form randomly in a test tube. It didnt, it developed along an evolutionary path just like everything else.

J C wrote:

Finally don’t tell me that Evolution is random but Natural selection will solve the problem – I am here talking about the chances of PRODUCING SEQUENCES for a simple protein – i.e. long before Natural Selection would have any role in “selecting out” anything.

Natural selection works in atom structures just like it works in dogs chasing cats. The "best" result develops, the products that don't work well are forgotten in time.

Seriously, I am just going to ignore your future posts unless you bother to get a firm grasp on the princples of modern evolutionary theory. Read www.talkorigins.org before you post here again, because you seem to just be posting the same incorrect assumptions on evolution again and again, and it is tiresome to continually point out the mistakes when there is a prefectly readable and clear website that deals with all of this.

J C wrote:

The links are still MISSING and Darwin’s acknowledged objection to his own theory therefore still remains today. Darwin probably wouldn’t even accept his own theory if he were alive today!!!

Now you are just taking the piss. :mad:

They are not missing, as everyone has told you numerous times. Someone has even posted two links to a website that actually shows you the evidence for evolution in the fossil record.

If you state that again as a fact I am simply going to dismiss you as a ignorant creationist, rather than the "trained scientist" you claim to be.

robindch

Hi JC -

> I don’t have to BELIEVE in the particulate or wave aspects
> of light - I can VERIFY them both through observation and
> experimentation.

You have repeated yourself almost verbatim, and in so doing, seem completely to have missed the point I was attempting to make. I'll make it again, differently -- a human observer is not able to observe any photonic wave/particle duality himself, because we humans use our eyes to see light, and our eyes can't distinguish between the wave manifestation or the particle manifestation, so we resort to instruments of some kind. By using such instruments, however, we gain an ability to distinguish such duality at the expense of removing ourselves from direct experience of the phenomenon and therefore must produce speculations concerning how the instruments operate and how they might interact with the light, to produce a coherent predictive, disprovable theory to explain what might (or might not) be going on. In short, you are not verifying wave/particle duality in any observation using such instruments, you are simply showing that the instrument *appears* to demonstrate it, which is an entirely different thing.

I'm surprised that you seem to be having trouble picking this up -- this is fairly basic philosophy of science material which a person of your claimed educational standard should have come to grips with a long time ago.

> Now don’t go telling me that Evolution is random – but it’s
> results are not random. It is either random or it isn’t

From this sentence, it seems that you are unable to distinguish between an multi-element process and a single element of that process. This is a perfect example of the problem that I mentioned earlier on and from which most creationists seem to suffer, namely an inability to think correctly, if at all, in the abstract.

Nonetheless, just to illustrate my earlier point, a simple analogous example of a random process which can give rise to non-random results is a coin-tosser flipping coins into a sorting device which discards all heads. In this case, genetic mutation is the coin-tosser and differential reproductive success is the sorter, which produces non-random results. There are many more less-contrived, though longer-winded, examples which I don't think I need to list here.

> The links are still MISSING and Darwin’s acknowledged objection
> to his own theory therefore still remains today.

I gave you two links to a rebuttal to this now-disingenuous quotation and asked you to comment upon both. Since you have failed to do so, I conclude that you are unable to do so.

BTW, for other thread readers, check out this link which explains why Darwin's 'objection', as with almost any quotation produced by creationists from the works of trained biologists, is designed to make the unwary or the uncritical think that the writer was rubbishing his own life's work. This is typical of the disingenuous, out-of-context, way in which creationists quote their opponents.

> Darwin probably wouldn’t even accept his own theory if
> he were alive today!!!

Given that you've either not read Origin of Species, or simply willfully misquote its intent, and certainly have ignored my questions concerning your inaccurate representations of Darwin's work, I do not think that you are competent to make any assertions whatsoever concerning him.

- robin.

Myksyk

To repeat myself ... JC obviously is not convinced by the theory of evolution which is (mischievously) presented by creationists. I don't blame him. The theory so described is utterly ridiculous, impossible and unsupported. Being so, let's all agree to deposit it in the nearest intellectual bin! Maybe now we can actually discuss evolutionary theory as understood by modern biological science!

Myksyk

JC wrote:

Now don’t go telling me that Evolution is random – but it’s results are not random. It is either random or it isn’t

It isn't

HomesickAlien

J C wrote:

We also have only ONE Universe – and not 10 to the power of 23 of them!!!

according to the parallel universe theory, there could be an infinite number of parallel universes besides our own. [SPECULATION] the only reason life may exist is that all possible permutations of how the universe could be, exist, we just cant see them. if the "current" universe was one in which life didnt exist (and given how unlikely life is, theres probably a few), we wouldn't be around to ask why life doesnt exist.[/SPECULATION]

Zombrex

HomesickAlien wrote:

according to the parallel universe theory, there could be an infinite number of parallel universes besides our own. [SPECULATION] the only reason life may exist is that all possible permutations of how the universe could be, exist, we just cant see them. if the "current" universe was one in which life didnt exist (and given how unlikely life is, theres probably a few), we wouldn't be around to ask why life doesnt exist.[/SPECULATION]

Very true...

JC's ideas on the probability of life developing are completely incorrect, but even if the odds of life developing are very very high it still doesn't mean it is not possible. We might be the ultimate cosmic fluke, which to be honest with ya is a nice way of thinking about it, just like when they say everything in side you was created inside a star

This is completely off topic, but since there seems to be a lot of biologist here, I always wondered what is the turn over time for cells in your entire body. Or put another way as cells multiple and regenerate, how often can you say that none of the molecules in your body now were there 5 years ago, 10 years ago etc. Are there any cells in your body that stay made of the same molecules your entire life, or can you say what I am made of now I wasn't made of 5 years ago?

HomesickAlien

Wicknight wrote:

This is completely off topic, but since there seems to be a lot of biologist here, I always wondered what is the turn over time for cells in your entire body. Or put another way as cells multiple and regenerate, how often can you say that none of the molecules in your body now were there 5 years ago, 10 years ago etc. Are there any cells in your body that stay made of the same molecules your entire life, or can you say what I am made of now I wasn't made of 5 years ago?

not a biologist but i think that its something like every 8 years you go thru a cycle of having every cell in your body replaced. so you are literally a different person than you were 8 years ago. but anyway....

Danno

Just read this thread, from start to this.

I cannot understand the utter tripe being dished out here, parallell universes, incomplete cells (unformed) working...

Who the hell are you trying to convince? You cannot even agree with each other when debating JC's answers!!!

JC, has layed out his answers, brilliantly, clearly, well constructed and straight to the point! Well done JC, I don't need a university degree to understand the plain logic and common sense used in his answers.

I look forward to more of your posts, you kinda remind me of John McCay debating whether or not the evolution theory should be used in Canadian Schools in the mid 1990s.

I will go back to lurking now!

Myksyk

Danno wrote:

I cannot understand the utter tripe being dished out here, parallell universes, incomplete cells (unformed) working...

Out of 100 posts you picked the completely speculative one on parallel universes?????? No-one spoke of incomplete cells working, only comparatively less complex cells being as fully functional as more complex cells. If you would like to make an actual argument which pinpoints and/or counters the utter tripe of which you speak I'm sure posters would be glad to engage you in an interesting exchange.

JC, has layed out his answers, brilliantly, clearly, well constructed and straight to the point! Well done JC, I don't need a university degree to understand the plain logic and common sense used in his answers.

Here we disagree. In my opinion, he has been self-contradictory (seeing the theory of natural selection as a valid scientific theory while saying that the process it 'specifically' explains (evolution) is not), he has obfuscated with regards to the non-random nature of evolution by natural selection despite it being explained numerous times that it is not a random process (of course it's far easier to debunk the nonsensical idea that random genetic change on its own would facilitate evolution), he has demonstrated fairly basic misunderstandings of what science considers intermediate links but has avoided clarifications of the issue, he has not commented on informative links which speak directly and clearly to specific points made, and he has repeated ill-informed misrepresentations of evolutionary theory as if they are the stance of modern science. When you build up your own completely inaccurate, caricatured picture of evolution, it is a relatively simple matter to knock it down. This is a classic ploy of creationists ... they argue that evolutionists say this, mean that or believe the other when in fact they don't ... JC's arguments are similar and are full of misprepresentation and obfuscation.

Zombrex

back under your bridge ...

up laois indeed
:rolleyes:

Zombrex

HomesickAlien wrote:

not a biologist but i think that its something like every 8 years you go thru a cycle of having every cell in your body replaced. so you are literally a different person than you were 8 years ago. but anyway....

cool thanks .. always wondered

Danno

Basically, JC has given the odds on life starting by itself. You disagree.

You remind me of Jim Carey in Dumb and Dumber: "So there IS a chance" - when the girl turns him down.

Come on mate, the theory of evolution is in the FI range (Fantasy Island) The reality is that we were created by God, through the scriptures, he has even foretold that various establishments will alter this, including various other aspects of our day to day life... (Metric dates and metric time as examples)

You see what I am getting at here?

*IF* the whole God thing is wrong, then so be it. I and millions of other people will have believed in something that never existed - no real problem eh?

*IF* the whole God thing is right, then a big "Oh-Oh" comes about. Millions of non-believers will suddenly scramble to account for their lives in fear of the after-life.

Personally, believeing in God is like a good sound insurance policy. It has far more benifets than cost/burden.

Danno

Wicknight wrote:

back under your bridge ...

up laois indeed
:rolleyes:

Ah, the uni type-person with the 3-year old slagging attitude. :rolleyes:

robindch

> I cannot understand the utter tripe being dished out here, parallell
> universes, incomplete cells (unformed) working...

The Parallel Universe hypothesis is a major segment of something called 'quantum mechanics', while the study of cells, incomplete or otherwise, is a part of 'biology'.

- robin.

Zombrex

Danno wrote:

Basically, JC has given the odds on life starting by itself. You disagree.

He hasn't given the odds of life starting by itself, he stating the odds for a fully formed amino acid forming a protein and then said that is impossible. And you know, he is probably right, but 4 billion years ago a fully formed protien did not just suddenly appear. The only thing you need is the formation of a very simple reproducing molecule, and the odds of that happening are much much lower. JC is using the age old creationist tactic of deflection through disinformation. He might as well have listed the odds of a fully formed DNA stand randomly assembling itself.

Danno wrote:

Come on mate, the theory of evolution is in the FI range (Fantasy Island) The reality is that we were created by God, through the scriptures, he has even foretold that various establishments will alter this, including various other aspects of our day to day life... (Metric dates and metric time as examples)

You see what I am getting at here?

I see you are trolling ... again, back under the bridge Laois boy

Danno wrote:

*IF* the whole God thing is wrong, then so be it. I and millions of other people will have believed in something that never existed - no real problem eh?

There is nothing in evolution that says there is no God, or even addresses the issue. It is, ironically, the creationists themselves who have said evolution shows there is no God, with scientists sitting on the side lines saying "we proved what in the where now??"

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

> I cannot understand the utter tripe being dished out here, parallell
> universes, incomplete cells (unformed) working...

The Parallel Universe hypothesis is a major segment of something called 'quantum mechanics', while the study of cells, incomplete or otherwise, is a part of 'biology'.

- robin.

ROFL

Myksyk

Danno wrote:

You remind me of Jim Carey in Dumb and Dumber: "So there IS a chance" - when the girl turns him down.

I have to say I LOVE that line

You see what I am getting at here?

Honestly I don't!!

*IF* the whole God thing is wrong, then so be it. I and millions of other people will have believed in something that never existed - no real problem eh?

That's a personal thing. I would prefer not to live a life based on ideas which inform every aspect of my existence and which ultimately turn out to be false .. but hey ... different strokes ....

*IF* the whole God thing is right, then a big "Oh-Oh" comes about. Millions of non-believers will suddenly scramble to account for their lives in fear of the after-life.

I doubt a being capable of making the universe would hold grudges against people genuinely and sincerely attempting to understand his work!!!! On the other hand, if he instigated the evolution of life through the astonishing process of natural selection, he may be REALLY REALLY pissed with those who spent their lives misrepresenting it and trying to distort reality to fit with their own preconceptions and misconceptions. I'd rather take my chances armed with some intellectual integrity.

Personally, believeing in God is like a good sound insurance policy. It has far more benifets than cost/burden.

I'm sure he'll be thrilled at your rationale for belief.

Obni

Hope you guys don't mind my changing the direction slightly, but would anyone care to suggest the question Mr. Ham would least like to face on Fri/Sat?
Or, for more of a challenge, the loaded question he could most convincingly counter (assuming a neutral observer will be in attendance)?

BrendanBurgess

Programme on Creationism in a US school, Radio 4. Thursday 3rd at 11 am.

Crossing Continents
The town of Dover in rural Pennsylvania, and its population of 1800, has never been the sort of place to attract attention. But the eyes of the world are now firmly on this small town after its High School became the first in America for several generations to introduce creationism into its science curriculum as an alternative to evolution.

The move is part of a radical new agenda being promoted by an increasingly confident Christian Right, buoyed by its crucial role in re-electing President Bush on the dominant issue of "moral values".

