I don't think that you could even say that "most" right wingers believe
in what was said above. First you have to describe what kind of
evolution you're talking about. Micro or Macro. Micro evolution says
that things change over time. No problem. Macro evolution says that
one species changes into another over long periods of time. A nice
theory that even Darwin said should lead to many transitional fossils
being discovered. That never happened. Many of the dreaded right
wingers don't go along with the second one.

One good thing about arguing with a right winger is that they usually
will try giving a reasoned response and won't immediately resort to
name-calling, something that can't be said for the wingers on the left.

"G.W." wrote in message
oups.com...
I don't think that you could even say that "most" right wingers believe
in what was said above. First you have to describe what kind of
evolution you're talking about. Micro or Macro. Micro evolution says
that things change over time. No problem. Macro evolution says that
one species changes into another over long periods of time. A nice
theory that even Darwin said should lead to many transitional fossils
being discovered. That never happened.

This is a myth, G.W. There are large numbers of transitional fossils. One of
the places where non-biologists go astray on this issue is that they assume
the transitional fossils should appear in substantial numbers. One way to
look at it is as a failure to understand the statistics: the transitional
creatures were largely failures. They may appear in a ratio to the
successful ones of 1:1,000, or maybe 1:100,000, in the fossil record. That
is to say, they should hardly appear at all.

Another is stratographic gaps, a phenomenon that has been recognized and
understood for well over 100 years. The anti-evolutionists simply ignore
this. A few have tried to contradict it, but they have all failed.

The whole issue is in fact an extraordinary case of non-specialists claiming
to know better than the specialists what the facts are. I assume you would
not argue with an atomic physicist over the spin of subatomic particles. g
Likewise, it is an extraordinary assumption for anyone who isn't well
trained in the biology of evolution to contradict those who *are* good
students of it.

It is, I think, a case of willful ignorance -- I'm not referring to you, but
to the people who write about it as if they knew the science. The biology
literarature is filled with data and explanations that put every element of
"intelligent design" to rout. That is not to say that there is not
intelligent design. Rather, as all science does, it is to say that
intelligent design is not necessary to explain what we know and what the
evidence is. That's how science works, after all.

I kind of like this site about transitional fossils, written so us laymen
can understand it. It's pretty modest and doesn't appear to overreach, from
what I can see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

One good thing about arguing with a right winger is that they usually
will try giving a reasoned response and won't immediately resort to
name-calling, something that can't be said for the wingers on the left.

In general, I disagree. The right-wingers we see here, particularly the ones
dragged in by cross-posting, start off with name-calling and insults from
the get-go. That is to say, you are an exception, not the rule. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


I kind of like this site about transitional fossils, written so us laymen
can understand it. It's pretty modest and doesn't appear to overreach, from
what I can see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Ok, I'll read it.
It's interesting how people can come up with totally different
conclusions based on the same evidence.Some people look at the fossil
record and tell us that it must have been caused by totally natural
random causes. They say that we cannot even consider something outside
of nature (supernatural) as the cause because science cannot consider
that. But what if the cause WAS something soutside of nature?

"G.W." wrote in message
oups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:


I kind of like this site about transitional fossils, written so us
laymen
can understand it. It's pretty modest and doesn't appear to overreach,
from
what I can see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Ok, I'll read it.
It's interesting how people can come up with totally different
conclusions based on the same evidence.Some people look at the fossil
record and tell us that it must have been caused by totally natural
random causes.

It's not that simple, G.W. The evidence is complex. The theory for the past
50 years or so is not actually what the anti-evolutionists say it is. And
it's not something you can explain in a couple of paragraphs.

It's also not an area that I've studied much (I've read a few of Stephen Jay
Gould's books, but not much more than that). But the biology scientists are
virtually unanimous in their conclusions, based on their much more complete
examination of the evidence. The number of actual, accredited scientists who
disagree with evolutionary theory has been put at something like 1:1,000.
That's lower than the percentage of cranks and quacks in most professions,
actually. g

They say that we cannot even consider something outside
of nature (supernatural) as the cause because science cannot consider
that. But what if the cause WAS something soutside of nature?

Science really doesn't address the supernatural at all. For the most part,
science leaves alone the questions of first cause and the reasons, the "why"
questions, for the universe. Astrophysicists would love to look into those
things but they're not on the horizon.

However, in the area of evolution, scientific advancement has encroached
upon literal Biblical teachings, and it has run up against objection from
people who accept the Bible literally. It's all but certain that those
people would not be so presumptuous as to contradict science in subject
areas they really know little or nothing about -- except it challenges their
religious beliefs. Hell hath no fury, etc...

As for the question of what if the cause was something outside of nature, if
any evidence ever appears, I think that many open-minded scientists will
look at it and weigh it as they would weigh any substantial evidence. That's
what they do.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

... Astrophysicists would love to look into those
things but they're not on the horizon.

:^)

Cute Ed. You need to get out more....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

... Astrophysicists would love to look into those
things but they're not on the horizon.

:^)

Cute Ed. You need to get out more....

I have to get my fun where I find it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress