Movie Review: Expelled
posted at 3:00 pm on April 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
While at CPAC in February, I had an opportunity to attend an advance screening of the new documentary, Expelled: The Movie. Ben Stein focuses on a perceived lack of intellectual freedom afforded to those who either believe in or investigate Intelligent Design theories in the scientific community. I wrote the following review at the time; the producers may have made some changes since, but I don’t believe it would change the thrust of my review. I plan on seeing the theatrical release this weekend, and would recommend it to everyone as at least a way to discuss the values and limitations of scientific inquiry and intellectual openness in American Academia.
The bloggers at CPAC received an invitation to screen a new documentary on academic intolerance called Expelled: The Movie this evening. The documentary features Ben Stein on a quest to understand the near-hysteria caused by scientists who so much as broach the idea of intelligent design in papers or in research. It follows Stein as he interviews professors denied tenure, editors fired, and journalists shunned for touching the subject even at its most innocuous levels.
Before discussing my feelings about the film, which is still in post-production and will not go into release until April, I should explain my approach to the ID/evolution debate. I believe evolution is demonstrably proven in enough examples to say that its effect on variation in species cannot be denied. The example I used tonight in discussing this with another viewer (certainly not the only example) is antibiotic effects on bacteria. Antibiotics that kill 99% of bacteria eventually promote the survival and the expansion of the 1% that resist them, created superbacteria that require another set of antibiotics to cure, and so on.
That said, evolution does not interfere with my faith in God. God certainly could have created the universe with a design that included life. The rational laws of nature would include evolution, as well as the myriad of other rational and mathematically provable mechanisms that undergird nature. In fact, the impulse of man to discover the rational laws of nature began with the belief in a rational God, as scientists understood nature’s rationality to reveal an intelligent Creator.
I’d go deeper than that, but Dinesh D’Souza covers it nicely enough already in his book What’s So Great About Christianity, and it’s getting late enough as it is. Suffice it to say that evolution doesn’t present a threat to my worldview.
Rationally, we have to admit that some use ID as an excuse to teach the more literal form of Creationism that has been used to argue against evolution entirely, especially against teaching evolution in primary-school classrooms. That admission does not appear in Expelled, which is a glaring omission. It tends to take out of context the frustration some scientists have about ID, and its place in polarizing the debate over its use. Properly framed, ID accepts all of the science without accepting its transformation into its own belief system.
What do I mean by that? In this, the film does an excellent job of demonstrating atheism as a belief system. Atheism as represented by Richard Dawkings and others in this film gets exposed as exactly the kind of belief system they claim to despise. They can’t prove God exists — and they can’t prove God doesn’t exist. They make the common fallacy of arguing that absence of evidence amounts to evidence of absence.
But in a way, this is all secondary to the real issue of the film: academic intolerance. The debate over ID vs Darwinism sets the table for a truly disturbing look at academia. Science should be about the free debate and research of ideas and hypotheses for duplicable results and provable theorems. However, as the examples Stein and the film provide amply show, the Darwinist academic establishment will brook no dissent from the orthodoxy — and scientists have to be shown with hidden faces to speak to the issue for the film.
Amusingly, Stein asks people how the first cell came to be. None of the scientists could give him a straight answer. Dawkins himself admits he doesn’t know and that no one else does, either — but postulates that aliens could have brought life to this planet, and then postulates that another alien civilization could have brought life to that planet, and so on. He then concedes that one entity could have been the original source … but insists that entity could not possibly have been God. For this he gives absolutely no evidence at all, relegating it as a belief system somewhat akin to Scientology.
All of this is extremely effective, as are the many allusions made to the Berlin Wall during the film. The theme runs throughout, and it explicitly refers to the defensive academic establishment as having built a wall that tramples on freedom of thought and discourse. Less effective is the heavy references to the Nazis in the movie. Although emotionally affecting for some obvious reasons, the fact is that while the Nazis were mostly Darwinists (along with a lot of other things), the vast majority of Darwinists aren’t Nazis. Certainly the eugenicists in Nazi Germany were mightily influenced by Darwinism, but America had its own eugenicists, which the film points out.
I should point out that the film has not finished production, and that changes will be made between now and its release in April. The filmmakers just completed an interview with Christopher Hitchens and will include it in the final cut. I believe other changes may be made which could address some of the criticisms I’ve written here.
Overall, though, the film presents a powerful argument not for intelligent design as much as for the freedom of scientific inquiry. If scientists get punished for challenging orthodoxy, we will not expand our learning but ossify it in concrete. Expelled: The Movie is entertaining, maddening, funny, and provocative, and well worth your time.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 … 24 »
Isn’t that the type of story Al Gore has been peddling for years now?
Ian on April 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Not all adherents to Darwinian theories are atheists. Natural selection and common descent don’t require a position on the origin of the universe or whether the evolution of life on earth was conceived of and put into motion by a creator.
Darwin’s theories continue to be useful for sciences that didn’t even exist 150 years ago, but they don’t tell us anything about why we are here, our relationship with our creator, or life beyond death.
If some try to use Darwin’s theories to “prove” that God doesn’t exist, that is folly and not science.
dedalus on April 19, 2008 at 2:07 PM
And this.
And this.
Saw it last night. It was awesome.
I was shocked to find it playing in almost every theater around here, and delighted it was sold out. Lively audience, too, laughing and cheering and applauding. Fantastic.
shibumiglass on April 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM
If evolution was the mechanism by which God used to create the universe and all the stuff in it, why do all the adherents of evolution not believe in God?
Jewel on April 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Amen. That bears repeating. The founding of the United States of America is unique among all nations.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM
I thought I saw where Morgan Freeman instigated the whole thing.
Not sure how Noah would have gotten the species that were unique to places like Australia, provided for their diet and climate. Not sure how he would have pumped all the waste matter out of the boat from below the water line. Also, assuming Noah and his family could have fed approximately 20,000 pairs of animals everyday for 40 days my guess is the carnivores would have worked their way through many of the species once the flood was over.
dedalus on April 19, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Welll…if it DID happen, then the only only humans who agreed with you before the Flood are all dead. And only the ones who believed it lived to reproduce.
IOW, who are the loons NOW sucka, or aka natural selection in action I guess. Ya gotta make these questions harder, yer killing us.
inviolet on April 19, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Don’t look now, but evolution starts with a precondition as well. Many are the examples where scientists have literally “made up” theories to satisfy the precondition of evolution.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Yes I’m kidding. Lighten up and get out and enjoy the sunshine. It’s a beautiful day here in my city! How’s the weather other places?
inviolet on April 19, 2008 at 2:19 PM
You’re one of those that thinks the Pope doesn’t believe in God?
exception on April 19, 2008 at 2:21 PM
This is amateurish. You haven’t even begun to think about this. Did it ever occur to you that Australia didn’t exist back then? It’s very likely that continents were re-formed as the waters receded.
As far as provisions for the journey, you haven’t thought that through either. Since it took Noah 120 years to build the ark, do you think it possible that he had the time to stock it with food and supplies? Furthermore, do you not realize that animals give birth? They very likely had plenty to eat.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Many do believe in God. Understanding the mechanisms doesn’t need to diminish the reverence for God anymore than understanding embryology would necessarily diminish the love of a child.
dedalus on April 19, 2008 at 2:23 PM
If you think about “ring species”, you can see how subspecies drift. Through isolation or that subspecies’ breeding link to the ring dying off or moving, one subspecies could separate from the ring species. Over the course of millions of years, all mutations will be specific to that genus and it would become its own species.
Buddahpundit on April 19, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Brilliant scientific observation, so full of evidence. I guess I should counter with equal logic:
Can’t we at least agree that anybody who believes the story that the universe exploded into being from nothing, that life itself arose from nothing all by itself, that DNA was written and rewritten millions upon billions of times despite the mathematical impossibility, resulting in such amazing events such as reptiles evolving into birds, that man evolved from amoeba originally crawling around in sludge, is a certifiable loon?
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I don’t see why - when someone says they believe in natural selection - some people seem to be ready to say they aren’t God believing people.
Seriously, God doesn’t have to control every tiny little thing every moment of every day, to always be present. One of the interesting things about Christianity is free will. If God was great enough to give us that, why do we think he has meddled in everything on earth? Doesn’t Christianity speak more of a loving God that lets us choose and make our own mistakes and learn than one who is tweaking stuff?
I have always believed God created scicene; he created the universe, set its laws, then put it in motion.
It is human hubris to think that since we don’t have all the answers now, “God did it”. Likewise, it is arrogant to think that because we have some answers, there is no God.
linlithgow on April 19, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 2:33 PM
I give you an A for effort in straddling the fence, but seriously, it is not hubris. The Bible has plenty to say about this.
Yes, God gives us free will, but you and I only draw our next breath because He allows it. Think of how you and I live our lives - every time you or I do something we know is wrong, or something we don’t know is wrong, God keeps us breathing and living and moving so that we can do it. Only through His mercy do we even continue to exist.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 2:36 PM
It didn’t occur to me that Australia or the Americas didn’t exist 5,000 years ago. Is there some evidence of this?
120 years doesn’t help with food supplies if you don’t have a means to preserve them.
Also, let me know if you believe Noah had an early version of Archimedes Screw that disappeared for a few thousand years after Noah used it.
dedalus on April 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM
You do all understand that there is more debate going on here at HotAir than there is in all of the academic community, right?
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 2:41 PM
i have a question…
regarding “young earth”. if the earth is very young, how does that fit with the observed time it has taken for light to reach us from way across space? meaning, if the earth is less than 10000 yrs old, how can we see things greater than 10000 light yrs away?
i could probably google around for some explanation, but i figure w/ so many people well versed in these questions right here on HA, i’d just chuck it out on the water to see what kind of action it stirs up…
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 2:42 PM
yes actually. good observation…
i think someone even made a movie about that topic.
anyone heard of it?
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 2:45 PM
I was going to mention that last night, but it seemed premature :)
RushBaby on April 19, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Does not compute
e-pirate on April 19, 2008 at 2:56 PM
TheCulturalist: Still got a book or two available?
RushBaby on April 19, 2008 at 2:58 PM
ummmm.. pardon my densiocity, but i’m not sure what u mean.
i’ll have another cuppa joe and see if the light comes on
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Sorry, I got you confused with someone else, then. :)
RushBaby on April 19, 2008 at 3:08 PM
no prob
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Chesterton (a Brit) once said that the United States is the only nation founded on a creed.
Rosmerta on April 19, 2008 at 3:28 PM
I do not agree.
It is God’s love that made me, and God’s grace that gives me the free will to accept Him or not. God doesn’t stand over me with a scimitar ready to strike a blow if I transgress. He weeps when I sin, but loves me anyway.
That’s not to say that prayer and asking for intercession don’t have any effect. I think God listens but he doesn’t control.
God didn’t make the computer I am typing this on, but he set up the Laws of nature that allowed our universe to develop, for elements to form, that eventually led to the creation of the Earth, that was the bed for life to form and evolve, which led to an extremely intelligent species (us), who eventually devised and was able to mass produce the personal computer.
So God didn’t make the computer, but he devised the building blocks to make it possible. I think there is a specific difference. He is the starting point, the genesis for it all, so in that sense it is from Him, but I don’t believe He plopped us down in the middle of this world, fully formed. I think God is far too creative for such a rough solution. God is precise, neat, tidy, imaginative and infinitely intelligent.
Science isn’t perfect, but what you’re attempting to do with your comments about scientists making up theories crashes the entire party and means denying the things science has been right about.
If God just made us as we are now, there are some complications that for me don’t fall out neatly. Why is it that we have different blood types? Why is it that not everyone can donate an organ to another person? Why is it that there are diseases like sickle cell anaemia that strongly affect some ethnic groups but others not so much? Why is it diseases - everything from cancer to Alzheimer’s to heart disease - tend to run in families?
