<b>Bev,</b>
It might do you good to skim through those pages Fyrestar provided (thanks, Fyrestar!) Since you consider yourself to be open-minded enough to read Behe, then aren't you openminded ehough to read Behe's critics?
I didn't have time 'till now to write a serious post, but I saw your reply a few days back. I was basically going to argue along mostly the same lines as those webpages (though I don't know nearly as much biochemistry.) But since you like analogies so much, I was actually going to start by using Behe's technique to show that the contemporary interdependence between magnetically-sensitive traffic lights and actual traffic on the road is irreducible (the two are interdependent, after all!) -- and that, therefore, this mutual dependence was envisioned as such by the engineer of the first automobile. Next, I was going to prove a similar claim about the relationship between the economy and the Federal budget (one feeds the other, after all...) Well, maybe you get the idea -- maybe you don't -- but you might if you read those references Firestar provided.
Just today (you'd probably call it divine intervention), I saw a quote in an unrelated British editorial online that is amazingly related to something you said. The quote was to the effect that of all the wrong conclusions humanity ever reached, half were achieved through abuse of metaphor.
<b>Tony,</b>
I hope you understand if I don't address every single smart-ass remark you managed to squeeze out of yourself. I do admire the effort, though. You're a man of strong compulsions. As for the more substantive portions:
You're highlighting one of the problems with the theory of evolution.
Bacteria are still bacteria.
Not only that, they're still the same bacteria.
For you to walk through a door, it must first be open. Modern unicellular organisms are entirely capable of giving rise to new varieties of multicellular organisms -- and I am sure that they in fact do all over the world. The problem is that the newfangled species face stiff competition from already highly-refined multicellular organisms that have already been there for billions of years. In other words unless the playing field is cleared, the whimpy new species don't stand a chance. Once again, that's punctuated equilibrium for you.
How does that explain different skin colors at similar latitudes?
Geologically recent migrations enabled and sustained by large-scale, sophisticated civilization.
If H. Sapiens did interbreed with H Somethingus Elsus, then there should be three sets of fossils H.S., H. S. E. and the offspring.
That hardly qualifies as "little or no trace."
Yes, that's the other part of the reason this hypothesis is so controversial. Some people like to postulate that certain species of hominids were actually hybrids (which is one possible explanation for why they would have a combination of features seemingly borrowed from two other species.) I already mentioned it's controversial -- though that does not mean it is necessarily wrong, especially in all cases.
So where are these huge numbers of fossils that would be of the intermediate steps rather than of either end of the procession?
I'll begin the answer using your own words: <i>"Without major catastrophes, it is highly unlikely that there would be a fossil record at all, given that scavengers eat anything that dies."</i> I'll also mention that those protohumans and early humans might have also eaten their dead (evidence of cannibalism related to certain species, such as Neanderthals, is pretty solid now.)
Of course a "massive" catastrophy is not really required to make fossils. The organism could fall into a pit and get covered over by sediment, for example (or simply sink into the pit -- e.g. the tar pits.) The organism could perish under a hillslide. The organism could be buried by desert sand, or covered with sediment at the bottom of a river. There are many imaginative ways of making fossils, and it would seem that all of those ways have collectively borne fruit. It is much easier for a giant mammoth's carcass or individual bones to get preserved through time, than it is for a much more fragile human skeleton (plus human precursors haven't remained static as species long enough to have all that many chances -- as opposed to some more enduring species.) Still, I won't be surprised at all if the Siberian permafrost eventually yields a couple of well-preserved mammoth hunters (of course, they would only be tens of thousands as opposed to millions of years old.) Actually finding those specimens that have actually been deposited and preserved though, is a different matter altogether.
*Or is that because the mechanistic nature of snowflake formation is merely more apparent than the mechanistic nature of the genesis of life?*
Who designed water in such a way?
Irrelevant (to your particular brand of creationism, anyway.) Even if I grant you (and I won't) that water was deliberately designed in order to form beautiful snowflakes, it is still a fact that water does so all by itself, without any intelligent interference. By that line of reasoning, chemistry was preconfigured in such a way as to give rise to life, but then proceeded to form life on its own (with life proceeding to evolve all by itself, etc.) But this is not what you argue, since you are a dogmatic literalist. But, I suppose it's worth asking: care to change your stance?
The biochemistry may keep life going, but one has to have life first, in order to have a biochemistry.
Otherwise, you're guilty of more a posteriori thinking.
But you are certainly guilty of not thinking. Enzymes react just as well outside a living cell as they do inside. Diverse organic compounds (including some rather complex ones) get naturally synthesized under the various diverse environments present in space and on planetary bodies. Perhaps the designation for "biological" chemistry is aposteriori -- but certainly not chemistry itself.
<i>... consider: you wouldn't expect a solar-electric car to have a vestigial exhaust pipe, would you?*</i>
That would be like people having a second, "vestigial" rectum.
I would expect to see pieces of chrome, etc.
That moves us from intelligent design to artistic decoration. Though I fail to see, for example, how the horrible stink that tends to emanate from certain locations on our bodies can be considered decorative (though arguably, once upon a distant time it used to take part in olfactory communication.) Or, for example, consider the topic of wildly unpopular body hair. For that matter, an intelligent redesign of our bipedal stance could've made us quite a bit more efficient as far as locomotion goes. I could go on, but how much "chrome" does one need to see before one realises that he is looking at a junkyard? Or are you the type who finds leftovers and trash beautiful (and, moreover, deigns to project similar aesthetics onto a supposed ultimate designer)?
It's a disposable world.
And, it was not much in the way of effort, as reported.
Quite interesting, considering all the species that used to exist but do not any longer outnumber the currently extant species by many orders of magnitude. I don't know; if I were the designer I'd skip the "insignificant" preamble and cut to the chase. But then again, I don't tend move in mysterious ways -- it gives me nausea.
Self-assembly requires design, at least of the assemblable pieces.
You wish. For the sake of your intelligence, I hope this was not the reasoning that got you converted.
But then again, it must be why you can't resist claiming that water is designed to form snowflakes. Surely then, you must also agree that metal filings were designed to self-assemble along the "field lines" of a magnet. And if you swallow that, then you must also accept that all gaseous elements are designed to self-assemble into tornadoes under the right conditions. Yet another leap of faith should lead you to the conclusion that matter is purposefully designed to, among many other things, self-assemble into manure.
If life evolves, then why does everything end up in the crapper, sooner or later?
Why not? I'll give you a hint: it's typically something to do with thermodynamics. Also note that generally there is no selective pressure that could lead to an organism evolving a perpetual life-span.
You are asking me to believe that the life went from nothing to the simple, to the complex all by itself.
Everything else in the universe goes the other way.
Things decay, fall apart, deteriorate and tend to increasing entropy.
So, you are aware of thermodynamics after all. Of course, things do decay and fall apart when left to their own devices -- which the Earth has not been, thankfully. Luckily for us, the sun is continuously pouring energy into the Earth system (plus there's still considerable geothermal/radioactive energy, as well as chemical energy, left internally) -- and as long as the wind blows, there will be waves. Ultimately, we are all just ripples on some surface.
The link <i>was</i> pathetic.
Evolution is presumably proven to be true by the absence of change.
Again.
It must really irk you that evolution is, after all, consistent with the collected data (not to mention being the only sane explanation of said data.) No wonder you keep your ignorance so well employed at inventing imaginary consequences of evolution -- after all, what's the point of attacking something that actually makes sense?
<i>*And what do you propose the fossil record should look like, if it were to show that new species emerge as well?*</i>
Beats me.
The current fossil record shows the extinction of species due to various reasons.
Primary among them is a major catastrophe, e.g. a flood.
Well since you're having such an insurmountable mental block, I'll make a suggestion. The fossil record would show new species emerging if, indeed, more recent strata contained fossils which are not present in the older strata.
