Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 17:06:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
369 times
|
| |
|
|
> All I said was that it was a good example of how AFAIK
> there are no "transitional" fossils that aren't faked, even though
> there should theoretically be more transitional than normal.
Morganucodon is no faked fossil. Yet it shows a perfect transitional stage of arrangement of mandibular bones and ossicles between
the condition in modern mammals and reptils. The same transition occurs during the embryonic development of mammals. Within the
entire fossil record you will find species of Therapsids (morphological species concept used here, for insiders) that gradually
become more and similar to modern mammals, e.g. in the arrangement of the bones of the skull. In other words, they close the gaps
between the differences in morphology of reptiles and mammals. You often refer in your argumentation to the dissimilarity between
species, but you fail to see that different species have many characters in common.
In your argumentation you admit the possibility of microevolution (e.g. you admit the possibility that different races of cats have
evolved by selection), but deny so-called "macroevolution".
How do you explain then the shared unique similarities between all felids (unique tooth arrangement, possibility to retract claws in
lions, cats, cheetas etc...)? How do you explain the shared unique similarities inbetween mammals? How do you explain the shared
unique similarities between sauropsids and mammals? Between amphibians and amniots? And so on and so on. Just the mere fact that all
living beings show gradual similarities points to evolution.
I really don't understand why you're so focused on fossils. Sure, all these transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx, Morganucodon,
Ichthyostega, Sinosauropteryx (theropods with precursor structures of feathers that match with the embryological development of
feathers!) etc. are important in understanding of the chronological order of character development and may help to understand
evolution, but Darwin postulated his theory long before any of the important fossils were found that we know today. It's more than
just fossils that points to evolution: creationists generally don't want to talk about the fact that embryology often reflects
ancient characters they cannot explain this (and other phenomena) rationally. I previously mentioned the fact that the ossicles in
mammals start to develop in the mandibula and that this reflects the condition in reptils. There are dozens of other examples (what
about the embryonic gill anlagen)....to me it all boils down to explanatory power. The theory of evolution has much more explanatory
power to all these facts than the sentence "God created the world in six days." And embryology is only one field. Comparative
biology, geology, palaeontology, biogeography......
I do not have a problem with the fact that you are obviously blinded by the overwhelming scientific evidence that there is evolution
and that the world is older than 6000 years. I have a problem with the fact that creationists have gained that much influence in the
U.S. that pupils are confused by a medieval understanding of the world and its origin. This is unbelievably sad, and I'm only glad
that my children don't waste their time by learning biology in Kansas.
> Again - That's not related to what I'm asking/saying.
Sure, as always when you cannot explain the facts.
Arnold
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) All I said was that it was a good example of how AFAIK there are no "transitional" fossils that aren't faked, even though there should theoretically be more transitional than normal. (...) Yet again, I remind you that what I'm asking for (...) (24 years ago, 5-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