It’s hard to see how you can have your genetic cake on this and eat it too. It seems as if ID proponents embrace genes and heredity on one level, but only in a limited way, up to a certain point. Personally I think the laws of nature governing our lives are elegant and complex, and I don’t see how they dishonour God.
I appreciate everyone’s point of view, I am just sharing mine.
linlithgow on April 19, 2008 at 3:39 PM
If you believe the creation view - it would mean the universe was created “with age”. Meaning that just as God created Adam and Eve as adults, he created the universe to be at an age where the light would have been reaching Earth. Note the difference of when light was created and when the sun/moon/stars was created. Also the vast physics that control the universe and keep it in its paths also had to be created with age to prevent total destruction of the universe. Note: everything in the physical world devolves to chaos without a force to improve or hold steady. IMO
Corsair on April 19, 2008 at 3:49 PM
You will definitely find this article very interesting. Big Bang proponents have an even bigger problem reconciling light-travel with their theory than do creationists.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 3:54 PM
You can think whatever you want, but your post is contrary to the Bible.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 3:55 PM
OT, but I think the reference was to Tom Baker, the longest (and 4th) Doctor.
William Hartnell - white haired old guy
Patrick Troughton - dark hair, looked like one of the 3 Stooges, irascible
Jon Pertwee - poofy white hair, dressed slightly Victorian, good friends with the Brigadier
Tom Baker - curly mop of brown hair, long scarf and coat, ate Jelly Babies
Peter Davison - wore a sweater vest under a jacket, had a carrot
Then there was Colin Baker and Sylvester McCoy, but I really didn’t watch much after Davison (and never watched much Troughton or Hartnell). =)
linlithgow on April 19, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Actually, its contrary to your interpretation of the Bible. I don’t think any of us here can claim to be the final arbiter on the Bible’s meanings and allegories, do you?
linlithgow on April 19, 2008 at 3:58 PM
So what?
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Ok, make your case USING SCRIPTURE, not ad hominem attacks. Show me USING SCRIPTURE how my interpretation is wrong.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 4:00 PM
I so enjoyed reading many of the comments. The reason I waited so long to join the fray is that any discussion about Evo vs Cre always ends up being an argument and not a discussion. There is evidence that can be quoted to show either argument, but no proof. Either argument requires a “leap of faith” to believe and fill in the missing information.
People will believe what they will believe.
Corsair on April 19, 2008 at 4:00 PM
yes, Tom Baker, that’s the one
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 4:01 PM
You are correct, but it bears mentioning that there is a real debate going on here, and it’s not allowed in our schools. Students MUST be forced to accept evolution as FACT.
fossten on April 19, 2008 at 4:04 PM
Bingo and Bingo!
davenp35 on April 19, 2008 at 4:07 PM
thanks for the link, it’s interesting.
perhaps the new SC they just fired up at CERN will shed additional light on the subject
TheCulturalist on April 19, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Natural Selection and Common Descent are scientific theories. Students also need to be taught what a scientific theory is–neither a fact nor just speculation.
dedalus on April 19, 2008 at 4:13 PM
No, it is not called “plagiarism” you silly goose as no one with a brain and a clue could have though that what I put after On the other hand, there is Punctuated Equilibrium: was something that I was trying to pass off as my own words.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 4:15 PM
Amen brothers - or sister if thats what you are.
But I disagree with your statement that they must accept evo as fact. They must give the right answers on the tests, but nobody can force you to believe. I teach my children Creation at home and will until child protective services decides that my religion is authoritarian and tries to take them by force. After that I will be dead and it won’t matter.
Corsair on April 19, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Hmm… I don’t see the ad hominem attack in my post.
Since we are imperfect humans, I don’t think any of us can claim to know the mind or intentions of God.
Ergo, I don’t think anyone - not you or I - should or could claim to be the final judge.
I also don’t believe the importance of the Bible is locked into a specific word or words, (I don’t even know how many versions there are out there), but in what it is; God’s message to us and the revelation of His son.
It’s fine if people want to say “the Bible says the Earth was built in 6 days” (for example), and feel that it literally was 24 six hour days - I don’t care if someone thinks that, honestly - but I’m not that person and haven’t claimed to be.
I love God, He knows that, and I don’t see the point of having to pass your Biblical litmus test.
I was expressing the way I see things and the problem I have with ID, and suddenly it’s a scriptural pissing contest.
linlithgow on April 19, 2008 at 4:22 PM
He took a hundred pounds of clay
And then He said Hey, listen
Im gonna fix this-a world today
Because I know whats missin
Then He rolled his big sleeves up
And a brand-new world began
He created a woman and-a lots of lovin for a man
Whoa-oh-oh, yes he did
With just a hundred pounds of clay
He made my life worth livin
And I will thank Him every day
For every kiss youre givin
And I’ll thank Him every night
For the arms that are holdin me tight
And He did it all with just a hundred pounds of clay
Yes he did, whoa-oh, yes He did
Now cantcha just see Him a-walkin round and round
Pickin the clay uppa off the ground?
Doin just what He should do
To make a livin dream like you
He rolled His big sleeves up
And a brand-new world began
He created a woman and-a lots of lovin for a man
Whoa-oh-oh, yes he did
With just a hundred pounds of clay
FADE
People, let me tall ya what He did
With just a hundred pounds of clay
windansea on April 19, 2008 at 4:28 PM
A God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell — mouths mercy, and invented hell — mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man’s acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!
- Mark Twain (From the Mysterious Stranger)
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Let me guess. You are a Calvinist.
Don’t let him ruffle your feathers. Calvinists are the pit-bulls of the Protestant reformation. My collie is a Calvinist. That’s why I keep him around. I watched him tear a Muslim extremist to shreads the other day. I think he actually enjoyed it.
As for you fossten, you have demanded scripture. Fine. I won’t waste my time, there are those that are much more articulate than me (and I’m not talkin’ about SnObama here).
