Re: [asa] Dawkins on the fossil record

From: Murray Hogg <>
Date: Tue Dec 01 2009 - 14:54:30 EST

Hi Terry,

For what it's worth, I agree that Haldane's quip points to one of the strongest arguments for evolution: the simple consistency of the fossil record.

No rabbits in the Precambrian: and all those T's-Rex, Mastodons, Great sloaths, and Neandertals being equally well behaved.

For mine, every time somebody opines about gaps in the fossil record I merely wonder: "what theory are you offering that better explains the data?"

As you say: "There are no exceptions in the fossil record to the canonical common descent sequence."

In that respect there's another sort of gap in the fossil record: the gap where out of sequence fossil specimens would be given a non-evolutionary past - a far more glaring problem than the gap with which evolutionists have to deal.


> Hi,
> This is a funny group to interact with, I must admit. It seems that Michael Roberts is the only one to get the point.
> While I don't necessarily disagree with Mike and Ted in their reference to Kuhn and all, and I suspect that Dawkins himself wouldn't disagree, the main point is that there is NO ANOMALY. Not a single one. That's the main question I'm asking here. Are there any anomalies with respect to this particular issue? The closest thing to one that I can think of is the question of stratiographic inversions. But once the possibility of an inversion is allowed, it's no longer an anomaly. A far cry from Ptolemaic epicycles.
> As for John's question about common ancestry, I have to say that the sentence was added in order to preclude some objections that I've heard on the list from several folks, that many who reject Darwinian evolution are still comfortable with common descent. I'm taking common descent the way that Steve Martin did. It's possible that a "special creationist" event (e.g. injection of information) would be required in order to go from ancestor to descendent--as he points out, this is consistent with some ID advocates. Whether you want to call this common descent is a matter of semantics. I am willing to call that common descent. For example, my own view of human origins allows for common descent of our biological form, but I believe a special creative act is required for our full humanity in the image of God (say, in the creation of the human soul).
> The point remains. There are no exceptions in the fossil record to the canonical common descent sequence.
> In Chapter 4 Dawkins points out that the common YEC model, that fossils were laid down in the flood and their sequence reflects the organism's ability to flee the encroaching flood waters, would at best produce a statistical distribution in the fossil record rather than the exceptionless pattern that we find.
> TG
> ________________
> Terry M. Gray, Ph.D.
> Computer Support Scientist
> Chemistry Department
> Colorado State University
> Fort Collins, CO 80523
> (o) 970-491-7003 (f) 970-491-1801
> To unsubscribe, send a message to with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 1 16:02:47 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 01 2009 - 16:02:47 EST