EvC Forum: Evolution is a basic, biological process

Hello again!

Thanks for your feedback!

First, in reply to Quetzal — that is exactly the point I was making in my 1st post — I don’t think that you should call adaptation, speciation etc., evolution! If the ToE is correct, then adaptation and speciation are only the tools used in the greater process of evolution. So I would suggest that to say that these processes are synonymous with evolution is rather like saying mixing ingredients is actually the cake itself, if you get what I mean.

Crashfrog — The difference is that mutations that cause adaptation/variation/speciation are always either a loss of genetic information or a reshuffling of already existing information. To produce an entirely different organism, there must be an increase in genetic information, which doesn’t ever take place. The possibilities for variation are not unlimited. The very fact that we are able to classify organisms points to that being the case. If the possibilities for variation were endless then there would be so much overlapping of morphology between classes that any attempt at categorization would be hopeless! It would be impossible to identify any characteristic as an organism’s distinguishing feature since it would be possible for any organism to have the same feature.

To Quetzal and happy atheist - By ‘fully formed’ I mean that the organisms are in a highly developed state; they represent the finished article, if you like. They are either all one thing or all the other; and don’t show the kind of onward, upward, evolutionary mutational change that would be expected. They are not in any kind of intermediate stage of development. They appear more-or-less identical to their modern relatives. There are in fact no undisputable transitional forms or ‘half-way houses’.

Even Stephen Jay Gould said, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." and "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London admitted, "... I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

All those disputed fossil organisms that apparently show signs of evolution are clearly recognisable as reptiles, mammals or birds etc. albeit with certain unusual characteristics. Is it inconceivable that these organisms could just be variations within a species or a different species, rather than being on the way to becoming another organism altogether? Or is it just that we’ve programmed ourselves to think that change of any sort equals evolution? This is what I meant in my 1st post about the use of the term — I think it’s branded about far too freely and it simply results in confusing the issue.

As to the supposed ‘smooth transition’ of the fossil record, I beg to differ [I don’t suppose that’s a surprise to anyone though!?!] The more we study the record the more it is evident that it is nowhere near that simple. There is no sequence, smooth or otherwise, between the morphology of the different species! People talk about ‘the missing link’ but in reality all the links are missing! There are no links from single celled organisms to invertebrates; from invertebrates to fish; from fish to amphibians; from amphibians to reptiles; reptiles to birds; reptiles to mammals; land mammals to sea mammals; non-flying mammals to bats; or apes to humans. They just aren’t there!

One of the worst cases of this, of course, is the ‘Cambrian explosion’.
Dr Colin Patterson said about this, Most of the major groups of animals appear fully fledged in the early Cambrian rocks, and we know of no fossil forms linking them.
Dawkins says It is as though they [the Cambrian invertebrates] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

Just as an aside, the trilobite appears in the Cambrian rocks and yet it has one of the most complex eyes in the whole of the animal world. Where does this fit in with the ‘smooth transition’ from simple to complex life?

The reality is that just one discrepancy like the Cambrian explosion, in what should be a smooth sequence (if the ToE is correct) ruins the whole picture.
Darwin, himself, in The Origin of Species admits that, The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed must have been enormous. Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated chain; and this, perhaps, is the most serious objection which can be urged against my theory.

On the other hand, the sudden appearance of fully formed organisms is exactly what we would expect to see if the Creation model is correct.

P.S. Yes I do realize that half-developed organisms couldn’t survive and I am also aware that the organisms in the fossil record are no longer alive

!!! LOL

!!! Thanks guys!!!

Regards, Flying Dodo

3 online now:	PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,919 Year: 4,176/9,624 Month: 1,047/974 Week: 6/368 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/1