If you don’t want to be like the academic Nazis that shove evolution down everyone’s throat, then stop behaving like them. If you are willing to keep an open mind about things, I suggest that you read one or more of these:
The Dark Side of Calvinism:The Calvinist Caste System
by George Bryson
Arminian Theology:Myths and Realities
by Roger E. Olson
Why I Am Not A Calvinist
by Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell
My collie says:
You’re not foolin’ me. Calvinists can’t read.
So. Rather than waste everyone’s time posting Bible verses at HotAir — methinks it would be more productive if all parties simply did some outside reading. I guarantee you that Bryson’s book and Olsen book have plenty of scripture references. If you are nice to me, I might even take the time to post my own take on this whole issue.
CyberCipher on April 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Yes, quite easily, but alas it would seem that you, even with what was perhaps great effort on your part, do not.
Like JFK said, life is unfair.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 4:50 PM
TheCulturalist.
This may help your question re. light years:
In addition to knowing that the speed of light is not constant and used to be much faster…let’s see what God has to say about the subject..
God says numerous times that He spreadeth out the heavens at creation.
He also says that in the end days He will roll them up like a scroll.
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Waaahh!
Why do bad things happen to good people?
Waaahh!
My collie says:
Yes. That’s right. We are mocking you. Not only that, but my collie relieves himself on your front lawn.
Go ahead. Mess with me. I’ll turn the Calvinists loose on you.
(Who let the dogs out? Who? Who? Who? Who?Who?)
CyberCipher on April 19, 2008 at 5:03 PM
CyberCipher on April 19, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I see nothing wrong with quoting Scripture.
Your collie says:
Who said collies were only good for herding sheep?
SaintOlaf on April 19, 2008 at 5:09 PM
I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but your “pee-pee collie” is no match for Mark Twain. Never has been, never will be.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 5:13 PM
You and your “pee-pee collie” mock Mark Twain?
lol.
You are like “opponents” bringing pee-pee to a gun fight.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Let me just clue you in here. Now you can attribute it to “Intelligent Design” or you can attribute it to evolution, take your pick, but in the scheme of things Mark Twain is the mocker and you and your “collie” are the mockies.
MB4 on April 19, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Thanks CyberCipher.
I wish instead of demanding I quote scripture like a trained pet in order to prove my worthiness, he had address my questions about disease and heredity and my perception that ID-ers are defenestrating all of science. I’m honestly curious about that.
Piltdown man being a hoax doesn’t prove ID. Humans make mistakes and lie and cheat but does that make the alternative, overarching government, the answer? No. Providing an example of failure in one or a few instances doesn’t mean that the alternative is nice and pretty and somehow valid.
I also don’t see how saying man is flawed and can’t know the mind of God is so offensive. Isn’t it true?
linlithgow on April 19, 2008 at 5:27 PM
What a splendid quote. I just ordered the book from Audible. Thanks!
RushBaby on April 19, 2008 at 5:29 PM
My collie says:
Well, he DID say that the coldest winter that he ever experienced was the summer that he spent in Seattle.
My collie says:
I guess that makes Samuel Clemens a gamma male, then.
CyberCipher on April 19, 2008 at 5:32 PM
How is that you think the alternative to believing evolution is “overarching government”? Our country was founded by Bible-believing men. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written by Bible-believing men. The very freedoms you enjoy were established and fought for by Bible-believing men. Now, Bible-believing men are merely asking for open debate and honest science. Nothing more, nothing less.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 5:33 PM
Me neither. I’m just too lazy to type.
My collie says:
See. I told you he’s a Calvinist.
CyberCipher on April 19, 2008 at 5:45 PM
Mark Twain sounds like a liberal. It is called personal responsibility.
Johan Klaus on April 19, 2008 at 5:58 PM
Anyone who believes in intelligent design is and IDiot and doesn’t belong in academia.
Case closed.
B26354 on April 19, 2008 at 6:11 PM
Ed, say it isn’t so. You believe in evilution?? Oh man, well, for the record, I do agree with you on several issues. For instance, I like how you stand up for Israel and are critical of the UN. Full marks to you on that! Excellent. Excellent! EXCELLENT! And you sound like a nice guy with a great sense of humour — contagious laugh (smiles). But, on this one, um, nothing personal, but, uh, I’m going to have to be very critical. Evolution is a fairytale for grown-ups dude. It’s a make-believe story. I have no reason to lie to you. It is one of the dumbest ideas in the history of man and science. Look, if I told you, if you kiss a frog, it will turn into a prince, you would say, “No, apacalyps, frogs do not turn to princes.” Oh, but in the textbooks it does. Yes boys and girls, we start off with an amoeba and over billions of years, it slowly turns to a frog. And over a few more million years it turns into a prince. Same fairy tale, frog to prince, but all you did was add the magic ingredient called billions and billions of years. You cannot test this, demonstrate it, prove it; you can only believe it. It is a religion man, it’s not part of a science. Science are things that are observable, testable and provable. Look, you can believe whatever you want, and I mean no offense, but there is ZERO proof for evolution. NONE. ZILCH. NADA. Watch this short video at your liesure. What Darwin Didn’t know
apacalyps on April 19, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Ed, bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not an argument for evolution. Case in point: Say you have a million microbes put forth for complete annihilation by a new drug, and suppose 10 of them survived through a resistance. Now, those microbes continue to multiply and each successive strain is now resistant. What just happened. Was it evolution? Absolutely not! The microbes in this case simply survived by rearranging the known information that already existed. The information was already present in that creature for the variation. That isn’t evolution. They are still the same kind of microbe — it’s not anything different. Antibiotic resistance existed well before the introduction of antibiotics. They recovered bacteria from the frozen bodies of some early Arctic explorers who died in 1845. The bacteria were taken from their colons in 1988, carefully cultured and exposed to modern antibiotics. Many were found to be resistant to the most powerful modern antibiotics, proving that such resistance was present ahead of time and has not “evolved” as a response to new selective pressures. (See R. McQuire, “Eerie: human Arctic fossils yield resistant bacteria,” Medical Tribune, 12/29/1988, pp. 1, 23.) And another major factor evolutionists don’t like admitting, when you get done going through this resistance phase, you’re now left with a limited gene pool. The bacteria are resistant, but the survivors carry less information. What you have left is microbes that are resistant to a particular antibiotic, but the genetic information is very limited from the original grandpa microbe. So it’s not going to help the species anywhere. What do you think a Chihuahua is? It’s simply a dog with a loss of gentic information from the original kind of dog. Introduce it to the wild though, see how long it lives. It’ll die or get eaten pretty quick. Ed, variations do happen and are observable but stay within their kind, somehow you’ve been tricked into believing that this goes on forever and that there are no limits to these “evolutions”. These are only variations within the same kind of creature, not evolution. They are still the same “kind” of animal. Bacterial resistance is not evidence for evolution. My prayers will be for you that you will realize this.
