Joined: July 2007
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 24 2007,04:52)|
|Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.* |
Of course I am not surprised at all that Dawkins would minimize the importance of the fossil record.
You're quote mining, Daniel, and avoiding the real evidence.
He's not minimizing its importance. He's pointing out that evidence from other sources is much more extensive and complete:
|The evidence comes from comparative studies of modern animals. If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other. Other pairs of animals like rats and squirrels are a bit more different. Pairs like rats and porcupines are a bit more different still in all their characteristics. Others like rats and humans are a bit more different still, and so forth. The pattern that you see is a pattern of cousinship; that is the only way to interpret it. Some are close cousins like rats and mice; others are slightly more distant cousins (rats and porcupines) which means they have a common ancestor that lived a bit longer ago. More distinctly different cousins like rats and humans had a common ancestor who lived a bit longer ago still. Every single fact that you can find about animals is compatible with that pattern.|
|Surely if it teemed with evidence for his theory, he would feel differently about it.|
He's saying that other sources are more complete and more than sufficient. That's why creationists generally avoid discussing the sequence evidence, and when they do, they grossly misrepresent it.
How many trees have you constructed from sequences (evidence) using tools like CLUSTAL and BLAST, Daniel?
|I am a bit surprised that he thinks the theory of evolution via RM+NS is essentially beyond reproach.|
That's because you're afraid of grappling with evidence for yourself. If you any real confidence in your position, you'd be discussing evidence instead of quote mining.
|I read through his lecture (which I mistakenly referred to as a book earlier) and I looked for this "utterly overwhelming" evidence he speaks of, but did not find it. |
What part of this don't you understand?
|If you look at the millions of modern species and compare them with each other - looking at the comparative evidence of biochemistry, especially molecular evidence - you get a pattern, an exceedingly significant pattern, whereby some pairs of animals like rats and mice are very similar to each other.|
|The same goes for these cultivated plants. Throw them back into the wild and eventually they revert back to the original wild cabbage species - all the domesticated varieties would disappear.|
These things can be verified in your own back yard.
And have you done so?