Hi Pistike,
Your incomplete understanding of debates in biology have you quoting Professor Stahl's work as if it somehow casts doubt upon evolutionary theory in general. I said before that I think quote mining is dishonest, but I don't think you understood why: Professor Stahl had no doubt that the rhipidistians represented the ancestry of the original land tetrapods, only she didn't feel that (in 1985) the true intermediates had yet been found.
I don't see why I must repeat the same thing for the third time. It is exactly what I wanted to say, and I am sure I did not mean or say anything different . Yes, Prof.Stahl had no doubt about it. Yes, she did not feel that in 1985 the true intermediates were there. No, I am not a "quote-miner". Should we discuss the essence of the quote another two weeks?
TIKTALIIK was THE ONLY INTERMEDIATE ,which was found after 1985, on the scheme YOU HAVE POSTED. That's why I have posted the analysis of this found separately. Ok? In this SPECIAL CASE, it was shown that TIKTALIIK is not intermediate as well. Can we close at least this subject?
This brings up the matter of your refusal to acknowledge any conceivable intermediates between primitive fishes and tetrapods. You seem to feel that any question you could raise represents a definitive refutation of the evolution of the original tetrapods. Then you demand that we produce fossils of millions of intermediates, demonstrating a rather comical unfamiliarity with the realities of paleontology in general.
Pistike, this is a misinterpretation of my words, or a misunderstanding, at best. I DON'T DEMAND that you produce the millions of links. I am saying that in the world of Darwin's evolution there would be no need to search for the missing links, they were simply here, in millions, if you regard every living species as a product of the constant change.
Then there's your enlisting Drs. Scherer and Gitt as your authorities, on no better basis than that they tell you what you want to hear. Do their views represent the mainstream of thought in their respective fields? If not, what do other experts think of their work? If, in fact, Scherer "proved" abiogenesis was impossible, did he offer his assessment of the probability of any rival theory of the origin of life on Earth? And as I said before, species evolution is a separate issue from that of the origin of life anyway, so what does that have to do with the shared ancestry of life on Earth?
Pistike, "open mind" and "mainstream" are sometimes not actually compatible conceptions, btw. All ground-breaking discoveries were being made against mainstream. Before Galileo and Kepler, the vast majority have obviously believed in the geocentrical system. Before Pasteur, the vast majority believed in abiogenesis. If Dr. Scherer simply states that abiogenesis is impossible, he is just honest about it. Why should he speculate ( rival theorie ) ? For evolution of species - but I thought I have explained it ? Common ancestry, in the light of abscence of other proofs, can be as well evidence of devolution, a process reverse to evolution. To other proofs - we are coming to the 300th mark in this thread, and all you needed to make was to post some clear evidences like intermediates, or lab tests, confirming ET. Something discussable, at least.
Can the evidence for creationism be assessed on the same objective basis as evolution, or does it depend on our unrealistic wish to have our religious beliefs validated by science?
I have three or four times posted here, that I am not supporting literal understanding of the Bible. Do you see creationism as the only possible alternative to darwinism? I don't. Neither I see why anybody who states that ET is simply wrong must be labelled as creationist. Furthermore, "objective basis" means evidence? Then WHERE IS IT???
Mathetes -
Do I believe that the Creation account in Genesis actually happened? Yes. Do I believe that it is at least in some degree allegorical? Yes. Does Science contradict the Bible, or vice-versa? No. The Bible *indirectly* contains scientific fact, but it's main focus is showing sinful humanity how to be reconciled with a just but loving God. Science and related disciplines also *indirectly* confirm the Scriptures, but the main thrust of Science is to describe the universe around us, NOT prove or disprove the existence of a Creator (which it can do neither).
God, how similar can the views be!!! I second that, from the first letter to the last. There are , obviously, many religious people who accept, or believe, in evolution -
dr. John Polkinghorne, for example. Fantastic writer and personality. There are atheist scientists, who reject ET. I have read in the bio of dr.Behe, that he began his scientific way as evolutionist, later "converted" to ID.
If we understand the actual message of the Bible like, God has created Universe, Earth with all on it - including fundamental laws, and the evolution is one of the laws, intrinsic to life, then there is obviously no problems to accept it.
All I wanted to see here were some clear evidences of evolution of species , without any religious/world view context. One could so easily stop the debate, providing them. And there are still none presented, though we are about to break the line of the 300th post.
Actually, it is the atheists who see the evolution in this ideological way. Otherwise I can not understand, why "There is possibly no God - enjoy your life", with Prof. Dawkins as the main sponsor. How can one condemn the Mohammad cartoons as the clear provocation, and not notice the very same things, happening at home. I am not - and was not - saying that creationism, with its literal understanding of Creation in 6 days, is the alternative theorie to ET. If ET is plain wrong, then an alternative theorie must appear, sooner or later. But, it is quite obvious that atheists see the ET as an alternative to religion.
I think it was my last post in this thread. Thank you all, guys, for your patience and participation.
Regards,
Andrew