Would you like to debunk a creationist?

[Johnny Neuron]

Hello board! I've been away for a while, I know. I've been busy with school, work and debating morons on other boards. I was wondering if you would like to comment on the argumentation by one poster on an ex-Jehovah's Witness board who makes some nasty comments about me, Nad, TalkOrigins and evolution in general. If nothing else, ammuse yourself:Brad,I have read your posts on this board with much amusement . In particular, I find it hilarious that someone with such a tentative grasp of the issues surrounding evolutionary theory feels qualified to ridicule the genuine misgivings held by anyone else . The fact of the matter is evolutionary theory is a philosophy unsupported by the weight of genuine scientific evidence, despite your efforts to present the evidence as indisputable.You state that "I love science, logic and a persuasive argument". It's quite ironic then that you should take the stance that you do. What is even more laughable is that you continue on to say "My greatest aptitude is my clear thinking and sincerity" . What is evident to most of us by now is your need to be perceived as intellectually gifted by your peers. Why else would you be so dismissive of differing opinion if not your need to feel intellectually superior? Perhaps you could reason upon why you think the fossil evidence supports the claim of evolutionary theorists. I am largely unimpressed by the website links which you have provided, and many other rational people should be also. Much of the "evidence" you have provided as proof that evolution can be supported by fossil records, holds little credibility. It is merely an attempt by a scientist to present common characteristics between species as proof of descent from a common ancestor.To illustrate my point, examine the evolutionary lineage of the Modern Horse, Equus. The website which you have cited provides examples of numerous evolutionary intermediaries between Hyracotherium and Equus, following which it invites us to "Compare Equus to Hyracotherium and see how much it has changed". The very fact that this particular theory of equine evolution was discredited over half a century ago seems to have eluded you. Consider the comments of G.G. Simpson (widely accredited as the 20th Century's greatest evolutionary paleontologist) in his 1953 publication "Life of the Past". On page 119, he states "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers never happened in nature."His comments still hold their validity today. Dr. David Raup comments "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50(1), 1979, p 25)It may interest you to know that in the case of equine fossils, the fossils of the earlier species in the supposed evolutionary chain have, in some cases, been discovered in higher rock strata than that of the more advanced latter species. Fossils of Hyracotherium (Eohippus) have been found in the top-most strata, alongside of fossils of two modern horses: Equus nevadensls and Equus accidentalis. Although this clearly contravenes the theory of Darwinian evolution, the scientific community saw no problem in failing to mention this (tailoring the evidence to fit the theory is the term I would use in this particular case).Despite all of this, the website you have cited quotes the evolutionary path from Hyracotherium to Equus, as valid proof that the fossil records support the theory of evolution. The scientific community, in their anxiousness to provide evidence which underpins their claim, have selectively used evidence to promote the false belief that such common ancestry exists. The website information amounts to nothing more than a 21st century attempt at "Piltdown Man". I would be interested to hear your explanation for the Cambrian explosion, where the basic animal groups appear suddenly and without any evidence of an evolutionary ancestor. Why is it that scientists struggle to account for this? Why are there large gaps in the fossil record in general? I find the explanation given in www.talkorigins.org woefully inadequate. The explanation that stratigraphic discontinuities, the skeletal fragility of certain species and inadequate exploration is largely to blame merely confirms that the theory is founded on incomplete and structurally weak evidence. The suggestion, which is akin to saying "the evidence from the fossil records supports the theory, but we haven't found it yet and we are not certain that it exists in its entirety" would cause any open minded person to view the claims of the scientist with suspicion. Yet you claim that one of your strengths is logical thinking! Is it logical to assume that incomplete evidence makes the case for evolution? I have a strong suspicion that if you were a member of a jury, such patchy and incomplete evidence would not sufficiently convince you to believe the person making the case, so why is it logical to subscribe so wholeheartedly to evolutionary theory?Niles Eldredge, a pre-eminent expert in the field of marine invertebrate fossils, notes when speaking of the fossil records that paleontologists discover "zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change

[Timothy Schoonover]

