No Precambrian Rabbits: Evolution Must Be True

_{Cornelius Hunter

September 12, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Last week’s review of Richard Dawkins’ new book in the Economist hit all the usual chords. Dawkins’ purpose is to demonstrate that evolution is a fact–as incontrovertible a fact as any in science, and the Economist is only too happy to propagate the absurdity. First, there are the usual silly evidential arguments that only work with the uninformed, of which there are apparently many. True, species appear abruptly in the fossil record but, explains the Economist, “That any traces at all remain from so long ago is astounding, and anyway it is not the completeness of the fossil record but its consistency that matters.” After all, there are no fossil rabbits in the ancient strata. That’s right, no rabbits before the Cambrian era. Astonishing, evolution must be true. Read more

Comments

Wisker (8):
The very title of this blog post is a complete and utter non sequitur, which no evolutionary biologist (least of all Richard Dawkins) has ever espoused.
I know it sounds absurd, but the Precambrian rabbit, and others like it, are precisely what evolutionists have seriously set for as falsification criteria / creation refuter.Cornelius Hunter_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT}

The very title of this blog post is a complete and utter non sequitur, which no evolutionary biologist (least of all Richard Dawkins) has ever espoused.Dave Wisker_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

VentureFree: After reading you "responses" here and then looking at the dense smog on your blog, it seems that you have less than a clue on the actual problems involved and little knowledge of the term "logical fallacy". An amusing journey into the dark recesses of the Darwinian "mental illness" (to quote Sir F. Hoyle on Darwinists) is mostly what one finds there with the obligatory condescension. This from your "Duty Calls" bit,
"This is exactly how I feel sometimes, and I’m sure my wife would agree. It’s pretty much the reason this blog exists at all."
Of course it never occurred to you that others look at your smog are thinking the exact same thing about you, did it? Didn't think so. As for
"non-religious arguments"
what would they be? Fossils? Mutations (bugs in the code)? Pepperred moths? Ida? ...
"doesn’t mean that they have no substance."
Well what is that substance? Speculation is not substance. Just-so stories are not substance. Gratuitous extrapolations into the past are not substance. Conjecture is not substance. Explaining away the multitude of contradictory evidence is not substance... One could go on and on with that alone.
"All it means is that you are only willing to look at religious arguments and everything else is irrelevant".
I hope you're kidding but doubt it. The religious (metaphysical) arguments are everywhere in Darwinian hypotheses! The only people who don't see this are ensconced Darwinists, and that is because they were weaned and bred on their own metaphysics falsely being called "science". There are copious quantities of 'religion' underlying the whole of neo Darwinism.Borne_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT}

camanintx @4 Exactly the point. Micro=fact Macro=wishful thinking. But real scientists don't distinguish between the two do they? Gee, wonder how come?IRQ Conflict_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

"... among the many puzzles that evolution explains so well are the futility and suffering that are ubiquitous in the natural world. All trees would benefit from sticking to a pact to stay small, but natural selection drives them ever upward in search of the light that their competitors also seek." But surely this isn't really an argument? Why would all trees benefit from staying small? Trees don't "suffer" when they are large. And large trees are critical to the ecology of a boreal forest. Among other things, large trees produce more seeds, so their progeny are more likely to be buried somewhere by a squirrel. Not that the tree knows or cares, but it helps explain why being large is not really a disadvantage to the tree. A whole ecology grows up that depends on large trees. As for competition, well, the main competition is from the tree's own offspring. That is a problem that is usually only resolved when it becomes a standing dead tree, housing a different selection of life forms than the live tree did, but no longer a competitor for light.O'Leary_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Cornelius Hunter
With religious arguments like these who needs scientific evidence? But wait, evolution is supposed to be a fact of science. This is where the lie enters in.
Cornelius apparently has neglected to read the Arguments not to use link under the Comments Policy here at UD, specifically the following:
The meanings of evolution, from Darwinism, Design and Public Education: 1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature 2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population 3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor or multiple LUCAs. 4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification, chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations. 5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor (LUCA). 6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors solely through an unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; that the mechanisms of natural selection, random variation and mutation, and perhaps other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, such as lateral gene transfer or endosymbiosis, are completely sufficient to account for the appearance of design in living organisms.
The first two meanings are observed facts that only a fool would question. When biologists say that evolution is a fact and theory, they are referring to numbers 2 and 6. ID accepts number 2 and only questions the 6th meaning, but quoting biologists calling the Theory of Evolution a theory just doesn't have the same impact. Conflating the two meanings as Cornelius repeatedly does is disingenuous at best.camanintx_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Venturefree, The best part is the non-responses of the evolutionitwits. It's really too bad, yet amusing, that they cannot substantiate their claims with anything but religious arguments.Joseph_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

The quotes from the article regarding "the designer" are simple unbelievable. Hook, line, and pharyngula.Upright BiPed_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply