[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Brace for IMPACT!
Fwd by Terry Colvin <email@example.com>1246MST/1946GMT(Zulu)/9Feb95.
______________________________ Forward Header __________________________________
Subject: Brace for IMPACT!
Author: SKEPTIC Discussion Group <SKEPTIC@JHUVM.HCF.JHU.EDU> at smtp
Date: 8/2/1995 2:15 PM
From: Stephen Carville - firstname.lastname@example.org
Garrison Hilliard <ghill@GFSA.LERCTR.ORG> forwards:
>To be consistent with evolution, the fossil record should show how
>organisms slowly transformed one into another through countless
>intermediate or transitional stages.
I don't know why the evolution deniers keep bring this up since it
is obviously false. The fossil record is full of transitional forms
displaying mixed characteristics. Probably the best known is
archaeopteryx which is an eerie mixture of bird and dinosaur.
Archae's lesser known relative Deinonychus was actually more
birdlike in many ways but still retained several dinosaur traits.
In fact, these two fossils along with the toothed birds (Hesperornis,
Ichthyornis) are pretty good evidence that modern birds evolved from
You probably won't see a slow transformation anyway since speciation
can occur very rapidly. I think there was a strain of drosiphilia
(sp?) isolated for a few years in the lab that drifted far enough
from it's parent specie that it oculd no longer produce fertile
offspring. Mice introduced to islands from sailing ships in the
18th and 19th centuries have changed enough in a couple hundred
years to be considered different species too. Of course
hybridization followed by cromosome doubling is pretty common in
plants. If Gould is right, rapid speciation is the rule rather than
For anyone who is interested, there is a lot of information on the
evolution vs. creation controversy available via anonymous FTP from
ics.uci.edu in pub/origins.
>Evolutionists, for example, claim that over one hundred million
>years were required for the gradual transformation of invertebrates
>into vertebrates; thus we would expect that the fossil record should
>show at least some of the progressive stages of this large-scale
>transformation. To be consistent with creation, on the other hand,
>the fossil record should show no obvious transitional stages between
>distinctly different kinds of organisms, but rather each kind of
>organism should appear all at once and fully formed.
Does anyone here know what the term "kind" means to the
creationist? I often hear the claim that change can occur within
the created "kind", but one "kind" cannot bring froth another "kind".
It seems to be important but I haven't been able to find a definition
Stephen Carville - email@example.com
A cat is what results from giving a dog a college education