Catholic Theologian’s Try to Bend Dover
I would assert (and I’m certainly not the first to say this) that the only effective way to combat the teaching of intelligent design in science classes is to clearly demonstrate that it is not science. The rational are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the superstitious, so attacking the truth of the theory will get us nowhere. The best position is “Even if it’s true, it’s not science.” Toward that end, we have a new ally.
Georgetown University theology professor John F. Haught said that while intelligent-design proponents do not explicitly identify God as the creator of life, the concept is “essentially a religious proposition.” [source]
Haught, who believes that god did, in fact, create the universe and all life on earth, testified on behalf of the plaintiffs in the Dover case because he feels that, “When we have a failure to distinguish science from religion, then confusion will follow.” He sees no conflict between religion and science, but recognizes that one should not be permitted to masquerade as the other in our nation’s schools.
Here is the full text of the statement Dover teachers were to read to students:
The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.
With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.
The school leaves the origin of life to family discussion? Are they not learning the scientific method in these classes? How is the disparity explained? Why is the scientific method the path to truth for everything else, but a family chat over some meatloaf and mashed potatoes is a better method of discovering the mechanism behind the most important development in the history of planet Earth? Obviously, moving ID out of the science classroom would avoid this conflict.
One of the things that bothers me most about this whole “controversy” is highlighted in this statement. The creationists position evolution as contrary to ID. I don’t think we know a damn thing about “Darwin’s view” of the origin of life. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, and Darwin was not an atheist. In fact, evolution and ID are compatible (insofar as one true thing and one false thing can be compatible). The thing that’s being taught in America’s biology classes that actually argues against ID is the Miller-Urey experiment. Maybe we “Darwinists” should covert to “Miller-Ureyism.”
~I AM~
P.S. Yes, I know the title was childish. I couldn’t help myself.
October 1st, 2005 at at 1:06 am
Can you provide a reference for Darwin’s theism? Or is it deism? I thought he was atheist or at least agnostic.
October 1st, 2005 at at 1:23 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
October 1st, 2005 at at 1:24 pm
Another great post, I AM. Keep up the good work.
I love the title.
October 1st, 2005 at at 1:26 pm
Also, is the GOD or NOT out yet?
October 1st, 2005 at at 3:42 pm
Aeger:
That will be on Monday at Skeptic Rant.
October 1st, 2005 at at 5:56 pm
Darwin pretty much started out as a deist and became more and more skeptical as time went by. The death of his 10-year-old daughter in 1851 particularly embittered him toward the idea of god.
Also important is that “agnosticism” was not the wishy-washy doubting of today, but the epistemologically rigorous and politically expedient alternative to “atheism” formulated by Thomas Huxley.
October 1st, 2005 at at 6:32 pm
Ah, thank you, I look forward to it. Sorry I never entered anything, I will next month, stupid homework. . .
October 1st, 2005 at at 9:08 pm
Greg Bahnsen discusses whether evolution is scientific in the two lectures that you can download here. Highly recommended.
October 1st, 2005 at at 11:06 pm
CT:
I just listened to the first lecture, and I have yet to hear anything that actually undermines the value or veracity of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. I’ve heard some character assassination of Darwin and some questioning of his motives, but that’s all. I’m hoping these get better. I do intend to listen to the rest, but not tonight.
BTW, do you know if there’s a transcript somewhere? That would be faster.
October 1st, 2005 at at 11:15 pm
CT:
The very nature of science is that it can be tested. Evolution can be tested. Therefore…
October 2nd, 2005 at at 1:32 am
Here’s a quick definition of the scientific method>scientific method.
If you don’t believe that evolution has been verified via the scientific method, you may want to check out this link on ring species. As you proceed around the ring, the birds differ from each other in cumulative fashion, and yet can still interbreed with all the other birds, up to the end of the ring whereupon the last population of birds in the ring cannot breed with the first population in the ring. If this does not at least give you pause to consider that there is some truth to evolutionary theory, I don’t know what will. It’s speciation in action, and it’s observable today. I’m not even mentioning the various forms of speciation that occur at blazing speeds with the influenza virus and other viruses. Evolution is and has been observed in controlled experiments.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 5:20 am
Creationism is also scientific. You can test how dumb it is by asking Creationists to explain it.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 9:09 am
My children are learning Biblical Creationism at school. As far as I can tell (I’m going to ask the staff directly) there isn’t even mention of evolution outside of ridicule directed at “godless” people who claim “we come from monkeys”. I am very upset at this. During their last “visit”, one of my daughters asked me why I think the world is millions of years old (I corrected her - BILLIONS), because it’s not. I am terrified.