I am not a biologist or even a scientist so I cannot really comment on the greater part of this response. There are, however, two areas that I feel I am minimally qualified to speak to, and I hope that by addressing them, I will have been of some benefit to both yourself and Angel.The first is the nature of dialogue you (presumably) and quite blatantly Angel, seem to be engaging in. The conversation, if you could call it that, is quite permeated by negativity and hostility. While I am not trying to assign blame (and if I was, I would be first in line unfortunately), what seems to be occuring is not actually a discursive or even persuasive argument, but a struggle for intellectual domination. Perhaps Angel feels that he must beat you at your own game, or is engaging in a battle of one-upmanship, or more likely wants to "put you in your place." I don't know. What I do know, however, is that such behavior, no matter the motives, is rarely in the interests of sincere learning--it is a form of conquest. Moreover, the severity of the language near the conclusion of the response seems to indicate some bridges have been seriously burned in the past (and not necessarily between the two of you). For these reasons, it is my opinion that your FIRST duty should be to move in the direction of resolution. I sympathize with you because I know how hard it would be for me to consider this course of action, were I in your position. The language in the post is dishonorable and insulting. This is why I value this quality in others and view it to be a principal test of character.The second area I wish to address is in regards to George Williams critique of the Gene Selection theory.Quote:There are two potent criticisms of this viewpoint. The first is provided by the pioneer of the gene selection hypothesis, George Williams (The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995). Williams claims that everything is NOT reducible to matter, that information is distinct from matter and in fact pre-exists matter. In particular, Williams proposed that genetic information and the medium through which this information was held are two distinct entities. The identification of the information-matter duality has powerful implications on reductionism and hence evolutionary theory, since the existence of information which is independent of matter implies intelligent causation. Interestingly, the gene selection theory also implies that human thought and emotion is a worthless by product of DNA's mechanical need to reproduce, which would render much of Dawkins' theories meaningless.My approach is more philosophical in nature than scientific as that is where my interests lie, but in my estimation valid nonetheless. The assertion that that everything is NOT reducible to matter requires the existence of some metaphysical reality to support the claim and is reminiscent of the platonic idea of form. Now this does not mean that we should consequently disregard the arguments without due consideration, but when appeals are made to metaphysical reality, it often stems from the presupposition that such a transcendent reality must exist. Such as it is, strong skepticism is advised.Angel goes on to say, "The identification of the information-matter duality has powerful implications on reductionism and hence evolutionary theory, since the existence of information which is independent of matter implies intelligent causation." This seems like a novel twist on Descartes'* ontological argument, with a splash of teleology. Even if such a duality were to exist, I'm not sure that intelligent causation follows from the (meta) existance of information any more than God must exist because the concept of perfection exists. Again, it all seems to be based upon the wobbly stilts of metaphysical argumentation.**Anselm is credited for the original ontological argument although Decartes' version is held to be more cogent.Lastly, Angel begs the question when he states, "Interestingly, the gene selection theory also implies that human thought and emotion is a worthless by product of DNA's mechanical need to reproduce, which would render much of Dawkins' theories meaningless." Human emotion and thought are not worthless in this context, unless you hold that worth is a transcendent attribute--that is, dependent functions are incapable of bestowing essential worth. Clearly, emotion and thought are valuable to survival/reproduction and have meaning in that context. One would think it impossible to construe the context of scientific postulation differently. Thus Dawkins' theories, as the by product of DNA's mechanism to reproduce, are only 'meaningless' if judged by some transcendent standard of meaning. Or if you prefer, meaning cannot exist without ultimate Meaning (capital M) from which it is derivative. Circular reasoning like this is characteristic of metaphysical appeals; although, some feel these claims to be axiomatic (self-evident).Well, I guess that is my two-cents. Again I am not qualified to critique evolutionary theory, or even provide insightful commentation. For this I gladly differ to my betters, which is quite frankly everyone here. I would specifically like to see analysis by Jeremy, Zach, and/or Avatar as I have found their treatment of the subject to be luminal in the past. And I can't say that I would complain if Chris stormed in here cheering and then cursed at something. Oh, and I guess I should append that my philosophical views are not to be mistaken as orthodox atheism, althought to the best of my knowledge, the subset of ideas which appear here are not at variance with general atheistic/humanistic doctrine (no negative connotation implied by the use of that word).Errata:I did something wrong with the EZCODES Edited by: Timothy Schoonover at: 4/2/03 2:36:42 am