Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Woman to Woman: A Debate
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a point-counterpoint argument about Intelligent Design. The commentary is by Susan Feldhahn. She writes:
Darwin’s theory was published 149 years ago, and has been the primary origin-of-life theory since the 1930’s. Since then, evidence to support macroevolution (one species mutating to a different species) has advanced only marginally, while evidence questioning it has exploded. Advances in genetics, cellular biology, chemistry and many other fields have been seized to map human DNA and create wonder drugs. Yet they also raise questions about Darwinian macroevolution - which no scientist can follow up without being “expelled” from the respect of the scientific community. It’s absolutely absurd.
Well, that's wrong. There is quite a bit of evidence of macroevolution as well as transitional species. There is something absurd about this passage, all right. This has become achingly familiar: a writer argues that scientists cling blindly to evolution despite the fact that there is little evidence for it. The problem is that the writer is completely unaware of the avalanche of evidence that evolution (micro and macro) has in the tank. That's embarrassing.
The rebuttal is by Andrea Cornell Sarvady, who writes:
Do Intelligent Design proponents really think that the thousands of geologists digging their lives away wouldn’t be thrilled to discover mammal fossils down in the age of fishes? Darwin would spin in his grave, but so what? Scientists want to be right. For this reason, they study Intelligent Design tirelessly. Too bad that the evidence for it just isn’t there.
This is not the homerun I was hoping for but it is a good parry. Scientists tend to react badly at having a political campaign waged against them masquerading as science. I would too. Here is my comment about the paragraph by Ms. Feldhahn:
Wrong. There is quite a bit of evidence of macroevolution as well as for the existence of transitional species. The human fossil record alone is replete with evidence of transitional forms grading from one species to another. There is something absurd about what Ms. Feldhahn writes, all right. This attack has become achingly familiar: a writer argues that scientists cling blindly to evolution despite the fact that there is little evidence for it. The problem is that the writer is completely unaware of the avalanche of evidence that evolution (micro and macro) has in the tank. I have seen this before in the works of Phillip Johnson and anything that comes out of the Institute for Creation Research. Please, If you are going to tackle evolution at least know what you are talking about.
----------------
Now playing: Bill Evans - Solar
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey James,
ReplyDeleteCan you post some specific examples of macroevolution? You mention that there are many, but you don't cite any specific ones that "proved" evolution in your mind. I just ran across your blog, so my apologies if you've done this in another post.
Thanks.
Its already been done, and probably better than I can do myself. The link is here
ReplyDeleteAnother example is the finding of the Tiktaalik rosae fossil in Greenland, which is absolutely intermediate between sarcopterygian fish and early tetrapods. It was found in strata dating to between 365 and 380 mya, which is exactly when such an ancestor is thought to have lived. The home page is here.
ReplyDeleteYou just are not going to get it . . . There is not ONE shred of evidence for a human Macroevolving from some type of ape.
ReplyDeleteTo believe the fairy tale that all of life came from random chance is to kick your brain out of your head.
Wake up dude - your soul will be required from you one day. If you want to talk about real science the absolute truth come from the bible - hands down - and it NEVER CHANGES!
Tiktaalik: Our Ancestor?
ReplyDeleteWith the continued invalidation of the corrupt theory of neo-Darwinism in the eyes of many, and school boards nation-wide taking a favorable look at intelligent design, it is not surprising that evolutionists are scrambling to enact damage control. Enter an alleged “missing link” that some are saying reveals one of the greatest changes in the field of zoology.
The New York Times (NYT) reports that the recent discovery of a large scaly creature in Canada is “a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans” (Wilford 2006). National Geographic News (NGN) crows that “fossil hunters may have discovered the fish that made humans possible.” (Owen 2006). But before evolutionists start celebrating, they should keep in mind that Tiktaalik roseae is incomplete. Scientists as of yet unable to determine what the hind fins and tail might have looked like. Paleontologist Neil Shubin states, “We’ve really only begun to sort of crack that spot [the small rocky outcropping 600 miles from the North Pole where Tiktaalik was found]” (AP 2006).
Also noteworthy, is the use of diffident language by the secular reporters and scientists when discussing Tiktaalik. For example, NGN says this creature “may” be a missing link. While the NYT states that changes in this creature “anticipate” the emergence of land animals. One may anticipate leaving the house, but he is still in the house.
What will the Creationists say now?
It is significant that most of the news stories immediately mention creationists and the problem this discovery presents for their model. NYT author, J. N. Wilford takes a swipe at “religious creationists” by stating that the Tiktaalik discovery is a “powerful rebuttal” to creationists’ insistence that the transitional forms that would otherwise validate Darwin’s strange theory remain undiscovered. He continues to marginalize the debate by referring only to “conservative Christians” while ignoring a sizable portion of the population who are not Christians or “religious” but nonetheless remain skeptical of Darwin’s fish-to-philosopher idea. Furthermore, Wilford quotes evolutionary paleontologist M.J. Novacek as gleefully stating that “creationists are flatly wrong” (Wilford 2006). Wilford continues to quote Novacek who makes the mistake of listing only two alleged transitional forms! If macroevolution has been taking place for 4.6 billion years, the sedimentary rock units should have billions of undeniable transitions. Novacek only mentions Archaeopteryx (it had wings, feathers, and it evidently flew quite well based on the robust wishbone), and a suspiciously vague reference to “an early whale that lived on land.” If this whale were a true missing link, paleontologist Novacek wouldn’t hesitate to list its name plus other specifics to make his case.
Is Tiktaalik really 375 million years old? These long ages have always been suspect, especially in the light of the discovery of living fossils (e.g. ICR Impact #394), the ICR RATE project, and recently, soft dinosaur tissue discovered in eastern Montana allegedly 70 million years old (Yeoman 2006).
A lobe-finned fish
We are reminded of the history of a lobed-finned fish called the coelacanth considered by evolutionists to be an index fossil that would date sedimentary strata to millions of years (the Devonian, a period in the Paleozoic Era). However, in 1938 a coelacanth was discovered alive off the coast of South Africa. Since then, others have been filmed and coelacanths have recently appeared in the South Pacific. Tiktaalik had lobed fins like the coelacanth and it “would have breathed like a lungfish”, says senior assistant curator Jennifer Clack of Cambridge's University Museum of Zoology (Owen 2006).
Evolutionist Michael Denton states
If the case of the coelacanth illustrates anything, it shows how difficult it is to draw conclusions about the overall biology of organisms from their skeletal remains alone. Because the soft biology of extinct groups can never be known with any certainty then obviously the status of even the most convincing intermediates is bound to be insecure. The coelacanth represents yet another instance where a newly discovered species, which might have provided the elusive evidence of intermediacy so long sought by evolutionary biology, ultimately proved to be only another peripheral twig on the presumed tree of life (Denton 1985).
In his description of this fossil, evolutionist Shubin states the front fins look basically “like a scale-covered arm” with “bones that correspond to a shoulder, upper arm, elbow, forearm and a primitive version of a wrist” (AP 2006). Shubin is speaking of an unstable macroevolutionary cornerstone called homology. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology defines homology as, “the fundamental similarity of a particular structure in different organisms, which is assumed to be due to descent from a common ancestor" [my emphasis] (Allaby 1992). The word assumed means supposed or taken for granted. The whole theory of homology assumes macroevolution to be a fact.
One should note that the bones in Tiktaalik’s fins have no axial skeleton connections. This is significant because without this direct connection, no true walking could be done by Tiktaalik. Furthermore, the fins of this creature enclose rays, not digits such as toes or fingers.
Conclusion
Evolutionist Jennifer Clack of Cambridge University, who was not involved in the study, said it’s impossible to tell if Tiltaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates (AP 2006), and the NYT states Tiktaalik is still a fish (Wilford 2006).
As always, creationists adopt a cautious wait-and-see attitude. The scientific jury is still out. As yet, many zoologists—creationists and evolutionists—have been unable to examine the fossils or their cast impressions first-hand. Stories that shout “one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals” (AP 2006) have traditionally been a flash in the evolutionary pan.
References
1. Wilford, J.N. 2006. Fossil called missing link from sea to land animals. New York Times, April 6, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/06fossil.html ?r=1&oref=slogin.
2. Owen, James 2006. Fossil fish with "limbs" is missing link, study says. National Geographic News, April 5, 2006. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/ 04/0405_060405_fish.html.
3. Associated Press. 2006. Fossil shows how fish made the leap to land. MSNBC.com, April 5, 2006. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265.
4. Yeoman, Barry. 2006. Schweitzer's dangerous discovery. Discover, April.
5. Denton, Michael. 1985. Evolution: A theory in crisis. Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler.
6. Allaby, Michael, ed. 1992. Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology, s.v. “homology.” Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Actually, there is. Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus anamensis, Australopithecus afarensis just to name a few. Come back with a well-founded retort next time, please.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, if you are going to swipe an article word for word from the ICR, you should say where you got it. Otherwise, that is plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteOh and also by the way, I dealt with the ICR piece here.
ReplyDeleteTypical "anonymous" behavior. I've seen it before on other blogs. Whoever he is, Anonymous always seems to come across as a real dick.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work. I enjoy your blog.
I have too. Sadly, the person who lambasts me for my lack of fundamentalist "Christianity" leanings is the one who rips off his material. Thanks for the encouragement. It is nice to know that there are people out there.
ReplyDelete