[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFn_4j4RzWI&feature=feedu"]YouTube - UK Cleric Receives Death Threats For Supporting Evolution[/ame] The fight within Islam.
if adaptation were in some way akin to walking, your point would make a modicum of sense. but the problem still exists that the fossil record does not support the development of new genera based on the kinds of modifications that we observe within species. in order to give any real credence to the Darwinian concept of descent with (through) modification as treats upon the development of new genera, there ought to be transitional forms, but there is a gaping absence of evidence. if a biologist or paleontologist constructs a narrative based on structural similarities or even genetic similarities, that in no way precludes the possibility that design was involved.
Except the fossil record does support the development of genera based on observation with the species. Seriously, Stilton, you can believe in God. But the fossil record is not your friend. Find a different argument.
The fossil record needs its own tv & radio stations to counter the nonstop bullshit spread by ignorant preachers and talking heads.
then why doesn't this kind of info appear in standard text books? why are the old ridiculous 19th Century arguments still bandied about? what examples from the fossil record, btw? what's are proven fossil links btwn reptile and bird?
It does, but you'd have to read them in order to find out. Because they're still true. I adressed a lot of examples in this very thread: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=22789165&postcount=33 Did you forget already? Or did you read it the way you read the standard textbooks (i.e. not at all)? From TalkOrigins.org: Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001). Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999). Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001). Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features. Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002). Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones. Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe). Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones. Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel. Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones. Modern birds.
I'd give you rep but I'm all out. It's either called football or ONSR. I'm told that the first rule of fight club is never talk about fight club
And just today, another gap has been closed...or as creationists like to say, two new gaps have been created. Not in the bird lineage itself but with some close relatives: Meet Daemonosaurus chauliodus. Man, we're really freaking good at this...
As an evangelical, and theological evolutionist, I was at first excited to see this article, given the target audience: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2011/june/historicaladam.html It seemed as though, maybe there was hope for good discussion on the horizon. ...and then I read the comments *facepalm*
The thing is, it's not as if this was news. We've known for decades that there wasn't one human pair from whom we all descended. It's just that now that we've sequenced the human genome, we have positive proof for it when before it was simply a very high degree of certainty. So it's no surprise that those people who have rejected science before continue to do so. It's just one more branch to reject. After geology, physics and biology, they now also reject chemistry...
It was more the article's existence in the magazine it was in that gave me hope. "If THIS magazine is talking about it, maybe its starting to gain some traction." But you're right, that was crazy thinking on my part, and not unsurprising that I was wrong in my false hope for open thinking.
I don't know much about the magazine, but the article certainly was rather in favor of Francis Collins' interpretation. It's really interesting to see how they set it up though. They began by painting Collins as the arch-nemesis of all the famous atheists, something that has absolutely no relevance regarding the remainder of the argument. So it was pretty clear that this was a maneuver to make his position more agreeable: "If the atheists hate him, we have to trust him."