Evolution?

[diamondman]

Jimd,
You make some very good points. I do think they can be answered, but first, I just want to say that I am not a trained expert in the biological sciences, just a science enthusiast. I am also a religious person who believes that neither side of the so-called science religion debate has to be wrong. The methods that the creator used to bring the world into being and keep it going does not necessarily have to conflict with evolutionary processes. That said, I think some answers as to why the evolutionary record is not a continuous unbroken chain, is that over the millions of years that Earth existed, there were episodes of major calamities and destruction. Two that come to mind are the near destruction of our planet 250 million years ago when a huge bubble of molten core rose from the center earth and reached the surface (My source is the Discovery Channel!) and the large asteroid that hit earth about 65 million years ago. Both of these events wiped out much of what came before, but initiated a very fast paced evolution of new flora and fauna which now had more favorable conditions to evolve. I admit that this is a very big over-simplification.

[dkerfoot]

I, personally, cannot imagine how some people refuse to believe in evolution- and that's not a knock- it's just that it seems so likely to ME, it is hard to imagine another view.

I'd say you just put your finger on the reason why so much heat (and so little light) comes from discussions about evolution.

I'd suggest that most of the disagreements have very little to do with science. (and I am saying this just as much about the scientific community as the religious) Most of the arguments come down to world-view.

Whichever side you are on, it is hard to imagine how the other side could possibly believe what they do. Of course in doing so, we are forgetting that men and women of brilliant intellects and rigorous education have accepted both as true. "This is what my Biology/Sunday School Teacher taught and I believed it when they told me." It is easy to underestimate how that colors everything else we observe.

Unfortunately, I often see people who subscribe to the evolutionary view attach themselves to it with such passion and indeed faith, that they abandon the very scientific principles that they espouse. Not so different I suppose than those unfortunate times when Christians have enforced their views through violent means.

I think it would be much more inconvenient for most scientists to be confronted with incontrovertible proof of God, than it would be for most Christians to be confronted with incontrovertible proof of evolution.

That isn't to knock one side or the other. The point is, whichever side (or point on the continuum) you are on, you have a world-view that colors your perceptions.

When it comes right down to it, what science does really, really well is observe: "At so and so time I set my instruments to so and so setting and this is what was measured." When patterns are observed, it can sometimes enable a scientist to make accurate predictions: "If I set my instruments to so and so settings, at so and so time, this is what should be measured."

All of science is designed to answer the questions What, When Where and How. What science was never intended to do is answer the question "Why?"

[Russianwolf]

Maybe I'm wrong. In the fossil records are there not reptiles, birds, and reptiles with feathered "wings" that may (note the word MAY, as it's not conclusive) be a link between the two?

I'm going off a vague recollection here, so I could be totally off.

The other thing that's bad about the fossil record, is that it's not complete. to get fossils the conditions had to be right. (muddy lake beds, etc.) not all areas produce fossils, so while the lack of fossils obviousky can't prove the theory, it can't really disprove it either. The fossil record gives us snapshots of time in various places.

And as I mentioned above, while fossils can provide some support for the theory, you can't use it as proof of the theory either since they aren't usually repeatable.

But everyone remember, that at one time. Everyone KNEW the earth was flat, and Everyone KNEW that the earth was the center of the solar system. knowledge is ever changing. next week something could happen to change what we all KNOW is fact right now.

[Alex Franke]

If there is a clear path from single celled organisms to us, why do the transitional forms not show up in the fossil record?

This goes back to my "missing chain" comment. First of all, my understanding is taht just about everything that appears in fossil record is in fact a transitional form (unless we're talking about extinction event fossils) -- we just don't know from what to what.

Scond, most fossils of any kind are quite rare -- the chances of us finding any links of man's evolutionary chain (straight back) are slim to none. Scientists have a few fossils that they believe could be links but even if they're close they're more likely to be related to links -- or links in some other chain -- perhaps one that is long extinct.