|
Occ did a nice job posting on some specifics of the article you gave, Nellie. It is a common fallacy for Creationist websites to draw upon outdated information. The reason for this is quite clear: the arguments they draw upon have been the same arguments for decades.
| quote: | | Micro are small changes within the same species, Macro is like that whole ape into man issue. There is a huge difference. |
You are proving my point about your knowledge on evolution. I won't quibble any more details with you further until you actually read the information I posted. That information is drawn upon by actual scientists, and is certainly a lot more current. If you have any problems with the information, you're welcome to ask me here, or if you feel more comfortable, drop me a PM. Admittedly I'm not the most knowledgable biologist in the world (well, B.S. in it at least), but I have engaged in a number of evo-creation forums throughout the years to know and understand the fallacious arguments of creationists. It is something I enjoy doing everyday as a hobby, more or less.
And to answer your specific questions, I must again stress to please read the material I posted. They specifically address your questions, including the fish-tetrapods question you refer to. In addition to Occ's info, here's some more:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html
Another interesting link on fossil transitions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you will read the material. Please do so. If you have questions, please ask or PM me.
I do want to make a couple of statements, and pose a few questions if I could:
-Those "missing links" you refer to have become smaller and smaller as more discoveries are being made. Just to give you an idea, it's actually come down to bacterial flagella (Behe). The "God of the Gaps" argument is often seen, and unfortunately for creationists, the gaps are becoming ever so smaller.
-Scientists are not afraid to say, "I don't know", when they actually do not have enough current information. Can the same be said for creationists? What do creationists say instead?
-Have you noticed that not one creationist article has ever been published by a peer-reviewed science journal? Do you want to know why (and it's not a conspiracy, I assure you).
-Have you ever noticed that all creationist theories live and die on attempts to disprove another theory (evolution)? Why is that? Do they have a model of their own that can be tested? Can those tests be repeated? IOW, do they have any POSITIVE evidence to support their hypothesis? Can they falsify their Null hypothesis?
-The method by which scientific research is conducted is called Methodolical Naturalism (MN). It is the most sound approach to observe, test, and predict findings in the natural world. If the supernatural (i.e. God) is to be included in the study, there has to be a means by which to test the supernatural. Unfortunately, MN has found no way by which to be able to test this. Is there another sound model by which to test the supernatural that can test, observe, have repeatable tests, and make predictions for future phenomena and findings?
-Creationistism is by all accounts a religious-based belief in nature. It will therefore already have an unshakeable conclusion about all findings and phenomena. What does that say about it's data collection processes?
___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...
|