The “Miller-Urey” article lead to one on “Panspermia” which mentions Anaxagoras (pre-Socratic Greek philosopher). According to recently discussed views of some theists, this may take the “Miller-Urey” experiments and abiogenesis in general out of the realm of science and into religion/philosophy. {/tongue in cheek}
It still maddnes me that theists can depend on the scientific method for everything else, from refridgerating their food to curing their illnesses to driving to work to downloading their porn, but all of a sudden it’s completely flawed and worthless when it firmly exposes the archaic worldview and outright silliness of their scriptures
October 2nd, 2005 at at 9:51 am
Their brainwashing your children? That’s horrible. Still, it could be the basis of a great Paparazzi-Punisher type film that hollywood could make millions off of.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 10:40 am
Sobex: “If you don’t believe that evolution has been verified via the scientific method, you may want to check out this link on ring species.”
Ring species does not prove macro-evolution. It does not prove how one species (say, fish) changes into another species (say, birds). In fact, the fossil record provides no evidence whatsoever of species in “intermediate” form. This was so embarassing to die-hard evolutionists that Stephen Gould came up with the idea of punctuated equilibrium.
Sobex: “Evolution is and has been observed in controlled experiments.”
No one has observed a fish turning into a bird, or what have you.
Evolutionists believe things on “faith” by which I mean that they believe things to be true that they have not and can not prove.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 10:41 am
DUB,
Actually, some of them don’t even rely on the scientific method for curing their illnessess. Also, what kind of school do your kids go to? Private or public?
October 2nd, 2005 at at 10:53 am
CT, the transition from fish to bird would take millions upon millions of years. We can observe smaller transitions (say, the species of moths in Britain that changed color during the Industrial Revolution) and use those as evidence. Sure, it takes faith, but it does not take blind faith. You blindly believe that a deity created the universe several eons ago. What is your evidence for that?
October 2nd, 2005 at at 10:55 am
CT,
Also, there is the DNA/RNA evidence that shows that there are large strings of sequences that are in all sorts of creatures from bacteria to humans that accomplish the same task.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 12:31 pm
CT:
Fish didn’t turn into birds.
Fish gave rise to amphibians.
Amphibians gave rise to reptiles.
Reptiles gave rise to dinosaurs.
Theropod dinosaurs gave rise to birds.
Are you waiting for a fossil with a note on it that says “Hi, I evolved from X.”?
October 2nd, 2005 at at 2:21 pm
Seth: “CT, the transition from fish to bird would take millions upon millions of years.”
But only IF the universe is very old, which no one can prove.
And only IF it’s true that one species can evolve into another, which no knows can happen.
Seth: “We can observe smaller transitions (say, the species of moths in Britain that changed color during the Industrial Revolution) and use those as evidence.”
But it can only be considered evidence for macroevolution if it can be proven that one species evolves into another.
Seth: “Sure, it takes faith, but it does not take blind faith.”
I’m glad you admit this.
Seth: “You blindly believe that a deity created the universe several eons ago. What is your evidence for that?”
He’s revealed it in the Bible. And I don’t blindly believe it.
franky: “CT, Also, there is the DNA/RNA evidence that shows that there are large strings of sequences that are in all sorts of creatures from bacteria to humans that accomplish the same task.”
Hey, I’ll be the first to grant this. But this doesn’t prove that one species evolved from another.
I am: “Are you waiting for a fossil with a note on it that says ‘Hi, I evolved from X.’?”
No. But you’d think there’d be some sort of evidence in the fossil record if macro-evolution were true, yet there isn’t any. This is one of the reasons it baffles me that people aren’t open to other options rather than just to cling to their dogmatically asserted beleifs that one species came from another.