apacalyps on April 19, 2008 at 6:24 PM
B26354 on April 19, 2008 at 6:11 PM
How do you feel about global warming?
Johan Klaus on April 19, 2008 at 6:26 PM
PS — Oh, yeah, the other thing: When people say they believe in evolution ask them what they mean, because this word evolved is a very tricky word. They think it’s just animals evolving. LOL. There are six different meanings to the word. Okay. Since you believe in evolution I must ask you, “What do you mean? Which meaning are you talking about?” Are you talking about Cosmic evolution which is the origin of time, space and matter? Or do you…. which meaning are you talking about?
The subcategories are as follows:
1. Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
2. Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution - Origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution - Origin of life from inanimate matter.
5. Macroevolution - Origin of major kinds.
6. Microevolution - Variations within kinds
As you can see Evolution is not a single coherent theory, but rather an ambiguous collection of beliefs which are defined under the guise of natural selection by evolutionists. Only the last one Microevolution, or natural selection, is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1. All natural selection does is work with the genetic information available to keep an animal population stable. Natural selection doesn’t produce any new kind of animal. This is not evidence for evolution.
When, where, why, and how did:
a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
b. Single-celled animals evolve?
c. Fish change to amphibians?
d. Amphibians change to reptiles?
e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
So let’s define the terms first. Which evolution do you believe in?
apacalyps on April 19, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Not to worry. This could work to our advantage. It’ll make it a lot easier to figure out who the enemy is — when the civil war finally breaks out.
My collie says:
Not yet.
CyberCipher on April 19, 2008 at 6:32 PM
at first i viewed this story because i was intersted in Stein’s movie, then i realized it had 13 pages of comments! i’m not sure but it may qualify as the most commented article. but as soon as i came in, i saw that it was the same cast of characters making the same arguments.
take MB4 for example, i don’t know him, for all i know he’s a wonderful guy, and i don’t have anything personal against him, but from what i’ve seen him write, i believe that if God himself (or “itself” for you “oppressive male” types) parted the clouds and said “here i am”, MB4 would say “nope, sorry, no dice”
and i enjoy the tidbits of knowledge thrown into these arguments, and all the qoutes, but there’s only so much i can take before i just say “alright, enough with the condescending quotes and attitudes, the same poeple who were on one side or the other, or on the fence, are still there, the conversation has not moved forward” and as long as those who resort to name-calling and other distractions from the actual, legitimate arguments, the conversation is not going to.
all that said i can’t wait to see his Ben Stein’s movie, i guess he got tired of having people try to get his money eh?
RMC1618 on April 19, 2008 at 6:32 PM
We seem to be faced with a disturbing contradiction. The second law forbids the total information content of the universe from going up as it evolves, yet, from what we can tell about the early universe, it contained very little information. So where has the information present in the universe today come from? Another way of expressing the problem is in terms of entropy. If the universe started out close to thermodynamic equilibrium, or maximum entropy, how has it reached its present state of disequilibrium, given that the second law forbids the total entropy to go down?
-Paul Davies, noted evolutionist, and author of The Fifth Miracle, The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life
A disturbing contradiction indeed. Davies had to admit that Darwinism has yet to provide any process or mechanism that can account for the “information” (as Davies put it) or the intelligent direction required to put those building blocks of life together in the first place.
labrat on April 19, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Gotta go… ciao.
apacalyps on April 19, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Sooner or later, they will have to admit that there are three levels of existence in the universe, viz. matter, energy, and information.
I laugh at them when they deny it — because I then point out to them that Mensa’s intelligence tests are ALL based on one thing, viz. pattern recognition. They can’t even measure intelligence without it. Information is the key to destroying their arguments.
CyberCipher on April 19, 2008 at 6:51 PM
I see you are stating whom you are quoting now, I think you are learning.
Nice try on covering your A…wait, aren’t you the one who said they were not impressed by someone pulling out a quote? When I use an Einstein quote to undermine your argument?…maybe it was someone else, you would never have two sets of rules, one for you and one for others…
right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Yes, Dawkins and his ilk flash their ‘up is down logic’ concerning entropy, like a fake ID. They have gotten away with it for far too long.
As you stated, you can have the matter and the energy, but without an “intelligence” to direct that energy, the matter lays decaying in the sun.
As Sir Arthur Eddington wrote in his response to Darwinism:
“If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”
labrat on April 19, 2008 at 7:28 PM
Killjoy, if you would have posted this first their would have been only 18 posts.
right2bright on April 19, 2008 at 7:33 PM
I just wanted to say that we went to see Expelled today and thought it was quite good.
The Communist and Nazi references were well done and the connection was clearly made between the idea of evolution and eugenics.
I was quite glad and amazed to see that they actually had the courage to say that Planned Parenthood had its beginning in eugenics.
It was interesting to watch Dawkins sit there and say that there might be intelligent design, but if so they were aliens from outer space.
Go see it for yourself.
INC on April 19, 2008 at 7:52 PM
A very belated Thank You.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 7:53 PM
you idiots are so tiresome. See my previous comments. Once again you leg humpin bible thumpin Jesus FREAKS, assert the same ass LIE. THE FOSSIL RECORD IS FULL FULL FULL OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS. YOUR DUMB ASS REDNECK HILLBILLY PASTORS ARE FULL OF SHIT. Idiots like you who deny the Heliocentric Solar System make Conservatives look ridiculous. You reinforce the stereotype of the backwoods ignorant fundamentalists who have fought intellectual progress for centuries. I have no problem with “Faith” and “God” and “Religon”. If it brings you comfort, them I am pleased. I am willing to accept that I may just may not get it. However, when you slander GREAT minds like Charles Darwin who was GOOD MAN. Ethical, Honest, Well Studied and Brilliant. A Genious! You step over the line. You should hope to someday come remotely near the stature of such intellect. None of your Fire and Brimstone
theologianshustlers! can compare to such a great thinker. None. You are so tiresome. Over and over you present the same lies. Your idiotic claims demonstrate nothing but ignorance of the scientific method. You look like fools. It was YOUR KIND that censured Galileo. It was YOUR KIND that burned helpless innocent old women as “Witches”. It was YOUR KIND who established the Inquisition. It was YOUR KIND that brought death and destruction to the native peoples of several continents in the name of Christ. YOUR KIND! People like you! I refuse to sit idle while you taint the Conservative cause with your iron age cosmology disguised as psudo-science.ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Evolution is your theory, literal Biblical authority is mine (although I was an agnostic until age 23).
Why is it that your theory has to be forced upon all of academia? Why not let Evolution, Old-Earth ID, Young-Earth ID, and literal 6-day Biblical Creation compete in an open forum? Why force one theory to be “accepted”?
Why not give students all of the available information and let them come to their own conclusion? It’s only when a theory is indefensible that people feel compelled to defend it by silencing any opposition.
Scientific Fitna.
I will not submit.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 8:03 PM
ronsfi,
Please provide a list of examples.
alegnab on April 19, 2008 at 8:04 PM
This movie is rocking a 9% fresh on rotten tomatoes.
Is that because its a lousy movie, or is it because the evil scientist cabal has gotten to the movie theater critics already?!
e-pirate on April 19, 2008 at 8:05 PM
Amen.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 8:06 PM
labrat on April 19, 2008 at 6:36 PM
http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm
I haven’t read the book, so I have no idea how he differentiates information from “meaningful” information, but it should be obvious that you’ve taken his quote completely out of context. Also note, Davies is a theoretical physicist and science writer, not a “noted evolutionist,” (whatever that is).
The relationship between information theory and the second law of thermodynamics isn’t clear, and it’s dishonest to cast that uncertainty as support for intelligent design.
RightOFLeft on April 19, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Yes, and the First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom of religious speech. It’s sad how twisted things have become.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 8:12 PM
Noah took two of every unclean animal but he took seven of every clean animal. Food.
Rose on April 19, 2008 at 8:16 PM
ronsfi,
You might be interested and surprised to know that Copernicus, who developed the math model of the heliocentric solar system wrote that the universe:
and said
and said
We’ve listed them here before, but scientists and mathematicians who were Christians include: John Napier, Kepler, Newton, Euler, and Pascal.
See Mathematics: Is God Silent? by James Nickel
INC on April 19, 2008 at 8:19 PM
I guess I should have put a Bible reference. Gen. 7:2
Rose on April 19, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Kepler wrote:
INC on April 19, 2008 at 8:20 PM
Allow me to apply that to the following:
An attorney and journalist well-versed in the process of establishing truth in a courtroom was shocked when his wife accepted Jesus Christ. He set out to disprove Jesus and wrote this book:
He’s also now written a new book:
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Good Lord! Thirteen pages of comments!
Well, I haven’t time to read through them tonight, but I will just point out this:
‘Intelligent Design’ is not science, and so doesn’t belong in a scientific curriculum. It is just Creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb.
Why isn’t it science? Because it introduces a deus ex machina, an untestable proposition, to explain the gaps in our knowledge of this history of life on Earth. It is just the latest example of the ancient fallacy of the God of the Gaps.
The ancients could not understand thunder and lightning, so they invented gods to explain them. We now think those explanations were naive, because, beginning with Ben Franklin, we have better explanations.
Science has not yet accounted for the origin of life on Earth. It is one of the many, many mysteries of the Universe that we cannot fathom. That is the point of science: to expand our understanding. To cut short that enterprise, by saying, “Oh, God did it,” simply short-circuits the process. It is the antithesis of the scientific method.
Are scientists often intolerant of contrary theories? Absolutely; look at the reaction to critics of ‘global warming’, or to the idea 75 years ago of ‘continental drift’ (now widely accepted). But science has built into it a process for overturning current paradigms in favor of better ones. ‘Intelligent Design’ stops that process short.
That “God exists” is not proposition that is testable by the methods of science. It is one that refers to a different, more individual sphere of human experience, not one that can be discussed in terms of numbers on dials, or microscopic examination of mudcores. It is theology, not science, and does not belong in a science department of a university.
For these reasons, this absurd film is a travesty, and an insult to the intelligence of thoughtful people everywhere. It is a source of never-ending embarrassment to me that otherwise rational conservatives I admire, like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter, are so quick to embrace the fallacy of ID and Creationism.
MrLynn on April 19, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Actually a Chihuahua would survive just fine. Seeing as it has EVOLVED like all domestic dogs to live alongside humans. It would become a member of pack and in two or three generations it would revert to it’s primordial form. Medium size, Short hair and a curly tail. Far different from the Wild Dog. As a member of a pack it would survive quite well.
As far as your Antibiotic Microbe BS. Fine some ancient microbes are resistant. We do know however, that many bacteria are NOT resistant. Were not resistant and over time and exposure to antibiotics, became resistant.
If you were in a car wreck, who would you call first?
Ambulance? or Pastor? We all know who you would call. Just like anyone. When the chips are down your faith is in Science. Later you call the Pastor but that just makes you a poser.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 8:23 PM
I don’t see how forcing biologists to teach non-science protects freedom of speech.
RightOFLeft on April 19, 2008 at 8:25 PM
Those who can’t handle the truth try to silence those who speak it.
Red Pill on April 19, 2008 at 8:27 PM
Not suprised what other choice did he have. Could you NOT be a Christian in his time?
You don’t even know your own religion.
Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and I Chronicles 16:30 state that “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.” Psalm 104:5 says, “[the Lord] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”
Having said that.
There was an early suggestion among Dominicans that the teaching should be banned, but nothing came of it at the time. Some Protestants, however, voiced strong opinions during the 16th century. Martin Luther once said:
“There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”
This was reported in the context of dinner-table conversation and not a formal statement of faith. Melanchthon, however, opposed the doctrine over a period of years.
Some years after the publication of De Revolutionibus John Calvin preached a sermon in which he denounced those who “pervert the course of nature” by saying that “the sun does not move and that it is the earth that revolves and that it turns”.[36] On the other hand, Calvin is not responsible for another famous quotation which has often been misattributed to him:
“Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?”
It has long been established that this line cannot be found in any of Calvin’s works.[37] [38] [39] It has been suggested [40] that the quotation was originally sourced from the works of Lutheran theologian Abraham Calovius.
Over time, however, the Catholic Church began to become more adamant about protecting the geocentric view.[citation needed] Pope Urban VIII, who had approved the idea of Galileo’s publishing a work on the two theories of the world, became hostile to Galileo.[citation needed] Over time, the Catholic Church became the primary opposition to the Heliocentric view.[citation needed]
The favored system had been that of Ptolemy,[citation needed] in which the Earth was the center of the universe and all celestial bodies orbited it. A geocentric compromise was available in the Tychonic system, in which the Sun orbited the Earth, while the planets orbited the Sun as in the Copernican model. The Jesuit astronomers in Rome were at first unreceptive to Tycho’s system; the most prominent, Clavius, commented that Tycho was “confusing all of astronomy, because he wants to have Mars lower than the Sun.” (Fantoli, 2003, p. 109) But as the controversy progressed and the Church took a harder line toward Copernican ideas after 1616,[citation needed] the Jesuits moved toward Tycho’s teachings; after 1633, the use of this system was almost mandatory.[citation needed] For advancing heliocentric theory Galileo was put under house arrest for the last several years of his life.
Theologian and pastor Thomas Schirrmacher, however, has argued:
“Contrary to legend, Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by church officials. Galileo was the victim of his own arrogance, the envy of his colleagues, and the politics of Pope Urban VIII. He was not accused of criticizing the Bible, but disobeying a papal decree.”[2]
Catholic scientists also:
“appreciated that the reference to heresy in connection with Galileo or Copernicus had no general or theological significance.”
—Heilbron (1999)
In the 17th century AD Galileo Galilei opposed the Roman Catholic Church by his strong support for heliocentrism
In the 17th century AD Galileo Galilei opposed the Roman Catholic Church by his strong support for heliocentrism
Cardinal Robert Bellarmine himself considered that Galileo’s model made “excellent good sense” on the ground of mathematical simplicity; that is, as a hypothesis (see above). And he said:
“If there were a real proof that the Sun is in the centre of the universe, that the Earth is in the third sphere, and that the Sun does not go round the Earth but the Earth round the Sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and we should rather have to say that we did not understand them than declare an opinion false which has been proved to be true. But I do not think there is any such proof since none has been shown to me.”
—Koestler (1959), p. 447–448
Therefore, he supported a ban on the teaching of the idea as anything but hypothesis. In 1616 he delivered to Galileo the papal command not to “hold or defend” the heliocentric idea.[citation needed] In the discussions leading to the ban, he was a moderate, as the Dominican party wished to forbid teaching heliocentrism in any way whatever.[citation needed] Galileo’s heresy trial in 1633 involved making fine distinctions between “teaching” and “holding and defending as true”.
The official opposition of the Church to heliocentrism[citation needed] did not by any means imply opposition to all astronomy; indeed, it needed observational data to maintain its calendar. In support of this effort it allowed the cathedrals themselves to be used as solar observatories called meridiane; i.e., they were turned into “reverse sundials”, or gigantic pinhole cameras, where the Sun’s image was projected from a hole in a window in the cathedral’s lantern onto a meridian line.
In 1664, Pope Alexander VII published his Index Librorum Prohibitorum Alexandri VII Pontificis Maximi jussu editus which included all previous condemnations of geocentric books.[citation needed] An annotated copy of Principia by Isaac Newton was published in 1742 by Fathers le Seur and Jacquier of the Franciscan Minims, two Catholic mathematicians with a preface stating that the author’s work assumed heliocentrism and could not be explained without the theory. Pope Benedict XIV suspended the ban on heliocentric works on April 16, 1757 based on Isaac Newton’s work.[citation needed] Pope Pius VII approved a decree in 1822 by the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition to allow the printing of heliocentric books in Rome.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 8:37 PM
… THE FOSSIL RECORD IS FULL FULL FULL OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS …
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Line ‘em up brother. I would love to discuss them.
AZ_Redneck on April 19, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Over and over and over. I have posted links and examples. Every damn thread you noobs present the same lame arguments that you have been programed to spout. Read my previous comments in this thread. Also… Google it. Weird. the same biological science that you accept without question when you have an infection, you reject in regards to your dogma. Square that.
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 8:46 PM
I can’t wait!
It is tiresome addressing the same tired lies from the same tired ass fools.
The term is “Transitional Forms” and the fossil record is full of them.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html
Examples of Transition Fossils
Here, then, is a condensed and summarized list of some of the known transitional fossils discussed on the site:
(An important note: What infrequent “gaps” there may be listed below in the fossil sequences are gaps in time–that is, gaps due merely to a lack of sufficient fossils to analyze in the first place from a certain time period–not gaps in the sense of “jumps” from one type of fossil form to another that occur closely together in chronological sequence. This is an important distinction, because what creationists mean by a “gap” is an actual “jump” in form from one fossil to the next when there is little to no intervening time period in between.)
* The Transition from Primitive Jawless Fish to Sharks, Skates, And Rays: A gap near the beginning of the transition (due to the earliest fossils in the lineage being so fragmentary that not much can be reconstructed about them). After that, 6 transitional forms show up in the record. The transitional forms are: Cladoselache, Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis, and, Protospinax. (Cladoselache is considered probably not in the direct line of ancestry, but indicative of typical features.)
* From Primitive Jawless Fish to Bony Fish: 6 transitional forms after an initial gap (again, the gap is due to such fragmentary fossil traces, they can’t be reliably identified). The transitional forms are: Acanthodians, Palaeoniscoids, Canobius/ Aeduella (later paleoniscoids), Parasemionotus, Oreochima, and Leptolepis.
* From Primitive Bony Fish to Amphibians: 7 transitional forms with but one gap in the sequence: Paleoniscoids (these branched in two directions, including to the line of forms mentioned just above), Osteolepis, Eusthenopteron/Sterropterygion, Panderichthys and Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, gap, Hynerpeton/Acanthostega/Ichthyostega, Labyrinthodonts.
* Transitions Within the Amphibian Lineage: 10 transitional forms are listed in the sequence: Temnospondyls, Dendrerpeton, Archegosaurus, Eryops, Trematops, Amphibamus, Doleserpeton/Schoenfelderpeton, Triadobatrachus, Vieraella, Karaurus.
* From Amphibians to First Reptiles: 4 transitional forms: Proterogyrinus, Limnoscelis/ Tseajaia, Solenodonsaurus, Hylonomus/Paleothyris.
At this point, I’ll dispense with listing of genus names for the sake of brevity, now that the point has been made above that paleontologists can identify transitional forms with considerable precision.
* Transitions Among Reptiles: There are so many examples to choose from here that Hunt lists just two of the phylogenies (overall sequences of forms).
* From Synapsid Reptiles to Mammals: Among the best-documented of all transitional sequences, the list here comprises 30 transitional forms, beginning with 16, then a gap due to the existence of only one known fossil recovery in this line from the late Triassic period, then 14 more successive transitional forms.
* From Diapsid Reptiles To Birds: This transitional line is most famous for the Archaeopteryx reptilian-bird transitional fossil found in 1861, though the overall lineage here is still “gappy” according to Hunt. Nevertheless, there are now 2 or 3 candidates for ancestral forms even more primitive than Archaeopteryx, and 4 transitionals can be seen after Archaeopteryx.
* Transitions Among Mammals: Where transitional forms among the mammals are concerned, there are scores of examples too numerous to go into in a post like this. However, one good example is worth mentioning here for how it demonstrates what can turn out to be the arbitrary nature of “gaps” in the fossil record. The two orders (a) “lagomorphs,” which includes rabbits, hares, and pikas; and (b) “rodents” (mouse, rat, squirrel, beaver) are two very similar-looking modern orders that were long thought to have been unrelated because they appeared separately, suddenly, and fully formed in the fossil record of the late Paleocene. But–as it was to turn out–that proved to be just an artifact of the fossil record: Recent discoveries in newly tapped deposits in Asia (all the earlier discoveries were from North America and Europe where most finds have come from) have unearthed new fossils now thought to be the probable common ancestor (transitional form) that led to the two modern orders, showing they didn’t appear suddenly or separately after all.
And there are so many more examples of transitional sequences in the fossil record that I won’t bore any of us further with them here. But the foregoing should give a good enough idea of how dismal the record of Phillip Johnson and Fruitarian XYZ is in seeking out the evidence. In the next section on micro vs. macroevolution, I’ll give a few more examples of fossil transition sequences at the species-to-species level that demonstrate microevolutionary changes can indeed lead to macroevolutionary change.
But for more examples than that, and there are an incredible number more, if you are a real glutton for punishment just go to the “Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ” link yourself and follow through from beginning to end–it’s been work enough just summarizing what I have here. :-\ :-) Without doing an actual count, one would have to estimate that Hunt’s listing easily goes into the 100-200 range of detailed enumerations of transitional forms–and the characteristics that make them so–and it is, at that, only a partial listing. Again: See for yourself, and note the meticulous attention to detail in terms of Hunt’s referencing of the evidence to the primary scientific literature.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/evo-creation/evo-vs-creation1a.shtml#section%201
ronsfi on April 18, 2008 at 7:21 PM
ronsfi on April 19, 2008 at 8:49 PM
It is tiresome addressing the same tired lies from the same tired ass fools.
The term is “Transitional Forms” and the fossil record is full of them.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
http://www.asa3.org/asa/resources/Miller.html
Examples of Transition Fossils
Here, then, is a condensed and summarized list of some of the known transitional fossils discussed on the site:
(An important note: What infrequent “gaps” there may be listed below in the fossil sequences are gaps in time–that is, gaps due merely to a lack of sufficient fossils to analyze in the first place from a certain time period–not gaps in the sense of “jumps” from one type of fossil form to another that occur closely together in chronological sequence. This is an important distinction, because what creationists mean by a “gap” is an actual “jump” in form from one fossil to the next when there is little to no intervening time period in between.)
* The Transition from Primitive Jawless Fish to Sharks, Skates, And Rays: A gap near the beginning of the transition (due to the earliest fossils in the lineage being so fragmentary that not much can be reconstructed about them). After that, 6 transitional forms show up in the record. The transitional forms are: Cladoselache, Tristychius, Ctenacanthus, Paleospinax, Spathobatis, and, Protospinax. (Cladoselache is considered probably not in the direct line of ancestry, but indicative of typical features.)
* From Primitive Jawless Fish to Bony Fish: 6 transitional forms after an initial gap (again, the gap is due to such fragmentary fossil traces, they can’t be reliably identified). The transitional forms are: Acanthodians, Palaeoniscoids, Canobius/ Aeduella (later paleoniscoids), Parasemionotus, Oreochima, and Leptolepis.
* From Primitive Bony Fish to Amphibians: 7 transitional forms with but one gap in the sequence: Paleoniscoids (these branched in two directions, including to the line of forms me