Re: THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION
  Home FAQ Contact Sign in
alt.philosophy only
 
Advanced search
POPULAR GROUPS

more...

 Up
Re: THE FOSSIL RECORD REFUTES EVOLUTION         

Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: Malrassic Park
Date: Sep 16, 2008 18:32

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:59:52 -0700 (PDT), Hamady
gmail.com> wrote:
>http://scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php
>According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged
>from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into
>something else over time and all species have come into being in this
>way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually
>over millions of years.
>
>If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should
>have lived during the immense period of time when these
>transformations were supposedly occurring.

See "Origin of Species," Chapter 2, Variation Under Nature, where this
very topic was dispensed with by Darwin himself.

You have neglected to distinguish between a species, a variety, and a
race. You have also neglected to mention man's limited ability to
distinguish species, as well as the limitations of the fossil record.
Even if every fossil of every creature that ever lived were available
for examination it would be impossible to make anything but brute
comparisons. Remember that these are only fossils. The fossil record
itself, even if complete (which it is not), can never be used to
determine these fine gradations which your theory demands. And even
among living examples it is often impossible to tell the difference
between species, varieties, and races, as in "is example X a variety
of a species of butterfly, or is it a species in its own right?"

It's not that biologists don't know what a species is by definition -
and it is obvious that you do not. However, even with this knowledge
that you so obviously lack, it is difficult to determine, in reality,
if a specific example conforms to the definition of "species" relative
to other, similar examples. Therefore you are in no epistemological
position to judge Darwinism.

Furthermore, some actual knowledge of Darwin's theory would prevent
you from wasting your time chasing down dead-end streets which have
long since been explored.
--

" If I had remembered that the name 'Galt' appears
in one of her books, I would have chosen a different
name for my character."

Stephen R. Donaldson, "Gradual Interview"
no comments
diggit! del.icio.us! reddit!

RELATED THREADS
SubjectArticles qty Group
Re: Why are fossils important to evolution?sci.anthropology ·