Subject:
|
Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:47:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
359 times
|
| |
|
|
Jon and Bruce are exasperating each other without getting very far, so I
thought I'd go back to the beginning of the thread and look at Jon's
original statements.
I may be falling into his trap, that's OK. I've done it to him before so I
guess it's my turn, maybe. :-) If he's good enough.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> "Remember, the evidence the fossil record gives us is not about *how*
> macroevolution happens, merely that it does." ++Lar
> The fossil record as an evidence for macro-evolution has two aspects
> which must be considered:
> 1) Do strata (layers of soil) support a progressive, over millennia, approach
> which can reveal the progression of life through time? Or is there a better
> explanation (hypothesis) which fits the evidence?
I'd change "layers of soil" to something different here. Many (most?)
fossils are found in sedimentary rock rather than in soil.
I'm not sure what is meant by "progression" here. Racoons aren't necessarily
"better" than small dinosaurs. They're just more suited to conditions here
and now than those dinosaurs would be. But conditions changed. Sometimes
gradually, sometimes abruptly, or so the evidence suggests.
(put aside that I consider myself "better" than the rest of the beasts (and
some humans), it's not relevant. )
> 2) Does the fossil record support macro-evolution as a mechanism
> - survival of the fittest, a life-form progression producing
> creatures better fit to survive?
What is meant by "support" in this context? The observations don't
contradict predictions from the theory? And why use "survival of the
fittest" here? Again, fitness is within context.
When these caveats are cleared away, I'd tend to go along with these as
reasonable questions.
> I posit that these are the key questions which need to be addressed.
Whether they are key or not would be a different issue. (key to what?)
> I will address them one at a time, unless there is any dispute.
Clear away my caveats, to my satisfaction, please.
> I would submit, though, that without an explanation for abiogenisis
> - another tenant of evolutionary theory,
I dispute that abiogenesis is a tenet (not tenant) of evolutionary theory,
as I said before.
> there is nothing for the
> macro-evolution process to work on, and that, more fundamental, question
> should logically be addressed first.
I've already said we don't currently have a satisfactory explanation for the
origin of life, but I think we'll have one eventually. What more did you want?
Do you have a satisfactory explanation for the origin of your god? (I have a
completely satisfactory (to me) explanation for it, but is not one you'd
like, I suspect)
If you don't have one, (and any explanation that is open to infinite regress
flunks my satisfaction test) you're not going to get anywhere pursuing the
question with me anyway, so let it go for now.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
| (...) Thank you. (...) REVISED: 1) Do strata (layers of sediment) support a progressive, over millennia, approach which reveals the progression (simple forms leading to more complicated forms) of life through time? Or is there a better explanation (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
| "Remember, the evidence the fossil record gives us is not about *how* macroevolution happens, merely that it does." ++Lar The fossil record as an evidence for macro-evolution has two aspects which must be considered: 1) Do strata (layers of soil) (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
78 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
