Subject:
|
Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 17:03:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
396 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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.
Thank you.
> 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. )
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
(hypothesis) which fits the evidence?
> > 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.
REVISED:
2) Does the fossil record support (not contradict the predictions of)
macro-evolution as a mechanism - a life-form progression whereby simple forms
of life lead to more complicated forms?
Seems ok to me. Comments?
-Jon
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
| (...) I still have a quibble, to wit, with the use of "progression" and/or the use of "simple to more complicated". That's the way that it seems to have come out in this case, but that's not necessarily an implication. If conditions change radically (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Macro-Evolution - Impossible!
|
| 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 (...) (24 years ago, 23-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
|
|
|
|
