evolution questions

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Phil,

You are, without a doubt, the only SMP poster that I feel would make a better creationist than myself.

If you are interested in selling your soul/honesty, we could co-write a book that NR would buy at least 10 copies of. We'd have to include Dawkins in the title in a pejorative manner, but thats easy, I got a snappy one-liner guy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean what I say though. These are legitimate complaints and legitimate questions that are poorly answered by evolution supporters.

For example, when a creationist ask "have we ever seen macroevolution occur?", giving examples of spotted moths or changing beaks proves nothing. The simple answer is that

1. The question is flawed as the distinction is arbitrary
2. Large scale changes of the type required to convince a creationist have never been observed directly by humans (nor would you expect there to be).
3. There is a large body of evidence to indicate that macroevolution has indeed occurred and is responsible for all life

Similarly, when asked about transitional forms, some obscure bird-dinosaur isn't going to cut it, especially when there are a huge number of available transitional forms such as soft footed deer-like creature -> horse, reptile -> mammal, mesonychids to cetaceans and so on.

And to claim that abiogenesis "definitely happened" is bad. We have no idea right now if it did or not. Panspermia doesn't solve the problem either, it only displaces it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Phil,

You are, without a doubt, the only SMP poster that I feel would make a better creationist than myself.

If you are interested in selling your soul/honesty, we could co-write a book that NR would buy at least 10 copies of. We'd have to include Dawkins in the title in a pejorative manner, but thats easy, I got a snappy one-liner guy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean what I say though. These are legitimate complaints and legitimate questions that are poorly answered by evolution supporters.

For example, when a creationist ask "have we ever seen macroevolution occur?", giving examples of spotted moths or changing beaks proves nothing. The simple answer is that

1. The question is flawed as the distinction is arbitrary
2. Large scale changes of the type required to convince a creationist have never been observed directly by humans (nor would you expect there to be).
3. There is a large body of evidence to indicate that macroevolution has indeed occurred and is responsible for all life

Similarly, when asked about transitional forms, some obscure bird-dinosaur isn't going to cut it, especially when there are a huge number of available transitional forms such as soft footed deer-like creature -> horse, reptile -> mammal, mesonychids to cetaceans and so on.

And to claim that abiogenesis "definitely happened" is bad. We have no idea right now if it did or not. Panspermia doesn't solve the problem either, it only displaces it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't mean to imply you were lying or being tricky, and I agree with your general approach, that confronting tough questions and inconsistencies head-on is far superior to feigning confidence or simplicity. I was really just offering a round-about compliment, something to the effect of "It takes a well-rounded, fairly complete understanding of the principles of evolution AND human psychology to write the perfect Creationist Manifesto."

[hexag1]

Hoi Polloi 's repsonse was pretty good. a few additions:

1) the first time i ever really thought about it. I read 'the blind watchmaker' in
7th grade.

2) see Hoi Polloi 's answer

3) The picture of natural history that we have is drawn almost entirely from the
fossil record. so youve got to realize the nature of fossilization. Only a tiny fraction
of all the species that have ever lived have left fossils. For a fossil to form, the critter
must die in a wetland, get covered by mud, deprived of oxygen and then go relatively undisturbed for
millions of years. This just doesnt happen to most creatures. So what we have is incomplete.
There are creatures here on earth for whom we have basically no fossilized ancestors. Bats are a
good example. Where did they split off the mamallaian line? theyre bones are brittle and
cartilagenous, so they dont last. This in no way undermines the case for evolution. It just makes us
do a little guess work about the path that natural history has taken. Dawkin's has pointed out that
even if the whole fossil record were just one big gap, the evidence for evolution by natural selection
would be overwhelming. Remember that Darwin didnt come up with his theory by looking at fossils. Most
of the evidence presented in the Origin of Species has to do with the features of creatures that
were alive at the time. He discovered natural selection by thinking about how creatures look today, and
speculating about how they got that way.

4) http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm
see also Manfred Eigen's book 'Steps Toward Life'

5) ditto hoi.

6) ?

7) hoyle - became crackpotish at the end. Aliens - probably

8) cambrian explosion - triggered by the sudden evolution of vision in primitive trilobytes
see Andrew Parker's book 'In the Blink of an Eye'

[hexag1]

[ QUOTE ]
In school I didn't pay much attention to it and just accepted it, then as I got older and I realized it must be true because the people who are against evolution are loons.

[/ QUOTE ]
i LOLed