Re: [Fwd: Still here]

Russell T. Cannon (
Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:23:59 -0600


You said...

> I've also done a little searching on my own about
> Archaeopteryx. The informtion ranged from it proves
> evolution without a doubt, to the feathers on the
> fossil have cement on them and are probably fake. I
> guess my own conclusion is that although it is a
> unique find I don't see it as a transitional form.
> My personal idea of a transitional form is one that
> is half way between the old form and a new form.
> (ie. Some feathers and some scales). This fossil
> (if evolving) has completed the change and is not in
> the middle of it.

The issue of whether evolution is proved or not by perceived changes to
physical "superstructures" is doubtful. Biochemist Michael Behe wrote
an excellent book that discusses biochemical evolution. In _Darwin's
Black Box_, he presented a powerful argument about how Darwinian
evolutionary theory does not hold up when describing the evolution of
cell structures and processes such as cilium, the transport of material
within a cell, and the synthesis of AMP.

He says that these and many other structures and processes are
"irreducibly complex" and that incremental evolutionary theories do not
begin to explain their development. He also points out that just
because one says that "this arose from that which led to this," they
have not described *how* it might have occurred. The point is that
being able to "imagine" an evolutioinary path does not make it a
reasonable hypothesis.

Some Darwinists like to declare themselves proved by fiat without having
to present experimental data or by providing data that is either
speculative or highly subjective. Nevertheless, apparent similarities
between species does not prove that they are related. I would like to
see substantial supportive evidence preferrably at the genetic level.
Although I am Christian, I am not prejudiced against natural causes, but
I think the scientific method should be applied to Darwinism. We must
do away with this notion that evolution must be true because that is all
that could be true.

It has been said that big bang cosmology is the most thoroughly proved
fact of science. Based on what I have seen and heard, Darwinian
evolution seems to be the least thoroughly proved fact of science.

You futher stated...

> My understanding of the evolution theory (though
> limited) says that there were chemicals floating
> around in a soup and eventually formed an amino
> acid. The first amino acid. From this amino acid
> all life finally evolved.

It seems that various primordial soup theories have come under
considerable doubt. This is in part due to the fact that the supposed
non-oxidizing condition of the primitive atmosphere has been
substantially discredited in various studies, and in part the result of
the enormous problem of finding just the right kind of soup. This too
is discussed in the above mentioned book. The author also goes into the
problems involved with pre-biotic chemical reactions.

You again...

> Also important to this point is statistics.
> Scientist use statistics to determine how possible
> it is that an event would happen to decide if it
> would ever happen. They have come to the conclusion
> that if the chance of something happening is too
> great it will never happen.

There seems to be a problem using the statistical approach. What I have
discovered that Darwinian mythology is so entrenched that once you start
talking hard evidence and statistics, they revert to the use of bogus
tautologies. For example, I once asked an astrophysicist how he was so
sure that Darwinian evolution had occurred, and his answer was, "We're
here aren't we?" This is like saying, "We know evolution occurred
because we are here: we are here because evolution occurred."