Re: [Fwd: Still here]

Pim van Meurs (
Mon, 17 Mar 1997 17:33:02 -0400

> 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

This 'fake' archaeoptheryx has been shown to be all but.

> guess my own conclusion is that although it is a
> unique find I don't see it as a transitional form.

Just to make sure, there is more than one example of this fossil find.

> 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.

Huh ? It has feathers and it has distinct reptilian features making
it an good example of transitional. I do not understand this 'in the
middle of it' argument.

About Behe

Russ: 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

Behe's argument of irreducibly complex has several problems, he has not
it, his examples are not irreducibly complex. I suggest you check out

for some additional information addressing Behe's 'argument'.

"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."

True but it hardly disproves evolution. In many cases one can but
about certain issues due to lack of data. Behe incorrectly interprets this
as if evolution has faltered.

"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."

An interesting assertion but lacking any foundation in fact I would suggest
an irrelevant assertion. Based on what you have heard and seen... it has
been said...

"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."

What do you mean, the 'right kind of soup' ? Synthesis of aminoacids is
not limited to one kind of soup. Miller and Urey's experiment showed that
synthesis was possible by simulating only a small spectrum of possible
chemical environments. It is remarkable that their experiment showed that
the first step in abiogenesis is viable. Given the finds on meteorites of
aminoacids in similar proportions and one realizes the importance of this
simplified experiment. Lately data has arisen indicating that the
atmosphere might have been less reducing than in the experiment. Under
such circumstances yield and variety are reduced and in an oxidizing
atmosphere little hope is left. Given the enormous variety of
'micro-environments' and possibilities however this surely will be dealt
with as well.

"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."

Red herring. As you should know one sample does not make good statistics.
But at least scientists are using a scientific approach in dealing with
this issue.