Look, people, I do not deny micro-evolution, nor the fact that animals adapt to their environments. After all, God created the world this way. But as I see it, the whole theory of evolution rests upon the assumption that the laws of nature have been constant for the past X billions of years, and yet no one knows that this kind of uniformity has been constant. It’s just believed without justification. It’s believed because people don’t want to believe in God nor grant that He has anything to reveal about this in the Bible.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 2:55 pm
“Seth: “We can observe smaller transitions (say, the species of moths in Britain that changed color during the Industrial Revolution) and use those as evidence.”
But it can only be considered evidence for macroevolution if it can be proven that one species evolves into another.”
Oh boy. The definition of species is precisely, a population of animals capable of interbreeding. Hence the ring species example I gave earlier, showing how the first population of birds cannot breed with the last population in the ring, specifically shows a new species arising. Hence this meets your definition of macroevolution. Now, you may define the word “species” as something different, but it would not be the scientifically accepted definition of species, which is very simply, a population of animals that can breed.
Thus you don’t even have to go to the fossil record to see macroevolution, it’s staring you right in the face but you are too blind to see it.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 3:10 pm
CT:
No. But you’d think there’d be some sort of evidence in the fossil record if macro-evolution were true, yet there isn’t any.
That’s what I just gave you. The lungfish shows an intermediate species on the way from fish to amphibians. The archosaurs show intermediate species on the way from reptiles to dinosaurs. The feathered Chinese theropods show intermediate species on the way from dinosaurs to birds. What don’t you understand? It’s all there.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 3:17 pm
CT–
Amazingly, the existence of unicorns is also revealed in the Bible. Along with the fact that bats are birds. Hmm….evolution?
Heh, sorry, I just had to throw that out there.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 4:24 pm
Sobex: “…Hence the ring species example I gave earlier, showing how the first population of birds cannot breed with the last population in the ring…”
Birds changing into birds. Wow. What a surprise.
I am: “The lungfish shows an intermediate species on the way from fish to amphibians. The archosaurs show intermediate species on the way from reptiles to dinosaurs. The feathered Chinese theropods show intermediate species on the way from dinosaurs to birds.”
But you don’t know that they’re “intermediate” species. You don’t know that they’re “on the way” from one to another. For all you know they’re their own unique kind of animal. You only assume that they’re on the way to something else because you assume evolution in advance. You reason in a circle.
Besides, none of you dealt with my earlier comments: “…the whole theory of evolution rests upon the assumption that the laws of nature have been constant for the past X billions of years, and yet no one knows that this kind of uniformity has been constant. It’s just believed without justification.”
October 2nd, 2005 at at 4:45 pm
CT:
But you don’t know that they’re “intermediate” species. You don’t know that they’re “on the way” from one to another. For all you know they’re their own unique kind of animal.
They ARE their own unique kinds of animals. A transitional species is a species. EVERY species is on its way from one thing to another.
Your statements indicate that no evidence from the fossil record will satisfy you, so what do you even MEAN when you say there is no evidence? What would such evidence look like?
Besides, none of you dealt with my earlier comments: “…the whole theory of evolution rests upon the assumption that the laws of nature have been constant for the past X billions of years, and yet no one knows that this kind of uniformity has been constant. It’s just believed without justification.”
The evidence we have is that things are the way they are today. I will assume that any given thing has always been the way it is today unless I have some evidence to the contrary. Man started by believing that all the animals that had ever been were alive. Then we found fossils of exinct species, and we changed our picture of the world. We believed that north was north. Then we found out from magnetized rock that the poles switch periodically and we changed our picture of the world. It would be silly to assume something was different than it is right now without evidence.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 5:38 pm
CT, you don’t know that the Bible is the word of your god.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 5:38 pm
“Sobex: “…Hence the ring species example I gave earlier, showing how the first population of birds cannot breed with the last population in the ring…”
Birds changing into birds. Wow. What a surprise.”
Hah, I was hoping you’d say that. You see, no scientist would ever claim that fish ever turned directly in one or two steps into birds. YOU are the one who seem to imply that this has happened (or that some god made this happen).
Your counter-argument is that “the laws of nature have not been proven to be constant over the past X billions of years” and therefore there may not have been enough time for evolution to make the changes required to mutate ancient fish populations to birds. My counter-argument is, which of the four fundamental forces do you believe have changed, or are capable of changing? You see, there are four fundamental physical forces, the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and gravity. Every physical force that you have ever observed is reducible to one of these four forces. If any of these four forces deviated significantly IN ANY WAY during the past 4.5 billion years, the Sun’s power output would be altered to the detriment of all life on earth one way or the other (thru excess heat or lack of heat).
