posted
Gonna jump in here: If an analogy is being drawn between macro-evolution and the evoultion of language (I don't know that one is), I think the fallacy there is obvious.
I read a book that tried to show that the fossil record might appear as it does because of a great worldwide flood. It requires a lot of pre-suppositions that have not been verified (but not disproeven either), but it would explain a whole lot of the inconsistencies in the record.
It makes me wonder: if the theory of evolution had never been developed, would geologists and paleontologists have looked at the evidence with a more objective perspective, and perhaps found that all the evidence points toward the Great Flood instead of interpreting it as supporting Evolution? (Loaded question, I know.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a matter of fact, they would not. The experiment was done once: Geologists in the early 1800s set out to prove the Great Flood. (You'll note, this isn't just a neutral view of the evidence, they actually believed the Biblical account.) They couldn't do it, and in fact arrived at what is substantially the modern account. This is 50 years or so before Darwin, you'll note.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Gonna jump in here: If an analogy is being drawn between macro-evolution and the evoultion of language (I don't know that one is), I think the fallacy there is obvious.
First of all, I didn't say they were strictly analogous, just that it helped me understand some things that I hadn't understood about evolution. Second, what's the fallacy?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
feer: Let's assume for the sake of argument, that being homosexual is equivalent to death of your own iteration of your genes. The question becomes, how can death or altruistic behaviour such as sacrificing one's life for one's family increase the survival chances of one's genes?
Well, consider the fact that one's siblings essentially each have on average, half identical genes as you do. So if a train comes by that threatens to kill three of your siblings, then your genes survive in greater numbers if you sacrifice yourself to save all three than for you to remain safe yourself.
In a less drastic situation, fugu13 is simply proposing that homosexuality might provide additional parents for children that have very similar genes to them, the loss of one person's genes might be matched by the gain in chances for the children's genes.
Reshpeckobiggle: Can you elaborate on how the Great Flood could explain the fossil record? What is the age of the earth and life that such a theory would propose, and what inconsistencies would it answer?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ridiculous thing about using the Flood as a method of explaining away the fossil record is this: we have found marine life fossils on some of the highest mountains in the world. Even if all the water on the planet were in liquid form, the oceans would only be about 300 feet higher, if I understand correctly. How would those fossils become imbedded in rock that is thousands of feet above sea level?
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: How would those fossils become imbedded in rock that is thousands of feet above sea level?
Moutains all over the world are rising slowly as we speak. They might have been much lower along time ago.
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mountains don't rise that fast. Maybe an inch or two a year at most, usually, unless they are volcanic, which the ones under discussion aren't.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Feer: How can homosexuality improve survival chances?
I didn't mean to say that it does. I meant to say that it's possible that a homosexuality-influencing gene, if it exists, could improve survival by affecting something other than sexual orientation.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: There's also the fact that a gene can have multiple affects -- some bad (from an evolutionary standpoint), some good.
Is that what you were getting at when you posted this?
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, you're assuming both that the earth has about the same amount of water now as it had back then, and that mountains are moving about the same speed now as they were back then.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So for those 5000 years, if those mointains rose inches at a time. that would mean it rose about roughly around 400 feet. Not quite enough is it.
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Of course, you're assuming both that the earth has about the same amount of water now as it had back then, and that mountains are moving about the same speed now as they were back then.
earth doesnt lose water over time. it has the same amount its always had.
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? Because I've both created and destroyed water.
Now, I'm not saying that the earth doesn't have roughly the same amount -- I'm just saying that, in this conversation at least, it's an unproven assumption.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Water can change forms and all that jazz, but there is still going to be the same amount, just mixed with stuff and in animals. Where would it go?
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would mountains have risen faster then? You'd be implying much greater speed of continental drift, which would indirectly imply a rate of vulcanism several hundred times greater than that of today. If Vulcanism were that much greater in the past, where are all the extra volcanoes and lava flows? Don't say "under the ocean", because there would be more on land as well.
