Re: Stereotypes and reputations

Cornelius Hunter <ghunter2099@sbcglobal.net> wrote to Pim:
>The fossil data from the Cambrian Explosion shows a morphological explosion. You may
>appeal to what we may find out someday. That is not falsifiable. But the data that we
>have in hand right now indicates a morphological explosion which is not consistent with
>evolution. Nor is it consistent with common descent unless your version of common
>descent involves pulling rabbits out of hats. A friend of mine took a university biology
>course. After the "evidences for evolution" lectures he spoke with the professor, asking
>about all the weaknesses. The professor responded that the evidence would be clarified
>in the future.
 
Well, Pim, the fact is that the Cambrian DOESNT show that morphological explosion. If you had been paying the slightest bit of attention to precambrian paleonotology, like reading about the discoveries of the 1990s, you would know that paleontology was slowly pushing the morphological forms back into the late Precambrian. The existence of Kimberella, a bilaterian reminiscent of a mollusk, shows that the bilateran morphology existed at least 10-15 million years BEFORE the Cambrian. And recently bilateran morphology has been extended into the past to 580-600 million years by the discovery of a bilateran named Venanimalcula from the DouShanTou formation of southern China. That same formation has yielded embryos of bilaterans a few years ago. So, the cambrian explosion is a whole lot less explosive than you ID folks claim. Try reading the book by the Christian, Simon Conway-Morris, Crucible of Creation. I would also refer you to my web page http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cambe
 vol.htm
 where I discuss the cambrian explosion and show how un-explosive it is. I also show that the largest number of phyla appear in the Recent period, not in the Cambrian. HEre is the data
 

Period # total phyla which appear in period
Recent 13
Eocene 2
Cretaceous 2
Jurassic 1
Triassic 3
Carboniferous 5
Devonian 4
Silurian 1
Ordovician 1
Cambrian 9
Vendian 4

To me you wrote:

Glenn:
 
You raised basically 3 concerns with the idea that evolution could be false:
 
1. Extinctions
2. Species changeover
3. Long time periods.
 
In other words, God would not make species that would go extinct;
 
GRM: No, that is NOT what I said, Please re-read and see what it is I said.
 
 He would not have the flora and fauna go through complete makeovers;
 
GRM: No, that is NOT what I said. Please re-read my note and see what it is I actually said.
 
and He would not be very very slow acting, using long time periods.
 
GRM: No, that is not what I said. I asked you to explain WHAT was God waiting on.
I didn't say that God couldn't act slowly I asked WHY he was acting slowly.
 
 
Hence, evolution must be true. These are powerful arguments for evolution. They and several others like them have been around for centuries. #1 goes back to Wesley and Jefferson in the 18th century. How's that for bracketing the theological spectrum? A Wesleyan (literally) and a deist both making the same identical point, that God would not have species go extinct.
 
GRM: Since I didn't ask this question, I really don't care where the idea goes to at this point in time.
 
 
 These concerns cut across the spectrum and they can be found in a great many thinkers, from the highly influential to the more obscure. So when Darwin made his powerful arguments for evolution he was drawing from a rich tradition.
 
So while we have no idea how protein synthesis or the human brain could have evolved, they must have evolved.
 
GRM: This is totally non-responsive. I didn't ask or talk about protein synthesis. I spoke of the fossil record. If you can't respond to simple questions without wandering around the landscape, conversations will be very difficult.
 
 
Evolution is a fact, the scientific details are the theory of how it happens. All those many evidential problems are really research problems, which reflect our current lack of understanding. Our science has not caught up with the truth.
 
GRM: Wait a minute. You are now saying what you complained about when Pim said it. YOu are saying "You may appeal to what we may find out someday. That is not falsifiable." Isn't it a bit hypocritical to complain to Pim that he is waiting for future discoveries to support his views and then ask for future discoveries to support your views? Come on, at least be consistent in your argumentation.
 
You are making powerful theological arguments and I don't hold out much hope that I could soften your theological convictions. I can talk science, but I find religious convictions to be rigid and hence theological discussions to be less satisfying and fruitful.
 
GRM: In otherwords, you can't answer my scientific question about why the species have turned over and what that means in an ID perspective. You are a slippery soap salesman. You come on and chide the evolutionists for not dealing with data and then when confronted with data, you slip slide away, as that old Paul Simon song says.
 
 
Rather than answer your questions about why God would take so long, allow extinctions, etc., I would prefer, for the sake of argument, to agree with you. Given your beliefs, which are popularly held to, evolution is a fact.
 
GRM: You seem to forget that I was once a young-earth creationist. What I am asking for is a rational explanation of scientific fact--all the fossils in ancient rocks are different. IF evolution didn't do it, what did do it? How did it happen. You can't seem to explain why it is better for God to directely create multiple biospheres rather than directly creating the one we see. You can't seem to defend the gaping holes in your arguments against evolution. You say evolution is false because the data doesn't support it but when faced with the FACT that all fossil forms have changed, you retreat and claim that you can't explain anything. How hypocritical of you. Cryogenic Cornelius slids away on the ice beneath his feet. You can't explain why the the fossils are different or how that impacts theology, then shame on you for acting as if the evolutionist is avoiding data. I think you can dish it out but you can't take it. Cowardly is what I call that. Sorry, but I find such
 hypocrisy to be consistent and steady among the anti-evolutionists. They always go silent and slip away when faced with actual data.
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Glenn Morton
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: Stereotypes and reputations

Cornelius Hunter wrote:

>Unfortunately this is always the explanation, and it makes common descent
>unfalsifiable. With every problem, one hears, "well, that doesn't mean the theory is
>wrong." So here we have all kinds of incongruities -- phylogenetic mismatches
>abounding. Non homologous development patterns that make utterly no sense on
>common descent. Detailed designs evolving independently over and over.

And what I find utterly lacking on the part of ID and YEC is a coherent and credible explanation of why the species of life on earth have utterly changed many times over. If you look at the fossil record, you don't see what one would expect from reading the Biblical account. The problem is that only evolution actually explains the complete and total change of species over time. The oldest fossil of a living mammalian species is upper Miocene--around 7 million years ago. Prior to that, not a single living mammalian species can be found as a fossil. And if one goes further back one finds that every 7-15 million years the entire set of species rolls over--an entirely new set of species. This continues back through time for hundreds of millions of years.

Can you please explain why this continuing total change of fauna over time occurs? The average lifespan of a mammalian species is 3 million years. (Steven M. Stanley, "Evolution of LIfe: Evidence for a New Pattern", Great Ideas Today, 1983, (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica,) p. 11)

The Bible gives us no hint of why this happens so anything you say is totally extrabiblical. Some ID folks have said that God was preparing the world for us. If you hold this view, please explain why Man couldn't have eaten trilobites? Why did God require 200 million years for plants to appear on land? Why did God then require another 100 million before complex life to appear? What was he waiting for? Why did his genetic tinkerings take so long? Evolution fits that kind of time scale much better than have a very very slow acting God. Why couldn't mankind have appeared on earth in the Late Paleozoic--240 million years ago? What exactly was God waiting for? When you do explain this, please explain God's reasoning for this species change as well.

---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
                
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Received on Sun Jul 31 17:56:50 2005