For example, if the force of gravity were stronger than it is, the Sun would be further along its life cycle, because the hydrogen and helium ions within the core would be brought closer together and initiate fusion reactions more often, therefore using up the nuclear fuel that much faster. And the further along any star is along its life cycle (before the fuel runs out), the warmer it gets. Yes, the Sun was considerably cooler just 1 billion years ago, let alone 4. Conversely, if the force of gravity was once weaker but is now stronger, the Sun may never have formed in the first place, or may have coalesced but not have had the requisite pressure upon its core to initiate nuclear fusion and thus radiate photons to our planet.
You can play this game all you want but there is no evidence that any of the four fundamental forces has changed in strength throughout the existence of the planet. Actually, modern cosmological theories indicate that the strengths of the four fundamental forces were crystallized (”frozen” in strength, if you will) in the very first few microseconds of the existence of the universe, never to change again. This idea is called “spontaneous symmetry breaking.” The funny thing is, the fact that ALL life forms — from the simplest bacteria to the largest whales — on this planet use the EXACT SAME DNA nucleotides (adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosene) to govern the development and growth of the organism, and have never deviated from this formula, lends strength to the argument that the four fundamental forces have not deviated in strength for the duration of the existence of the Earth. If they had, we would see evidence for different nucleotide formations in the fossil records.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 5:55 pm
OFF TOPIC:
I heard a rumor that someone had managed to combine EM and the weak force. Does anyone know about this?
October 2nd, 2005 at at 6:51 pm
I Am wrote: In fact, evolution and ID are compatible (insofar as one true thing and one false thing can be compatible).
No, they are not.
Evolution does not preclude creation or active interference in a “we could’ve come about via evolution… but we didn’t” sort of way… but evolution does preclude Intelligent Design (and vice versa.)
ID explicitly says that natural selection would not be able to produce the earth as it is. The “science” of design detection tells us that the theory of evolution is wrong, that design is necessary.
Btw, I am getting my ID info from various sources… though they could be outliers for all I know.
/recycled
October 2nd, 2005 at at 6:52 pm
I screwed up my second ID link.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 9:21 pm
IAM wrote, “I heard a rumor that someone had managed to combine EM and the weak force. Does anyone know about this?”
I have not seen anything on this but, as it is not discussed in the KJV, it could not possibly be true.
October 2nd, 2005 at at 9:42 pm
I am: “The evidence we have is that things are the way they are today.”
But this doesn’t prove that things were the way they are today (let alone that they will be the way they are today).
I am: “I will assume that any given thing has always been the way it is today unless I have some evidence to the contrary.”
This is nothing but the fallacy known as the argument from ignorance.
I am: “It would be silly to assume something was different than it is right now without evidence.”
Really? How do you, as an atheist, prove that statement itself?
Sobex: “Every physical force that you have ever observed is reducible to one of these four forces. If any of these four forces deviated significantly IN ANY WAY during the past 4.5 billion years, the Sun’s power output would be altered to the detriment of all life on earth one way or the other (thru excess heat or lack of heat).”
I can agree with this as a hypothesis, but that’s it. Even if this were true, if there was a deviation not long ago, then life on earth as we see it (on evolution’s hypothesis) did not take a long time to evolve. Of course, I don’t believe in macro-evolution anyway.
But I think I may not have made myself clear. You assumes that the four forces did not deviate in the past 4.5 billion years, but you don’t know that the world or universe is 4.5 billion years old. You can’t prove it. You just assume it.
If you say that the universe is old because the laws of nature are constant, you reason in a circle, because the constancy of the laws of nature is the very thing you need to prove. If you say that the laws of nature are constant because the universe is old, you once again reason in a circle.
Sobex: “Yes, the Sun was considerably cooler just 1 billion years ago, let alone 4.”
My goodness, you must be really old to be able to know this.
As an evolutionist, all you can say is that IF such and such is true then such and such is true, but you can’t prove the conditional. You don’t know that the universe is old. You assume it because you assume in advance that everything was made through natural forces, but THAT’S THE VERY THING YOU NEED TO PROVE, and hence, you beg the question.