And if anything, by their chemistry and content the fossil-containing deposits are only consistent with a very prolonged, gradual formation. A flood (even a large one) would barely even register in a geological formation that is slowly accrued over numerous millennia. (heh... you wouldn't be talking about the Biblical flood, would you? Hmmm... Just in case you are, I will be ecstatic to hear you dismiss not just evolutionary biology, but physical chemistry, geology, astronomy, quantum physics and planetology all in one shot -- since none of those scientists can read, or something.
)
First, the replacements are not "extremely slow".*
You're saying they are fast?
Earlier, in your post you were saying that it takes a long time, 4 billion years comes to mind.
Burn down your lawn. See if it really takes 4 billion years for the surrounding biota to repopulate this newly vacated space. (just kidding; this is only suggested as a thought experiment.)
*mass extinctions are always followed by a subsequent explosion of new species.*
You wouldn't happen to be making this up, would you?
When has this ever been observed?
Whoa! Tony the master of fictional claims and unfounded conclusions, demanding actual justification of a claim in a debate? I may have been wrong; perhaps the world <i>is</i> coming to an end... Of course, I hoped that you would simply follow the logic of evolutionary mechanisms. (I can see the next volley coming: Tony claims there's no such thing as logic. Am I right?)
So, since you do agree that fossils can provide evidence of mass extinctions (i.e. many lifeforms being present up to a point and then absent from all subsequent deposits) then you also have to accept that fossils can show evidence for massive new species formation (many new species appearing in newer strata that aren't present in the older strata.) Go, for example, here and locate the natural history timeline; notice that major proliferations of new and revolutionary lifeforms follow major extinctions:
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/html/TriumphEvolut.html (Well, actually you can find such a chart in many places on the net, but I thought I'd rub it in...
)
Given the fact that it hasn't changed much in known history, it had to have made one gigantic leap at one point.
Of course, "known history" consists of what, 2000 years? 10000? 100000? But don't go back much beyond that, because there it starts changing... If modern humans didn't have civilization and all the typical rules that apply to other species still applied to humans, my guess would be that the modern brain is just about as large as it gets -- at least in the geological short term. It is difficult enough for women to give birth with infants' heads already being so huge. In order to <i>naturally</i> enable an even larger brain, either conducive changes in female physiology or an altered brain maturation timeline would be required (either of which, I assume, would take quite a bit of time to emerge.) On the other hand, there has been little selective pressure for even more intelligence on modern humans (they already have enough to rule the world), so there is no strong bias for the brain sizes to keep increasing or for the brains to get more sophisticated per unit volume (in fact by the looks of it, the religious nuts are the ones who tend to have the largest litter these days -- with some exceptions of course.)
<i>*Evolution does not have goals.*</i>
That is the stupidest part of the theory.
Even to a casual observer, it would seem obvious that every living creature has goals.
You're proposing that the process by which they came to be that way is completely opposite to that.
Well... For one, Mr. Genius, evolution is not a living creature. Secondly, only a sentient creature has goals (and if you believe that your gastrointestinal bacteria is determined to help you digest your food, then you should probably write them a letter of gratitude.) Thirdly, sentient creatures are only sentient thanks to a very complex brain; that very complex brain descends from much simpler versions which addressed a bit more immediate issues -- such as avoiding bodily damage, for example. Finally, the fact that the fitter survive better is not a goal -- it is simply a tautology.
*Which is why it was selected for, and why it survives to this day. *
Your theory just fell apart.
"Why" means there is a goal.
Why does it rain? Because cold temperatures tend to precipitate water out of saturated air. Conclusion: in evaporating and saturating the air, water has rain as its goal. Everything in the universe, animate or not, is endowed with a living spirit who has goals. Even rocks lie around because doing so is their actual goal. Makes perfect sense. Most stone-age animistic cultures would have agreed with you 100%. Nice to know you were able to mentally progress so far beyond the stone age.
<b>Loone et. al.</b>
It's positively heart-warming to see such magnificent individuals stand up for what's right -- regardless of what's actually true. Your religious nationalism is most touching.