In this week's Crossing Continents, Marvin Rees travels to Pennsylvania and Virginia to look at how state education has become a focal point in the battle for the heart and soul of Middle America.

Zombrex

Obni wrote:

Hope you guys don't mind my changing the direction slightly, but would anyone care to suggest the question Mr. Ham would least like to face on Fri/Sat?
Or, for more of a challenge, the loaded question he could most convincingly counter (assuming a neutral observer will be in attendance)?

Ask him why is the Chrisitan version of creation anymore valid than any other version of creation, for example the Viking version. Ask him how would he feel if Creationism was taught in schools, but it was the Hindu version

:rolleyes:

Myksyk

How will we know you've changed to 'serious mode'???!!! :rolleyes:

Myksyk

Evolutionists accept that there gaps in the fossil record ... this is a simple matter of fact.

What you fail to realise is that scientific theories are built solely upon evidence that is actually available for study and so cannot be refuted by those clues that remain hidden. As long as a theory remains consistent with observed phenomena and yields valid predictions, it must be considered a viable explanation regardless of what remains to be discovered. It is entirely irrelevant that there are gaps in the fossil record but vitally important that those that do exist make sense in the context of evolutionary theory (which they do). One simple but dramatic inconsistency could throw the theory into doubt (like finding a hominid fossil in the Burgess Shale). Everything that is known in biology and related sciences is entirely consistent with evolution as we understand it today. In fact, the whole edifice of science provides an astonishingly consistent picture of the past and current nature of the world. Astronomy, geology, biology, archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, chemistry, physics etc etc are all converging in agreement on crucial issues about our existence and this includes the undeniable truth that evolution has taken place.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I also found, in the extract above that Evolutionists actually ACCEPT that the missing links are er - MISSING.

Umm, did you actually read the bit you quoted. It says if the search is widened you do find transitional fossils, and the paper goes on to give on idea of why this might be. :rolleyes:

"Eldredge and Gould proposed that most major morphological change occurs (relatively) quickly in small peripheral population at the time of speciation. New forms will then invade the range of their ancestral species. Thus, at most locations that fossils are found, transition from one species to another will be abrupt. This abrupt change will reflect replacement by migration however, not evolution. In order to find the transitional fossils, the area of speciation must be found."

Danno

LOL! Great bed-time theory/story

Just one question JC, how would that story be told in the parallel universe of gong-trek? Would the zoo keepers have evolved enough to manage a zoo? Would they have called it a zoo?

OOOh, this is confusing! and would the missing links be missing? maybe some brainiac from the university of creation-bash-trekville would find them while discovering a big black hole between the parallel universes of gong and spock!

Yup, thats it - evolution is sorted!

Danno

Wicknight wrote:

Umm, did you actually read the bit you quoted. It says if the search is widened you do find transitional fossils, and the paper goes on to give on idea of why this might be. :rolleyes:

"Eldredge and Gould proposed that most major morphological change occurs (relatively) quickly in small peripheral population at the time of speciation. New forms will then invade the range of their ancestral species. Thus, at most locations that fossils are found, transition from one species to another will be abrupt. This abrupt change will reflect replacement by migration however, not evolution. In order to find the transitional fossils, the area of speciation must be found."

Had they nukes to invade? maybe it was the radiation from the nukes that caused the cells to mutate and give us evolution! WOW! Genius!

LOL!!! I am gonna bring round a few of the lads for a few cans an a read over this! Better laugh in this thread than on an episode of Don't feed the Gondulas!

robindch

> I also found, in the extract above that Evolutionists actually
> ACCEPT that the missing links are er - MISSING.

You should actually take the time to read the sentence that you quoted again, perhaps a few times if you need to:

> In the fossil record, transition from one species to another is
> usually abrupt in most geographic locales -- no transitional
> forms are found

If you try adding the precedent (the 'usually abrupt in most locales') to the consequent ('no forms are found'), you'll find the following:

> In the fossil record, transition from one species to another is
> usually abrupt in most geographic locales and no transitional
> forms are found in such geographic locales, where changes are
> abrupt

which is hardly the deepest observation ever made about the Earth. Anyhow, I hope that this complex, deep, metaphysical concept won't keep you up too late.

BTW, r u a pretribbie or a posttribbie? I have a bet on with a friend, so do let me know!

- robin.

PS: I meant to say this to you earlier, but I think the exclamation mark might be broken on your keyboard.