Also, the fact that you can find quartz crystals that are literally 8-10 feet high and 6 feet thick proves the Earth is much older than Genesis says. Crystals like that take tens of thousands of years to form. They also form at very regular rates. You can map the rate of cooling pretty easily using crystal size.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Water can be split into its constituent elements (hydrogen and oxygen) or made from those elements.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Also, the fact that you can find quartz crystals that are literally 8-10 feet high and 6 feet thick proves the Earth is much older than Genesis says. Crystals like that take tens of thousands of years to form. They also form at very regular rates. You can map the rate of cooling pretty easily using crystal size.
Which is why I lean towards the idea that god made the earth millions of years old, when he made it thousands of years ago.
Posts: 160 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, people, if you're going to start using miracles - and this you basically have to do, in order to get any kind of Flood out of the evidence - why bother with this penny-ante creation-from-hydrogen stuff? Just own up and say "God put the water there, then he took it away". There's no need for all these middlemen.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Water can change forms and all that jazz, but there is still going to be the same amount, just mixed with stuff and in animals. Where would it go?
I have personally both broken down water into its component oxygen and hydrogen and created water by burning hydrogen.
Chemical reactions which create or destroy water happen all the time. In fact, IIRC, photosynthesis is one of those reactions.
quote:Why would mountains have risen faster then?
I have no idea. But you can't prove that the mountains weren't under the ocean 5000 because of the speed they're moving now unless you also prove how fast they were moving back then.
quote:Also, the fact that you can find quartz crystals that are literally 8-10 feet high and 6 feet thick proves the Earth is much older than Genesis says.
Unless those crystals were created that big when the earth was created, or unless those crystals grew faster in the past then they do now.
Now, I'm not saying that all of this isn't good, persuasive evidence. But I do think you're throwing around the word "proof" too quickly.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look, people, if you're going to start using miracles - and this you basically have to do, in order to get any kind of Flood out of the evidence - why bother with this penny-ante creation-from-hydrogen stuff? Just own up and say "God put the water there, then he took it away". There's no need for all these middlemen.
That could explain it as well.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Unless those crystals were created that big when the earth was created, or unless those crystals grew faster in the past then they do now."
Quartz crystals that size couldn't form in space. There's nowhere near enough heat. The plasticity and crystal formation speed of quartz are absolutely, 100% correlated to temperature. We know exactly how quickly those crystals cooled because we know what temperature quartz "melts" at, and the speed at which they must have cooled. Faster cooling=smaller crystal size. Quartz is extremely predictable in this regard.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
edit: I wrote this a while back, and as I finished some network problems at work occurred; I guess they delayed its submission.
Homosexuality can improve survival chances because evolution does not work on the individual level, but on the level of genes. Successful genes are ones that survive.
Homosexuality can, in the right circumstances, increase the survival chances for genes. For instance, many (most?) animals have a supportive reaction to kinship. When there're homosexual members of the group, children have more available caregiver time than if there aren't, because the ratio of children to adults is lower than if all adults had children. This improves the survival chances of children, which improves the survival chances of the genes they carry. Those genes are also present in the homosexual relative, so the homosexual relative is increasing the survival chances of his genes, at least sometimes.
Too many homosexual individuals would obviously harm many population's survival chances, but there have been several models showing that a small percentage can significantly improve those chances.
Resh: feel free to bring up any inconsistencies, and I'll either deal with them or point you at someplace that does. Furthermore, show me some of these pre-suppositions and we'll see if we can disprove any of them.
Btw, you can start with the pre-suppositions that explain the particular order of fossils, the consistency of that order worldwide, and the correlation of dramatic changes in fossil makeup with deposits of the types we would expect from various catastrophic events, such as major impacts.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Quartz crystals that size couldn't form in space.
If God created the earth, fully formed, in a blink, then being able to create those crystals that size is a minor trifle.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Portizzle, are you actually postulating that the Earth was created with the fossils already there? Are you saying the tyrannosaurus skulls were already put there? Man, them tyrannosaurs went extinct mighty fast if the earth is only 5,000 years old.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steven, your mocking tone is unwarranted. This is a thread about Genesis vs. Darwin.
