Evolution (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, July 22, 2009, 23:55 (5601 days ago) @ David Turell

Dr. Turell, - > > You are getting to sound more and more like a creationist! It seems perfectly possible to get from no wings to wings in small steps. In the case of wings on birds it is evident from the bone structure that they developed from limbs and hands. Flight with flapping wings can be reached via a gliding stage. 
> 
> 'Can be' is not proof.
> 
> > In the case of the whale evolution we were discussing earlier. I don't see where your "macro-evolution" is necessary. The processes involved are smooth transformations like stretching or contracting or deforming. There is no evidence for any part of this process happening suddenly.
> 
> Nor is there any evidence of this happening slowly. - It seems to me that your argument here again comes down to the necessity for evolution to be 'proven' true (a specious claim because natural science relies on evidence-based inference not proof) is a specimen from every generation or at least say, 1 every 1000 years. In the case of the whale, considering that we can geologically age the samples I think that shows fairly well that the process is slow. At least with whales. - - > 
> My answer to both pargraphs above is the same. There are fossil gaps, so we cannot answer the question of whether there are the tiny steps always or are there occasions for giant steps. I don't know. I can't answer that question from the evidence we have presented to us. We do not know if Darwin'as proposal in true or not. You want to believe in it with no evidence, just theory. I want evidence. Yesterday I presented a paper that defined three species of horned toad on good evidence: genetic, morphologic, and environmental. Fine paper. Good proof. That is all I am asking, and I admit that with the proper evidence Darwin will be proven correct. But not so far. - Maybe its your use of language but George is right that you seem to say evolution is right, and then evolution is wrong in the next breath. I think what you mean to be skeptical about is the specific means of evolution and not evolution itself. It takes a few more keystrokes but I think it would clear up some confusion about how you present your views if you would perhaps criticize the 'by natural selection' part when referring to Darwin's original theory.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"