Sobex: “You can play this game all you want but there is no evidence that any of the four fundamental forces has changed in strength throughout the existence of the planet.”
Argument from ignorance. Besides, you’re asserting a universal negative (”there is no evidence”).
October 2nd, 2005 at at 9:55 pm
CT:
This is nothing but the fallacy known as the argument from ignorance.
No. If I make a statement that has no evidence associated with it (like “There is a god”) and base it on the fact that you can’t disprove it, that’s the argument from ignorance. My statement is that all available evidence (the world we see today) indicates that the forces of nature ARE constant.
I would happily review any evidence to the contrary. However, in order for your theory to hold water, nearly ALL of the measurable properties of the universe would have to have changed, including the half life of carbon, the universal gravitational constant, the speed of light, etc. If this is true, there should be some trail of evidence that shows it. I find it difficult to believe that such rapid, massive changes in all of the properties of the physical universe came like a thief in the night, leaving no trace.
October 3rd, 2005 at at 1:36 pm
wow…I really dont have anyting to add other than point out that for the first time ever, I just saw a theist accuse someone of circular reasoning.
I need to check the dictionary to see if Irony is still listed.
October 3rd, 2005 at at 2:52 pm
The only one arguing from ignorance is the Christian Theist.
And don’t even get me onto the peals of laughter at him accusing others of reasoning in circles…
October 3rd, 2005 at at 3:14 pm
I’m a professional biologist, and I’m just now reading this conversation. Damn, you’re a pretty funny guy, CT.
You can’t be serious, when you say that there is no evidence. There’s a mountain of evidence I couldn’t wade through in four years of undergraduate study, two years of graduate-level study, and nearly a decade of field work. There are fossils sitting in basements of museums across the globe that have been there for decades because we don’t have enough graduate students to look at them all right now– but even so, we are still discovering new things that continue to confirm the model of evolution by natural selection.
My question for you is, since you are clearly unaware of this evidence (or at least, you believe whoever told you that it’s not there) this:
What in the world makes you think that evolution has EVER stated that birds should visibly “evolve” into something else before our eyes? That’s not how it works, and everyone who knows science knows this. In fact, if what you asked to see was ever observed, it would COMPLETELY DISPROVE evolution.
Say it to yourself a few hundreds times: “descent with modification.” As far as the age of the earth, don’t take our word for it– listen to Christians tell you why you’re dangerously misled about the age of the earth, at LEAST.
Don’t close your mind to all the evidence, then tell us there is none. Don’t tell us that the constants/laws of the universe might change, when we know that it would result in instantaneous disaster for life on earth. And for crying out loud, don’t pretend you know more than real scientists on this, man. Do your homework, then come back and play.
October 4th, 2005 at at 6:41 pm
UnapologeticAtheist: “What in the world makes you think that evolution has EVER stated that birds should visibly “evolve” into something else before our eyes? That’s not how it works, and everyone who knows science knows this. In fact, if what you asked to see was ever observed, it would COMPLETELY DISPROVE evolution.”
So evolution can’t be observed (making it unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific), but if it were to be observed it would disprove evolution? Either way evolution is unscientific.
By the by, you can’t assume there’s any evidence for evolution if you don’t already assume evolution is true in the first place, and thus, you reason in a circle. If you don’t know that the evidence is evidence for evolution, then you can’t say evolution is true.
And I’m not saying that the laws of nature have changed. What I’m trying to demonstrate is that you, as an atheist, can’t prove that they’re constant. You assume it and yet you can’t justify that assumption. And if you can’t justify that assumption, you can’t ultimately justify any of the findings of scientific investigation — because it all relies on the assumption of the uniformity of nature, for which atheists cannot account.
October 4th, 2005 at at 8:58 pm
CT, how come you’re not using the same logic on your own beliefs? You attack us for ‘believing without evidence,’ but you do the same…on a greater scale.
October 4th, 2005 at at 11:33 pm
Seth, you ask a very important question that should not be taken for granted. But, in the first place, I was trying to point out the sheer absurdity of “un-apologetic atheist”’s comments where he writes:
“What in the world makes you think that evolution has EVER stated that birds should visibly ‘evolve’ into something else before our eyes? That’s not how it works, and everyone who knows science knows this. In fact, if what you asked to see was ever observed, it would COMPLETELY DISPROVE evolution.”
What this guy is saying is that evolution can’t be proved through observation, and that if we could observe it, (as he says) “it would COMPLETELY DISPROVE evolution.” What this guy is saying is that evolution is UNPROVABLE!!! And yet he holds to it like belief in some god who says, “you shall have no other gods other than evolution before me!”
Seth, every fact, yes EVERY FACT WHATSOEVER, proves there is a God, because only the Christian worldview can make any fact whatsovever intelligibile. Only the Christian worldview can account for universal, invariant laws of logic and morality, and the uniformity of nature.
October 5th, 2005 at at 10:49 am
CT - I observe evolution in action. Even you do not argue this (except you call it “micro” evolution). I simply recognize that once this principle is observed in action, now that the genetic causes of these changes is understood, especially, that we can study with a high degree of accuracy the ways in which these changes take place in a population, and how that population can split into differentiating branches.
I say that we do not observe what YOU ask for, because you are full of crap. You clearly do not understand how genetically-reproducing populations operate, and that’s fine, until you ask me to show you something that simply doesn’t happen, because you (and I) KNOW it doesn’t happen. The issue I take with it is that you keep asserting that I think it happens, anyway. I tried to point out that if what you say were to happen as you say, then it would disprove evolution as I know it. Then you chose to say it’s not true either way, completely ignoring and refusing to own up to the my point that you had built this straw-man.
When you own up to the fact that you intentionally have mis-represented what evolution is and how it works, I’ll keep dealing with you on this. If you decide to keep insisting that your incorrect version is really what science claims, I’m just going to have to conclude that you are willfully dishonest or at least partially insane. Perhaps both. In either case, I will not deal with such a person.
I am not trying to prove these things as an atheist. I DO prove these things as a biologist all the time. If you want to learn why we know what we know, take a good course in biochemical genetics and/or population genetics. But for crying out loud, don’t make up random, insane crap about what you think science says, and then claim to have defeated me when I point out to you that you’re totally wrong in your current understanding of what science asserts in the first place.
October 5th, 2005 at at 3:21 pm
“every fact…proves there is a God”
But only if one is under the assumption that an all-powerful god already exists. For me, the fact that the ice in my cup has now melted does not serve as Yahweh’s existence.
October 5th, 2005 at at 8:36 pm
Christian theist:
“…the whole theory of evolution rests upon the assumption that the laws of nature have been constant for the past X billions of years, and yet no one knows that this kind of uniformity has been constant. It’s just believed without justification.”
Whatever makes you think otherwise? Do you have any proof? No, I mean EMPIRICAL proof that it was otherwise?
The law of gravity has been around. Any reason I should think otherwise?
Now let me toss in a few points here: indulge me, I’m an average layman.
Transitional fossils? Transitional life-forms? Isn’t EVERYTHING transitional?
While the theists out there ponder that (I hope), I will bring another angle (I hope) to the discussion.
Watching the discovery channel, there was a documentary on the Cro-Magnons & Neanderthals. A scientist tested the DNA of the N vs. the CM. There was a 40% deviation. This means (drum roll, please!) speciation. Prevalent theory is that the N’s migrated to Europe, while the CM’s stayed, and the CM diet was primarily fish (brain food), & so they evolved much more quickly.
& 1 more to this ‘transitional fossil’ the theists keep spewing out.
Mind you, I cannot emphasize this enough: EXAMPLE ONLY.
You cannot find a 100 yr old African gorilla skeleton. Why? Multiple reasons:
1. High akaline soil.
2. Scavengers
3. Erosion
Again: EXAMPLE ONLY.
So unless the evolutionists build a time-machine, and go back in time, and manage to push the requisite # of creatures into tar pits (or bathe them in amber), the lack of ‘transitional fossils’ is pure sophistry.
Not that it would matter. For each one, the theists will want 5 more. Those are provided, 5 more again.
October 7th, 2005 at at 1:34 pm
Yes, that’s it! We just need a time machine! Brilliant.
March 29th, 2007 at at 12:16 am
hydrocodone online…
news…