(Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – The Birdlike Reptile
With the recent discovery of Ida, also known as Darwinius masillae, it was only a matter of time before Ray Comfort got on the case and started spouting his usual rubbish. The cartoon provided with the post is rather amusing, and also quite ironic. There are no doubts that Ida is “definitely ape”, but then there are also no doubts that homo sapiens are “definitely ape” either! You only make this kind of statement if you believe (as Ray does) that apes and humans are completely different “kinds” and not related to one another.
Ray responds to a commenter’s challenge to come up with characteristics that one would “expect to see in a transitional reptile/avian fossil?” by dismissing the question outright, claiming that such thinking is mere “speculation”. Well of course it is speculation in Ray’s eyes! We know he doesn’t accept the theory, so any hypothetical question about the theory is going to be speculation for him. The point was for Ray to imagine a world where evolution were true, and then imagine what characteristics he would expect to see in a transitional fossil. It’s a very easy question, and it’s actually how science works. We come up with a hypothesis: “I think twins can communicate telepathically with one another”, and then make some predictions which are speculations based on the idea that the hypothesis is true: “If my hypothesis is true, then twins under controlled conditions should be able to communicate”. We then do experiments, and if the prediction remains true throughout the experiments, we are able to confirm the hypothesis. Ray’s rejection of the question is just evidence that he rejects science, yet he claims in his post: “I believe in true science, not in the pseudo-science of evolution.”. No Ray, you do not believe in true science. One cannot believe in true science and yet reject outright the scientific method.
I think another tell-tale sign of Ray’s rejection is this statement:
I have said that there is no scientific evidence of any species “evolving” into another species. That’s the evidence that is still missing.
Of course, the evidence is not missing, and every time we show it to Ray, he simply rejects it. He has said on his own blog that there is no evidence that would convince him of evolution, since evolution contradicts the Holy Bible. This kind of closed-mindedness reveals Ray as the hypocrite he is; always asking for evidence but never accepting any of it because of his presuppositions.
You have your own definition of evolution, but ask the average person on the street what they believe it is, and they will say that Darwin said that man evolved from primates–that our great, great, great grandfather was an ape.
The definition of something is based off the people who know the most about it, not the “average” person on the street. The average person on the street in countries like Sweden thinks that Christianity is ridiculous; does that define Christianity as ridiculous for you Ray? Darwin never stated that our great, great, great, grandfathers were apes; only creationists did that. It is not surprising that people disbelieve in the theory when most people are taught complete lies about it.
You believe in a common ancestor (like a branch on a tree of common descent), they don’t. They believe we are direct ancestors. That we are apes.
The common ancestor of modern apes and humans was (not surprisingly) an ape. We are direct descendants of these ancient apes, just as modern apes are. We are not direct descendants of modern apes. Just in the way both myself and my cousins are direct descendants of my grandmother, but not of each other. The only difference is that with evolution, it takes much longer than 2 generations.
It is very clear that there is no empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution.
Fossils aren’t the only empirical evidence. Now that we know how DNA functions, we can see evolution in action. We have told you this, but you never listen. My only hopes are that some of your followers will read this and explore science for themselves, and hopefully rid themselves of your lies and misinformation.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8465be0c-7938-48e9-975c-b86c8fcb5a6b)
Contact Adrian Hayter
My Facebook
My Atheist Nexus Page
My Twitter
My Reddit
My Atheist Spot
My FriendFeed
My Technorati
Atheist Forums
Loading ...
I don't question your sincerity in your knowledge of evolution. I can see you are very knowledgeable about evolution. I think it is reasonable to say, however, that macro evolution does not exist. I say that because our ancestors would have been less intelligent that us, and they would have been less efficient in their brain. So their DNA over time would have to some how gain more information in order to upgrade to a more efficient species and most likely gain more DNA stands in their system from another place somehow. That doesn't sound probable from the science point of view.
Like fossils. I found a fossil in the Missouri river when I was a child and I still have it. I like dinosaurs and the study of them. I have been to science museums where there were fossils. I cannot say that I can explain why they existed when the Bible does not mention them. I can only say that there was a flood a long time ago and that is probably why they died. I think it would be silly to not believe in God just because I didn't understand why dinosaurs roamed the earth.
I don't know a lot of things. I don't have a lot of knowledge but I do know God exists because of the earth we live on. And all of the prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled up to this day so when the Bible says there is a God, I know their is one. The Bible's track record of fulfilled prophecy is 100%.