Also, if you want to know my personal views on this subject, all you have to do is read through this very thread.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not my theory. I just read a book a while ago, and it made me wonder. I can't explain the theory very well, but there was some pretty interesting stuff in it. One of the things it said was that the conditions on Earth were far different back before the flood. The earth was "smoother," in that the mountains were not as high and the oceans were not as deep. Most of the water was located under the surface, or suspended in the atmosphere as vapor. The theory postulates that the newer mountain ranges (Rockies, Alps, Himalayas) were formed during a few days time, and there is some pretty compelling evidence for that, like certain geographic features of the Grand Canyon that seem to indicate that the canyon was formed very quickly by a massive rushing of water from a huge resevoir that broke free some time after the waters receded. Lots of other examples.
The fossil record was explained by some theory about all the dead plants and animals being deposited at once, but I can't remember right now how it worked. Some of the inconsistencies it explained was the presence of petrified trees that stand upright through several strata of rock, and how some newer species show up earlier than others in the rocks. I remember it explaining the Cambrian Explosion very nicely.
Like I said, not my theory, and not necessarily hard to disprove. But since I believe that all the evidence for evolution has been fitted specifically to prove the thoery, I was just wondering if the theory of evolution had never arisen would all the evidence have been tailored to fit the great Flood.
And I mean all the evidence that has been uncovered since the 1800s, KoM. Saying the some dudes from the 19th century tried to prove that the Great Flood happened and failed isn't proving or disproving a whole lot. 99% of all the evidence for evolution has been uncovered since the theory was postulated. And there's plenty of indication that most of that evidence has been applied to an unquestioned theory, with little to no effort made to present it independent of any theory whatsoever.
posted
Trees that stand upright through several strata of rock are expected, not an inconsistency. Imagine a tree, growing. Now imagine stuff building up around it, either quickly or slowly. Eventually you have a tree covered with stuff; sometimes that tree will fossilize. This is a natural property of trees being tall and vertical.
Without a specific example "some newer species show up earlier than others" isn't much to go on. Of course the fossil record isn't perfectly stratified, geology is sometimes quite active in disrupting it. Further, sometimes we're wrong, particularly about minor things based on small hints like the exact specifics of species order, and theories are revised. That's what science is all about.
Would you give an example of evidence for evolution you feel "has been fitted specifically to prove the theory"? Further, would you give some of your indications that "most of that evidence has been applied to an unquestioned theory, with little to no effort made to present it independent of any theory whatsoever"? (though as to the last, scientists theorize. Papers that present evidence try to explain that evidence. This is true of all science.)
Evolution, while widely accepted (largely because the evidence was overwhelming; the theory hadn't been much accepted previously because it hadn't existed, but lots of people were working on similar theories because the current explanations were baldly insufficient), had quite a bit of scientific controversy around it shortly after publication.
But just like 99.9% of modern physics papers you care to name (dealing in this sort of field) accept the basics of relativity, 99.9% of modern biology papers accept the basics of evolution. Both are supported by extensive evidence (and evolution rather more than relativity), and both are consistent with new findings.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I mean all the evidence that has been uncovered since the 1800s, KoM. Saying the some dudes from the 19th century tried to prove that the Great Flood happened and failed isn't proving or disproving a whole lot. 99% of all the evidence for evolution has been uncovered since the theory was postulated.
You asked, "If people unaware of evolution looked at the evidence, would they find the Flood?" The experiment has been done; the answer is no. That there has been more evidence accumulated since then is not relevant.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kom, that evidence has been incorporated into a worldview that sees macroevolution as being the explanation for ourexistence here on Earth. I'm asking if things may have turned out differently if that particular theory had never been developed. Obviously, things would have turned out differently. My question is if they would have tilted toward a thoery based on a great flood.
fugu, good questions. Those trees invade a number geological ages. There is more than one instance of this. Show me a tree that lives for about one or ten million years.
