Bread_of_Life Posted March 16, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted March 16, 2005 Botz Yes SA Everything we have discussed at least makes me realize that some of the supposed evidence that comes from the Creationist Camp is not necessarily as water-tight as I might have first supposed. Thanks for being there for me when I need a solid Evolutionary view. It's no problem, I'm glad to hear it. What I was saying is that a Christian is utterly convinced of the existence of G-d and also of the veracity of the Bible...therefore he works from a basis of knowing... Convinced by what? His imagination? His will to believe? Or are you convinced by evidence? If you are convinced by evidence, then your belief must also be subject to evidence, that's how epistemology works I'm afraid. No this was in no way meant as some sort of smoke-screen...just me being frank with you...even if you suspect my 'relationship with G-d' is an experience of my own 'sub-conscious' Whether or not it actually is an extension of your own mind, or a real relationships, it is nonetheless a form of evidence is it not? Thanks I will take you up on that if and when I need to...by the way what do you find wrong with old Kenny and his teaching in a nutshell? I believe he gets about 15,000 hits a day on his website...and is usually very succinct and entertaining...and most of the time I understand what he is on about. There's no one single thing I'm afraid, like many creationists Ken Ham holds many beliefs that are incorrect, and has come to them through spurious means. Try me on one of his beliefs, and his reason for believing it one time, and you'll see what I mean Jenbe The Phylogenetic Tree is meant to show visually how simple life evolved, ( according to Darwins theory of natural selection) into the plants, animals and humans we have today. Right. The Cladogram is a sidestep from this. Because Scientists realised there were unbridgable gaps in the fossil record,the idea of gradual transition from one species to another had to be reconsidered.....So.......Where as fossils were placed in a line of supposed sequential evolution, using the Phylogenetic Tree,they are now presented as Cladogram charts, as relationship to each other. But Jenbe, a phylogenetic tree *is* a cladogram, it's just a specific type of cladogram where the axis is proportional to time. Also, the idea of phyletic gradualism was not withdrawn because of "unbridgeable gaps" in the fossil record. There are large gaps of course, where very few fossils have been found, and there are some well populated parts. Rather, phyletic gradualism is rejected because of evidence of the rapidity of evolutionary change in the fossil record, and most especially in the parts of the record that are well filled in, and in which change can be observed in detail. Acceptance of Cladogram charts implies rejection of Darwins theoryof natural selection, because they do not show gradual change as an evolutionary mechanism. This relies on the assertion that Darwin was a phyletic gradualist. Now, as far as I know, there is little evidence to show that Darwin was strictly a gradualist, although he did believe that evolution was give or take a fairly gradual process of accumulated change. But I don't think any credible scientist has ever put a stake in the ground and claimed that evolution is absolutely gradual, including Darwin. There used to be a theory that evolution was absolutely sudden, called "saltationism", but this was rejected a long time ago. So no, I don't think that punctuated equilibria is such a massive deviation from Darwin's original theory that we could call it a rejection of evolution by means of natural selection. It's more a theory about the rate at which this happens, not whether it happens at all. It is so encouraging to know that even the Scientists themselves have to admit that there are parts of their theory that are largely hypothetical... This is not part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution governs the development of life once it existed, it does not comment on how life came into existence in the first place. However, abiogenesis (the subject that covers how life may have started) is largely hypothetical (in that whilst we can test whether a theory is possible or likely, we can never directly test which really occured). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenbe Posted March 17, 2005 Group: Junior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 70 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/12/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted March 17, 2005 SA, Thanks for your reply.. Also, the idea of phyletic gradualism was not withdrawn because of "unbridgeable gaps" in the fossil record. There are large gaps of course, where very few fossils have been found, and there are some well populated parts. Rather, phyletic gradualism is rejected because of evidence of the rapidity of evolutionary change in the fossil record, and most especially in the parts of the record that are well filled in, and in which change can be observed in detail . So would you say in your opinion.. there are "no unbridgeable gaps" in the fossil record? However, abiogenesis (the subject that covers how life may have started) is largely hypothetical (in that whilst we can test whether a theory is possible or likely, we can never directly test which really occured). Well..if I might put my tongue into my cheek again... perhaps I may hypothesize that life could have started in two different ways... Your far distant ancestor belonged to the Chimp family...and mine was created. It would certainly give new meaning to the class system, so beloved in good old England... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted March 17, 2005 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Jenbe So would you say in your opinion.. there are "no unbridgeable gaps" in the fossil record? It depends on what you mean by "unbridgeable". There are some very large gaps. For example, we have absolutely no idea from the fossil record of the amphibian -> reptile transition. Not a single fossil. I wouldn't say this gap was unbridgeable through, just empty. perhaps I may hypothesize that life could have started in two different ways... Your far distant ancestor belonged to the Chimp family...and mine was created. It would certainly give new meaning to the class system, so beloved in good old England... Lol. Well, this is extremely unlikely, since we both share ancestors in the very near past. I take it you are American and white, and I am British and white, it can't be more than a few hundred years since our lineages last met, somewhere or other! Also, of course, life didn't start with chimps, or even multicellular life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts