The Missing Link

[DeepShadow]

Why don't you tell me, since I appear to have misunderstood it?

(this is a serious request for enlightenment, no sarcasm intended. If you'd prefer to PM me, that would be fine, too.)

Correction, see below.

 

[DeepShadow]

Upon visiting Wikipedia for a definition, it appears I was not mistaken after all:

A revealed religion is one which perceives a symbolic center in a set of revelations allegedly given by a deity[1], and often transcribed into a sacred text. Four prominent examples are Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism is revealed in the Avesta, Christianity in the New Testament, Islam in the Qur'an, and Judaism in the Tanakh. Christianity also respects a version of some of Judaic scriptures that are important for prophesying the coming of Christ and to which the Christian Gospels and Epistles refer.

This still fails to qualify the statement that such religions "[demand] that we receive certain propositions as final and absolute Truth without any evidence whatsoever."

 

[spacemonkey]

I think what he was saying was that in his post he specifically said all revealed religions, which would not include you folks.

 

[scitsofreaky]

Why are we not digging up half-man/half-apes and half-reptile/half-birds? Why aren't the necessary transitional forms required for evolution to be true there to be found?

You forgot half-fish/half-amphibian.

 

[spacemonkey]

Seems to me that the principle driving force behind evolution is reproduction, finding better ways to ensure the survival of ones offspring.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Seems to me that the principle driving force behind evolution is reproduction, finding better ways to ensure the survival of ones offspring.

As I've noted more than a few times in the past, evolution is not a ladder but a sieve. It is the unintended consequence of adaptive pressures acting upon pseudo-random variation.

 

[Random]

As I've noted more than a few times in the past, evolution is not a ladder but a sieve. It is the unintended consequence of adaptive pressures acting upon pseudo-random variation.

Jay, are we on the same wavelength when I say if "random" means as it does "uncaused" then there cannot be any "consequences" @ all, unintended or otherwise? I hope I don't fail to get over what I'm trying to say here: what do you mean by "pseudo-random"? Either there is a causal agent involved or no causal agent invloved, yes? Are you suggesting a middle-ground?

 

[Halcyon]

Jay, are we on the same wavelength when I say if "random" means as it does "uncaused" then there cannot be any "consequences" @ all, unintended or otherwise? I hope I don't fail to get over what I'm trying to say here: what do you mean by "pseudo-random"? Either there is a causal agent involved or no causal agent invloved, yes? Are you suggesting a middle-ground?

There are DNA repair processes and certain gene complexes are better "protected" than others. Also, some genes are simply necessary for life to exist, for example the proteins involved in the electron transport chain, if these mutated in any significant way the life form would not survive.
So, to a degree, mutations are not totally random as some genetic material is let to mutate to a greater degree than others.

 

[Valjean]

No transitional forms? Nature is full of transitional forms! Taxonomists are constantly debating what should be a species: European Red deer vs American elk/wapiti? Grizzly bear vs European brown bear? Thirty years ago there was a Baltimore oriole and a Northern oriole. Now it's been declared that a Baltimore oriole is a Northern oriole.

There must be twenty or thirty "species" of warbler in North America, but fossilize them and no-one would be able to see any difference. In fact, it would be hard to tell the difference between a fossilized Fido and a coyote!

 

[Halcyon]

No transitional forms? Nature is full of transitional forms! Taxonomists are constantly debating what should be a species: European Red deer vs American elk/wapiti? Grizzly bear vs European brown bear? Thirty years ago there was a Baltimore oriole and a Northern oriole. Now it's been declared that a Baltimore oriole is a Northern oriole.

There must be twenty or thirty "species" of warbler in North America, but fossilize them and no-one would be able to see any difference. In fact, it would be hard to tell the difference between a fossilized Fido and a coyote!

Tis true, there's no end to the head scratching suffered by taxonomists. The distinction of what makes something a species really needs re-thinking, in my opinion.

 

[Valjean]

Alas, it has been re-thought, Halcyon. All the categories I so carefully memorizd in school are now obsolete.
Today, instead of placing everything in neat taxonomic cubbyholes, species are now arranged along phylogenetic trees, according to their actual genetic relationships, as revealed in their DNA.

 

[logician]

Paleontologists have found many "missing links" in the fossil record. The idea that none have been found is a red herring started decades ago.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

How come most of the folks who are opposed to evolution cannot talk knowledgeably about it?

How come most of the folks who are opposed to religion cannot talk knowledgeably about it?

 

[Halcyon]

How come most of the folks who are opposed to religion cannot talk knowledgeably about it?

You mean like the typical ignorant anti-theist? They're as bad as the typical ignorant anti-evolutionist in my opinion.

 

[Sunstone]

How come most of the folks who are opposed to religion cannot talk knowledgeably about it?

That would be a good topic for another thread, Sandy. In the context of this one, it's merely a petty fallacy.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

How come most of the folks who are opposed to evolution cannot talk knowledgeably about it?

You just answered your own question there, didn't ya? Those who have enough knowledge about the subject to speak intelligently on it are rarely if ever opposed to the idea of it. Those opposed to the idea of evolution purposefully ignore evidence in favor of evolution so that they can cling to their own beliefs in spite of overwhelming evidence that their beliefs are flawed.


B.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

How come most of the folks who are opposed to religion cannot talk knowledgeably about it?

I challenge you to find people more knowledgeable on various religions than the Athiests/Naturalists you find on this forum. Know many theists who have a more intricate and varied knowledge of the world's religions than Jayhawker Soule? I don't place myself in his category, but I find it rare either on here or in real life when I debate theology with a theist and find them more knowledgeable or well read on issues of religion than I myself am.

B.

 

[logician]

Again, evolution is not some religion, it is a hard science just like physics and chemistry and has as much support for its theories as any theories in the "hard" sciences do. The hardest thing about recreating the fossil record is that so much of it record has been lost for various reasons, but many important finds have been made in the last few decades to shed light on the intricasies of evolution.