An "example of evidence for evolution (I) feel 'has been fitted specifically to prove the theory?'" I'll just point to the stated opinions of many well respected evolutionists. Nothing specific, as I don't have them on a set of index cards next to my computer; I'm sure some of this thread's evolutionists would be better prepared to assist me.
As for 99.9% of physicists believing in the basics of relativity, I have more faith in their ability (as mathematicians) to reject genral relativity if the evidence demands them to (rather than force-fitting it into their current theory.)
(Come to think, the highly recommended by OSC book The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin makes the point that even quantum physicists have a tendency toward dogmatic interpretation of data.)
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You continue to misunderstand the trees, and it seems to be because you misunderstand the building up of geologic layers.
There is not some magic process by which everything from a particular time period gets smushed together. This tends to happen, because most things from a time period are very malleable at geologic pressures. However, it happens over a very, very long time -- notice how things near the surface are not nearly as compressed as things deep down.
A tree is tall and vertical. Particularly for larger, stronger trees and a lack of horizontal shifts due to tectonic or other activity, this can result in a tree being built up around over incredibly long periods of time (say, hundreds of thousands, or a very few millions of years), and the tree fossilizing. The geologic pressures continue to compress the layers don't compress the tree because there's little vertical pressure on the tree -- there are many fewer layers on top of the tree than there are on top of the things next to the base of the tree, and because the tree is strong vertically, particularly after fossilization. This results in the layers around the tree becoming more and more compressed while the tree
I repeat, the presence of fossilized trees spanning layers is more than dealt with, it is expected (it is not expected to be particularly common, but it isn't, given what we know of how many trees there have been). This is well known. A program treating it as something unusual is intellectually dishonest or hasn't gone so far as to talk to an expert in the field who would dispel their ignorance.
I fail to see why people adhering to theories that they feel are supported by an incredible abundance of evidence is an indication of evidence being fitted. You know, there's always the possibility they're just right about it being the best theory given the evidence, just like scientists in many other fields are about other well accepted theories.
Its interesting you bring up Smolin's book. That should support the understanding that evolutionary scientists are worth listening to . Despite all the belief on the parts of some scientists (and its hardly 99.9%; smolin is a prominent believer in another approach to the problem, and there are other camps as well, so this isn't really comparable to evolutionary theory in the first place) that String Theory is the best theory to explain many things, very few (I won't say none; there are almost always some) would say the vast preponderance of evidence supports it as the preferred theory (some might say the vast preponderance of evidence is potentially consistent with it, but that's much weaker, and also correct, but it is correct for a number of theories).
Sure, scientists can be dogmatic. However, even dogmatic scientists are, on the whole, demonstrably limited in their statements about correlation with evidence. There's a difference between believing something is true and having the experimental evidence to back it up, and scientists on the whole understand that distinction, though it seems to be one you have a problem with.
If scientists were so dogmatic about string theory being true, why would they be lobbying such that the largest total amounts of research dollars were going to experiments that would enable them to test it experimentally (large particle colliders)? (Some of them) think it is true, so they want to test it and see how likely it is that it is true.
Concurrently, if evolutionary theorists were so dogmatic about evolutionary theory being true, why are new papers being published with fair regularity that result in modifications, sometimes significant modifications, to the structure of evolutionary theory?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You asked, "If people unaware of evolution looked at the evidence, would they find the Flood?" The experiment has been done; the answer is no. That there has been more evidence accumulated since then is not relevant.
It is relevant if the evidence accumulated since then actually would support the flood if only it were looked at by somebody not blinded by their preconceptions.
This argument doesn't hold much water, IMO. We've got enough very smart people with a personal stake in proving the biblical account that if such a smoking gun existed, I think they would have noticed it by now.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, I'm a particle physicist who doesn't "believe in" string theory, on the grounds that it doesn't have a shred of experimental evidence in its favour.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, suppose you define your terms. What is macroevolution, anyway? I give you fair warning: If you use the word 'kind' without defining it in a way that's measurable, I'm off.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe that all the evidence for evolution has been fitted specifically to prove the thoery
, and yet you also find "interesting" and presumably convincing and explanatory a theory that makes wild assumptions (with no evidence) about past conditions to prove something believed in, ie The Flood, and a Young Earth Creation. What evidence is there that the Earth was "smoother" 6000 years ago, or that water was mostly below the surface or suspended in vapor??
