PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #361
Charles Darwin published his 'Origin' in 1859. He lived until 1882. He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today. From the evolution of the mammals that we find the transistionals in the Karoo, to the horses of the John Day volcanics. We have literally thousands of transitional fossils, for many hundreds of species.
Today, the Theory of Evolution is simply the most robust of the Scientfic Theories. We have the evidence in the fossil record. We are beginning to understand how the basis of evolution, the DNA in your every cell, works. We are actually engineering evolution, transplanting genetic material from one species to another. And the offspring retain the modified characteristics.
The evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Only the most ignorant of people continue to rant about it. Those and the religious fanatics that simply cannot face reality.
"He would have been amazed at the fossil record we have today."
Actually, that's not true.
When I have the time I'll explain the situation, and why the theory remains, as you put it, robust.
I like that word in this connection.
BTW....did you know that 'robust' means strong,...but it doesn't mean factual.
Actually that is true. The fossil record has expanded phenomenally since Darwins time.
Religious zealots continue to attack Darwinism because the fossil record is a direct contradiction to a literal Genesis account. In spite of the relatively rare circumstances under which fossilization occurs, we better understand the physical processes that lead to fossilization much better than it was understood in the 19th century. What fundie zealots fail to understand, much less address, is that evolutionary biology does not explicitly require a perfect or even perfectly complete fossil record. In fact, No one should expect to see such a perfect record.
It is a misconception promoted relentlessly among the creation ministries that evolutionary theory is based primarily on the fossil record. The fossil record is just one component of evidence supporting evolution. Evidence also includes genetic data and the hierarchy of shared characteristics.
The TalkOrigins website has a good article here:
The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
The article reiterates one of the stereotypical creationist challenges to the fossil record. In this case, theres a comment from Duhwayne Gish.
One of the favorite anti-evolutionist challenges to the existence of transitional fossils is the supposed lack of transitional forms in the evolution of the whales. Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) regularly trots out the "bossie-to-blowhole" transition to ridicule the idea that whales could have evolved from terrestrial, hooved ancestors.
There simply are no transitional forms in the fossil record between the marine mammals and their supposed land mammal ancestors . . . It is quite entertaining, starting with cows, pigs, or buffaloes, to attempt to visualize what the intermediates may have looked life. Starting with a cow, one could even imagine one line of descent which prematurely became extinct, due to what might be called an udder failure (Gish 1985: 78-9).
BTW, It is fascinating to notice that creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there shouldn't be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
Once again the extremist is going to be obligated to do a lot of speculative special pleadings to account for the anomalies...
"Actually that is true. The fossil record has expanded phenomenally since Darwins time.
Religious zealots....blah blah blah..."
Simple enough for you to prove that: put up.
As you are a certified Darwin zealot, you will not doubt lie or obfuscate when confronted with this query:
Why have you been unable to provide fossil evidence documenting change from one species to a different species?
" The intense modern interest in this "Cambrian explosion" was sparked by the work of Harry B. Whittington and colleagues, who, in the 1970s, re-analysed many fossils from the Burgess Shale (see below) and concluded that several were complex, but different from any living animals.[14][15]
The most common organism, Marrella, was clearly an arthropod, but not a member of any known arthropod class. Organisms such as the five-eyed Opabinia and spiny slug-like Wiwaxia were so different from anything else known that Whittington's team assumed they must represent different phyla, only distantly related to anything known today. Stephen Jay Goulds popular 1989 account of this work, Wonderful Life,[16]brought the matter into the public eye and raised questions about what the explosion represented. While differing significantly in details, both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly." Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again?
"....both Whittington and Gould proposed that all modern animal phylahad appeared rather suddenly."
('cause there's no fossils that prove Darwin's theory...true? True.)
Gee....that's gotta hurt a Darwin fanatic, huh?
Can't wait to see your response....it won't include fossil evidence, will it.....