He was asked to demonstrate with evidence how evolution occurs. Let me summarize his answer on the nature of the evidence for mutations leading to evolution:
There is a misunderstanding that evolution would have transitional fossils and that there would be massive amounts of evidence for transitional forms, even today. But evolution doesn't work that way. So, in other words, the theory of evolution requires that there be no evidence and when we look at the scientific evidence in the world, we find no evidence. Therefore evolution must be true.
I haven't heard that line of reasoning since Gould put forth his "Gap Theory". Simply stated, the Gap Theory surmises that evolution happens in leaps, leaving behind no transitional fossils. Then Gould looked to the fossil evidence to find there were no transitional fossils. Therefore his theory must be true.
Amazing! A theory that actually looks for no evidence to prove itself, and when it finds no evidence, the theory is considered true. With logic and reasoning like that, no wonder science is in trouble.
6 comments:
Howie,
The arguement that evolutionist have no evidence for the theory has grown old. But perhaps if we repeat it enough it will be true.
Recently in China two new fossils were found, both new species. One called "Protarchaepterx Robusta" the other called "Caudpteryx Zoui". Both creatures are theropod like dinosaurs about the size of a chicken. Both are approx 145 million years old(245 years to you). And both have down like feathers covering their body, with a fan like pattern covering the tail, and primary feathers attached to one of its fingers. NIETHER DINOSAUR IS CAPABLE OF FLIGHT ! We can debate what the featers really mean, I might say this is a precurser to archioptarix. You might say that this is just another of the zillion species that was created several days after the earth was. But we really need to stop saying that evolutionist have a theory with no evidence. There is tons of it. Its ufortunate that Richard Dawkins could not come up with a better answer than that.
I apologize for citing leading evolutionists. It is true that they may not represent the majority view. I wasn't the one putting forth the argument that there was no evidence. I was simply refering to their own theories and their own arguments, not mine.
As for the newly discovered fossils, I'd check it out before jumping to conclusions. When you find out the truth about the so-called fossil evidence they use, you might just back off a bit.
:-)
What are you talking about ???
For instance, Lucy is a conglomeration of fossils that should not even go together. Some of the "parts" were found many meters away from each other. She is probably a mixture of several creatures.
They only find a few parts here or there, then they make up the rest. Then we dummies walk through the museum see a whole creature when in fact, maybe only a tooth was found. This is science?
I have heard a lot of arguements about Lucy, but this is the first time I have heard someone state that she is not a single species. Lucy was found in 1974 from an arm bone that was sticking above ground. The complete excavation took only a couple of weeks (due to the small area that needed to be worked with). Although Lucy is only about 40% complete she is made of several hundred fragments, of all the fragments, there is not one duplicate. While the excavation was being performed they were not sure if this was a find of multiple fossils. The fact that they were no duplicates not only proved this was a single species, but a single skeleton of one species. Simple math says Lucy is one fossil.
Better off sticking with the "Lucy is an ape" arguement. There are some good arguements that lucy is not a hominid.
The fossils
"I have heard a lot of arguements about Lucy, but this is the first time I have heard someone state that she is not a single species."
You're the first person I have heard say otherwise as well. As far as someone demonstrating what Lucy actually is anyway.
" Better off sticking with the "Lucy is an ape" arguement. There are some good arguements that lucy is not a hominid."
I agree with Jim and other evolutionists. :-)
Post a Comment