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: It's not my theory. I just read a book a while ago, and it made me wonder. I can't explain the theory very well, but there was some pretty interesting stuff in it. One of the things it said was that the conditions on Earth were far different back before the flood. The earth was "smoother," in that the mountains were not as high and the oceans were not as deep. Most of the water was located under the surface, or suspended in the atmosphere as vapor. The theory postulates that the newer mountain ranges (Rockies, Alps, Himalayas) were formed during a few days time, and there is some pretty compelling evidence for that, like certain geographic features of the Grand Canyon that seem to indicate that the canyon was formed very quickly by a massive rushing of water from a huge resevoir that broke free some time after the waters receded. Lots of other examples.
posted
Interesting, Kwea said "...evolution is the tool God is using to shape our world". I certainly agree, but it bring up an important point. We arrogant humans think that God created man(kind) and that we are the final and complete product. But, we see that evolution proves that false. God didn't create man, he IS CREATING man. We are not the final product, but merely a stage along the way.
First - Homo Erectus (the tall and straight man) Then - Homo Sapiens (the wise man) Eventually - Homo Supremus (the supreme man) Perhaps someday - Homo Deific (the god-like man)
Unless, of course, we become Homo Arrogantus (the arrogant man) who destroys himself and the earth. In which case, we start all over again. Eternal life on earth only exist for mankind for as long as we can keep our supreme arrogance and assumed superiority in check.
If time is timeless to God, which is surely is, then billions of years of human evolution is roughly the equivalent to God snapping his fingers. Yet, most likely that 'snap' isn't over yet, and God is still in the process of creating the Universe. Let's hope when the 'snap' is fully and finally 'snapped', he likes what he sees, and therefore God doesn't change his mind and decide to start over again.
As a side note, I think that anyone who doubts evolution need only look at the history of the Olympic records. We see on every front faster times, higher jumps. There was a time when man said it was impossible for a human to run a four minute mile. That the stress would surely kill them. Yet, today, the four minute mile, while still extremely hard, is actually common. Mark Spits set several Olympic swimming records, all of which have been broke by faster swimmers. If we go back a century, we will find high school kids who today achieve times equivalent to century old swim records.
quote:As a side note, I think that anyone who doubts evolution need only look at the history of the Olympic records. We see on every front faster times, higher jumps. There was a time when man said it was impossible for a human to run a four minute mile. That the stress would surely kill them. Yet, today, the four minute mile, while still extremely hard, is actually common. Mark Spits set several Olympic swimming records, all of which have been broke by faster swimmers. If we go back a century, we will find high school kids who today achieve times equivalent to century old swim records.
I think this is not explainable in terms of evolution; there are other effects, much larger over a mere century's timespan, at work. In the first place we have a larger population, so the high end of the bell curve (or whatever shape it actually takes out there) has more people in it. In the second place, we are orders of magnitude wealthier, and can afford to devote entire lives to nothing but athletics; of course our results are going to be better than those of hobbyists. In the third place, the technology has advanced; given modern running shoes, I think a lot of 1920s athletes might have done four-minute miles. And in the fourth place, there is a demand for this kind of talent now, as there wasn't before; children in the ghettoes dream of athletics as a way out of poverty, which just wasn't a viable option back in the days of amateur Olympics. Again, this vastly increases the size of the population of potential top athletes; and what's more, we actively seek out such talent, and encourage it and feed it. Evolution, pff. Show me an athelete with five children, and each of those five children inheriting his gifts, and I'll agree you may be on to something.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlueWizard, that is like saying that a greyhound has evolved from a wolf. While true in a sense, they are still the same species. All the races of men are dilineations from some original human, but we are not separate species. Some are faster. Some are darker, some lighter. Some taller, some shorter. Variation within the species.
KoM, Macroevolution: species developing over time so that where there was no life, now there is, and where all life was single-cellular, now there people and dolphins and oaks. It is this thoery for which no experimental evidence exists. It is entirely hypothetical. Much of it fits very nicely, but it has never been recreated in a lab. Like string-theory.
Morbo, I said it's not my theory. I don't necessarily think that it is true. But I do think evolution has been tailored to fit the paleontological evidence, and vice-versa. So I'm just wondering how this other theory would have looked if the same thing had been done with it.
Of course, you don't buy the premise that the evidence has been made to fit the thoery of evolution, so we're not going to be talking about the same thing.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still haven't given an example of evidence being tailored to fit. You've stated why you think evidence has been tailored to fit, but you haven't given an example of the evidence.
Is there a particular step along the way from single-celled organisms to dolphins and oaks that you don't understand? Pick any step along the way (to either), and I'll given an explanation that is coherent and backed by evidence, typically evidence found directly in living organisms as well as in the fossil record.
Or, to put it in another way, yes, there is lots of evidence for those having happened. Not having observed the entire process != there is no evidence (particularly when observing the entire process would take longer than the existence so far of the human race). We have strong evidence of many steps along the way from single celled organisms to oaks and dolphins. We have observed new species coming into existence. We find species everywhere that seem to fit as intermediaries along similar continuums, based on multiple independent criteria (morphology, genetics, et cetera).
Lets see if you can come up with one reasonably concrete step along the way that cannot be explained with evidence .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM, Macroevolution: species developing over time so that where there was no life, now there is, and where all life was single-cellular, now there people and dolphins and oaks. It is this thoery for which no experimental evidence exists. It is entirely hypothetical. Much of it fits very nicely, but it has never been recreated in a lab. Like string-theory.
So, if someone created life in the lab, would you accept that as proof? Also, what of large changes in species, such as whales descending from land animals, or humans having common descent with apes?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, we've had this conversation before. If laboratory evidence were the only sort admissable in science, the entire fields of geology, astronomy, meteorology, etc. would have to be thrown completely out the window. It is entirely possible for evidence to be both scientific and reproducible without being, strictly speaking, experimental. It's called observational evidence, and there is TONS of that in favor of what you call "macroevolution." Fossil evidence, genetic evidence, physiological evidence, behavioral evidence, chemical evidence, you name it.
You really think evidence was being tailored to fit evolution before Darwin was even born? It's already been pointed out in this thread that the basic concept of life evolving from one "kind" to the next was around long before Darwin summarized it and provided a mechanism through which it could occur. Darwin didn't just make up evolutionary theory wholesale. He himself took a vast quantity of available evidence and came up with a theory that could explain how it got there. The fact that 150 years of research has not produced a shred of evidence against his theory is a testament to the strength of that theory, not some imaginary conspiracy to make people believe in evolution.
And frankly, if you're going to make a claim like "I do think evolution has been tailored to fit the paleontological evidence, and vice-versa," I think the onus is on you to give some evidence for that. All you've done so far is refer vaguely to some book you read somewhere at some time. Was that book peer-reviewed? I'd be willing to put $100 down right now that says that it was not.
Edit: This bit by fugu so perfectly and succintly summarizes what I was trying to say that it needs to be repeated:
quote:Not having observed the entire process != there is no evidence (particularly when observing the entire process would take longer than the existence so far of the human race). We have strong evidence of many steps along the way from single celled organisms to oaks and dolphins. We have observed new species coming into existence. We find species everywhere that seem to fit as intermediaries along similar continuums, based on multiple independent criteria (morphology, genetics, et cetera).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. Despite all the belief on the parts of some scientists (and its hardly 99.9%; smolin is a prominent believer in another approach to the problem, and there are other camps as well, so this isn't really comparable to evolutionary theory in the first place) that String Theory is the best theory to explain many things, very few (I won't say none; there are almost always some) would say the vast preponderance of evidence supports it as the preferred theory (some might say the vast preponderance of evidence is potentially consistent with it, but that's much weaker, and also correct, but it is correct for a number of theories).![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