Heh. I remember once when I was a kid, watching "Bill Nye the Science Guy," and he talked about species evolving. I asked my grandmother what "evolve" meant and she said that it was "evolution" which was a lie from the devil. Then she told me that one day my science teacher was going to try to tell me that people came from monkeys, and that I should just remember that it was a lie.
Of course, she also taught me to figure things out for myself, so luckily I eventually figured out that "evolution" as Christians see it and "the theory of evolution" are two completely different concepts that–aside from being mistaken for one another–have nothing in common.
Damn it. I just went and did exactly what I spent three paragraphs berrating you for doing. Meh. Okay, so let me re-phrase. I eventually figured out that "evolution" as my grandmother had understood it and "the theory of evolution" are two completely different concepts. Sheesh. I can't believe I did that. My apologies.
Erm…no, not at all. Our ancestors were less intelligent than us, but that was by no means a necessity. As for gaining information, you are correct, and it happens all the time. We've seen it happening in nature as well as in the lab. Mutations that increase the information in the genome are commonplace.
Evidence / Examples please.
any fully formed animal is a sad excuse for a transitional fossil. Given that evolution is assumed to work in small changes over many generations, then every aspect of every aspect of a creature would go through these changes… and the majority of the changes would not be beneficial (a limb / an eye.. or any other development could not in all cases be useful to survival at all stages) This one mutation.. were it say a 'stump'.. which formed over a long period into an arm would need to carry on in the population as if it were an asset of some kind.. it would have to do so for a lengthy number of modifications until it was actually useful. First off this goes contrary to natural selection.. Second natural selection makes the assumption that simply because something is an inferior design.. that the species will fail.. not at all – we should see examples of evolutions failures still holding on for survival (please spare me the references to ken hovind or myself as examples – I'd prefer rational criticism) Considering we have had 100's of millions of years these examples should be overwhelming. But back to transitional fossils.
A true transitional form would be like those I've described.. something that is clearly 'in the process' of change.. something which is not of perfect functional use in this in between stage. Considering also that over these millions of years.. the only benefactor for these changes is random mutation it would imply that there would be innumerable attempts at an improvement before success. This compounds the fossil issue. There should not only be fossils of these in between stages of new limbs – there should ALSO be near limitless fossils of all the failures of evolution.. it's random after all.. and so that would mean animals forming a stump of an arm from it's back.. or what have you… and considering this wouldn't necessarily be detrimental to survival.. there should be living specimens as well.
There would be not only vast numbers of random failures in the record.. there would be living versions as well… A transitional fossil is not one that is fully functional.
As far as the lack of fossils.. and the arguments of 'we just haven't found them yet'… the fossil record is incredibly robust.. it is not lacking. If you keep my points in mind… do you really feel that our fossil record which shows nothing but fully formed variations of creatures is in any way descriptive of what would be the presumed result of the random mechanism of evolution?
How many tries does it take evolution to create a stick bug?.. it after all doesn't know what it is trying for… only what worked in hindsight… – so how many stick bugs mistakes in pear shape or what have you would need to happen before evolution succeeded? Would all of those attempts definitely die out simply from poor design? Where are the examples?
You are mistaking evolution for progress. Evolution does not progress in any particular direction, it simply means the change in life over time. Sometimes these changes are beneficial and those creatures are capable of propagating more. Sometimes they're simply changes.
You could think of it this way. After Taiwan broke away from China, China switched to simplified Chinese characters, but since Taiwan wasn't part of China it stuck with the traditional Chinese characters. Since then their pronunciation and words for certain things have also changed. At some point in the future their language may have changed so much that Taiwanese will be its on separate language. But right now, can you truly say "their language is not transitional because it is fully formed"? Do we even know what form that new language will be in when it progresses to the point where it's a separate language? That would be just silly. Their language currently has all the attributes of being a language, we're simply acknowledging the potential, and fact that it will change.
Clearly language is in the process of change. Therefore it's transitional. Life is also changing, therefore transitional. It's called a transitional fossil only because it shows life as it was in the process of changing. And yes, in that sense everything is a transitional fossil. Ida just happens to be in a state of transition that would happen to give rise to other primates.
To address the example of the stick insect…
It need not lead to a fully perfected beneficial trait. Say you have a neon pink bug and a brown bug, not exactly camouflaged, but still closer in colour to the sticks common in its environment. The brown bug already has a survival advantage. From this point there is great potential for contingency meaning there are many possible outcomes. Stick insects just happen to have accidentally acquired mutations which took them along that particular path of evolution.
With small changes you do not need to be so lucky as to have a fully formed stick-body conferred upon you by infinitely improbable big changes. All you need is contingency, time, and to stop viewing evolution as a progressive thing.