Darwin (OT)

[chris]

Adrian -

I'm not real sure how this wound up in my inbox, but if you are going to 
argue for evolution-ism, you should at least be intellectually honest.   
The remains, which consisted of a small piece of the top of a skull, a 
fragment of a left thighbone, and three molars, were not even found 
together.  They were collected over a range of about 70 feet, in an old 
riverbed, mixed with bones of other extinct animals!

In fact, 24 European scientists who gathered to examine the fragments 
were split;
10 said they were ape
7 said they were man
7 said they were a new 'missing link' species.

The really curious point of this whole 'transitional form' or 'missing 
link' discussion is that while we have been searching for well over a 
century, all we have found are bits and pieces and fragments, that have 
been 'extrapolated' to a full skeleton, and then assumptions made about 
the skeleton.  It's not that there is a lack of fossils to choose from, 
there are plenty of fossils - just none supporting a reptile laying an 
egg and hatching a bird.  And with what we suspect about the theoretical 
transitions, there should be generation upon generation of entire tribes 
or flocks of transitional forms.  We should not have this much trouble 
finding the fossil evidence!

But, since so many people refuse to accept the plain, simple, and 
obvious answer, we search on.  Frankly, I think it takes more 'faith' to 
believe a fish could become a monkey than it takes to believe "In the 
beginning, God created the heavens and the earth".  In fact, all the 
evidence that has been found is better suited to support the sudden 
appearance of specific, complex, and varied life-forms, as well as 
special design. 

The question I'd like to have answered by a believer in evolution-ism is 
this;  How did the earliest life-forms (before the development of the 
eye) discern a need for sight, and thereby "will" the evolvement of such 
a marvelously complex organ?  After all, until the 'final design' was 
eventually evolved to, all interim forms would be useless, and therefore 
not 'preferred' in future generations.

'nuf.
Chris.

L. Adrian Griffis wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, Paul Thompson wrote:
>  
>
>>>p.s. Darwin had been working on 'Origin of the Species' for
>>>several years; it was unfinished. Another scientist sent him
>>>a manuscript of the same idea for him to review, and he
>>>realized that someone else was going to steal his thunder.
>>>So he quickly finished the Origin of the Species, and the
>>>rest is history.
>>>
>>>Trivia: Who was that obscure scientist who finished the 
>>>theory of evolution before Darwin did? and why was Darwin
>>>already a world-famous writer? and what part of the human
>>>body made Darwin later recant his theory as being unable to
>>>explain? Hint: you're using it right now to read this e-mail, 
>>>unless you're reading it in braille.
>>>      
>>>
>>Darwin also said that if the missing links were not discovered in the 
>>next 50 years (or something like that), then his whole theory should be 
>>ignored.
>>    
>>
>
>Such a 50 year time limit seems rather irrelevant, to me, but for the
>sake of discussion, The Origin of Species was published in 1859, and
>in a quick look in my own book shelves, I found references in a couple
>of specimens found before that 50 years was up:
>
>    1)  TRINIL 2 -- "Java Man", discovered in October 1891 by Eugene
>	Dubois, originally classified in 1894 as Pithecanthropus
>	Erectus, reclassified in the 1950s as Homo Erectus.
>	The discovery was first published by Dubois in 1984 under
>	the title "Pithecanthropus Erectus, eine menchenaehnliche
>	Ubergangsform aus Java".
>
>    2)  Mauer -- Discovered by workmen in a sand pit in 1907, and studied
>	by Schoetensack at the University of Heidelberg.  This mandible
>	specimen is classified as Homo Erectus.
>
>There were numerous specimens of Homo Neanderthalensis discovered
>before this period ended, but they are, arguably, not missing links
>because Neanderthals are currently thought to have been an evolutionary
>dead end, and not contributors to modern Homo Sapiens.
>
>I imagine someone with a more complete library could find more in this
>time frame.  Since that 50 year period expired, we've found quite a bit
>more evidence, which is, I think, significant regardless of when it was
>discovered.  Anyone for the last 50 years who has spoken of a still
>"missing link" has simply been displaying his colossal ignorance of the
>evidence at hand.  One must wonder how many links it will take to
>satisfy such a person.
>
>Adrian
>
>
>
>
>  
>