The Collapse of Darwinism

Someone, I lost who posted this: (added by edit -- 14gipper, thanks for that gipper)::: The COLLAPSE of DARWINISM :::#It is a well produced series of short "chapters" using the usual creationist arguments. I have listened to some.If the individual who posted this reference wants to defend it I'm sure we would all have fun with that.For example:
Chapter 4 has this line:
{quoteNo beneficial mutation has yet been observed either in nature or in the laboratory.[/quote](I have tried to get the quote right but it is copying while listening quickly)I think (but would have to listen to the whole darn thing again to be sure) that this summerizes the major point of chapter 4. Is that a correct assessement.Unfortunately, this statement is wrong. Is there anything else left in chapter 4? If so we can discuss it. (There is, btw, a severe misapprehension about the "addition" of mutations).If the poster who suggested this site wants to defend it please speak up. If you don't then I think we can just put it aside as being well produced but not contributing anything of any credible value.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2004]

In fact, listening to more of it, it is my view that this site lies. It has clear, specific statments which are false and they have every opportunity to know that it is false. This is dishonest.If you disagree then you will have to defend it. Good luck, added by editOf course, anyone else who thinks this is defendable is welcome to try.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-31-2004]

In fact this is fun! Thanks for bringing it to my attention. It is chock full of the standard junk. We have already torn it's erroneous assertions to pieces here. We can use this as a great example of what creationism is all about.It has it all. Stawmen, quote mining, out of date information, and total falsehoods. But it is all wrapped in great production values.

There are a couple of points here:1)It is a misunderstanding of the mechanisms of evolution that would make anyone think that a "living fossil" is any problem at all. If the niche in which a creature lives doesn't change (including competition) then the selective pressures would be the same that helped form them in the first place. It should be clear that natural selecion (NS) can hold a form reasonably constant if that is what 'works' best.Clearly some lines change much less rapidly than others. The sharks have been a similar form for hundreds of millions of years but not, as far as I know, the same species in all that time. Turtles, some fish, nautilus and some shell fish are, I think, other examples of similar but not identical forms.2)I am not aware of any species at all that has been shown to remain unchanged over anything more than a few million years. The fact that we only have a fossil may mean that what we see is unchanged but that leaves other changes that are not fossilized. It is, of course, possilbe that an actual species has survived much longer than the average species duration of a handful of millions of years but I'm not aware of any examples. Could you supply one or three?

Thanks Mike, you do learn pretty quickly.The topic here are the videos. The "living fossil" junk is hardly the worst of what is in there.Is there any part you think is worth much? I didn't listen to all of them but all that I saw was pretty much unmitigated junk.

The simple answer is "no". However, there are endless details in the whole answer which you aren't really going to be interested in learning. If you were honestly interested in learning about it then it might be worth your while to dig into it. However, I don't think you are.

My understanding is that the 300 number is it. I'm pretty sure that none of them are any where near a complete as Lucy. Most are one or a few bones fragments is my impression.However, the do, when all summed up give a reasonable representation of the species (and it seems some idea of the evolution of the group over time ).

There are a number of reasons that someone not expert in the science involved may conclude that Lucy is not a deformed individual.1) a number of expert anatomists have examined the specimens and do not think there is any deformity. Even though there is always a lot of contentious arguement in this field.2) There are a large number of bits and pieces of afarensis which match up with each other.3) I can look myself at some of the pieces and agree that they look reasonable.4) Afarensis fits in to the time line and the species before and and after in a reasonable way. There are hundreds of specimens and the relationships fit well enough.5) No one, that I know of, has offered examples of deformed modern humans which produce the particular set of differeneces. (Teeth, hips, long bones, the bits of skull that we have).

Well, I'd always say that the answer isn't much good without understanding the way behind it.To start with I'd have to see a very precise definition for both "transitional" and "missing link".However, as those words are used popularly (and carelessly) I would say that Lucy qualifies very well as both. Of course, this is technically silly since Lucy isn't missing. With other definitions you might get a different answer though. Ask your biology teacher for the reasoning he is using and the definitions.There is at least one thread on "transitionals" I suggest that you add this question there rather than run this thread off on a tangent.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-04-2005 10:50 PM

So?I would be interested in what he has to say when you have time to allow for a more detailed discussion with him. You could take this to a transitional thread. The Definition and Description of a "Transitional" would be the best one I think.

oops duplicateThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-02-2006 09:54 PM