I knew the standard ID arguments would come out, but I never expected them so quickly.
Knives, spoons, and forks do indeed perform different functions. Nervous systems of various complexity also perform various tasks, but all the ones we see today have been through the same amount of evolutionary time. Still, do you see that great a difference between the job of a cat's brain and a monkey's? Does one allow transportation of soup to your mouth and one carving steak?
You deflect my complaint of your deferrment to spontaneous generation to a less restrictive "beginning of intellect." Where exactly does intellect begin? I'm seriously asking that question. Where is it? Is it possessed by organisms that have cooperative behavior? How about solitary creatures that appear to learn behaviors from parents rather than rely on instinct?
Now, claiming that scientists appeal to philosophy as much as IDists appeal to science is a bit much for me to accept. Sure, you've quote-mined a few folks who support the mainstream side and make philosophic statements. However, what you haven't done is shown those philosophic statements in the peer-reviewed academic literature. The folks that do the day-to-day work of science rarely overstep the bounds of empiricism, in my experience.
By contrast, the ID folks regularly mix philosophy with their science, then complain when it isn't published. If you really are appalled by this situation and want to convince me of your argument, just show me an ID article that hasn't been published and an equivalent mainsteam academic article with comparable scholarship.
Your second response is merely more quote-mining, this time from Sr. Darwin, himself. The man lived over 100 years ago, and he wasn't a god. The information he had at his disposal is quite limited compared to what even you accept as fact today.
You state that the fossil record is devoid of transitional evidence. I've shown it to you before, but you continue to deny it. Gould's statements have often been misused by anti-evolutionists, but this one is unmistakable: ...paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology.
The fossil record certainly does not show sudden, intact species appearance. The best evidence for this is the difficulty in assigning species barriers. If it's so sudden and intact, I invite you to tell me if horses, mules, donkeys and zebras are all the same species? How about dogs, wolves, coyotes, and hyenas? Lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, and cougars? Last but not least, humans and chimpanzees? If you really want to show me that there is a distinct barrier of species and a special creation of intellect, tell me which fossils on the following page are ape and which are human: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
To quote the Dead Kennedys, "Where Do You Draw the Line?; I'm not telling you, I'm asking you."
I'm seriously open to new information here. Science absolutely does not have all the answers. I'm desperate for insight into greater knowledge on this subject. I'll latch on to anything you can provide, but I'm afraid my standards are pretty high in this area.
Wow.
I knew the standard ID arguments would come out, but I never expected them so quickly.
Knives, spoons, and forks do indeed perform different functions. Nervous systems of various complexity also perform various tasks, but all the ones we see today have been through the same amount of evolutionary time. Still, do you see that great a difference between the job of a cat's brain and a monkey's? Does one allow transportation of soup to your mouth and one carving steak?
You deflect my complaint of your deferrment to spontaneous generation to a less restrictive "beginning of intellect." Where exactly does intellect begin? I'm seriously asking that question. Where is it? Is it possessed by organisms that have cooperative behavior? How about solitary creatures that appear to learn behaviors from parents rather than rely on instinct?
Now, claiming that scientists appeal to philosophy as much as IDists appeal to science is a bit much for me to accept. Sure, you've quote-mined a few folks who support the mainstream side and make philosophic statements. However, what you haven't done is shown those philosophic statements in the peer-reviewed academic literature. The folks that do the day-to-day work of science rarely overstep the bounds of empiricism, in my experience.
By contrast, the ID folks regularly mix philosophy with their science, then complain when it isn't published. If you really are appalled by this situation and want to convince me of your argument, just show me an ID article that hasn't been published and an equivalent mainsteam academic article with comparable scholarship.
Your second response is merely more quote-mining, this time from Sr. Darwin, himself. The man lived over 100 years ago, and he wasn't a god. The information he had at his disposal is quite limited compared to what even you accept as fact today.
You state that the fossil record is devoid of transitional evidence. I've shown it to you before, but you continue to deny it. Gould's statements have often been misused by anti-evolutionists, but this one is unmistakable: ...paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical geneology.
The fossil record certainly does not show sudden, intact species appearance. The best evidence for this is the difficulty in assigning species barriers. If it's so sudden and intact, I invite you to tell me if horses, mules, donkeys and zebras are all the same species? How about dogs, wolves, coyotes, and hyenas? Lions, tigers, cheetahs, leopards, and cougars? Last but not least, humans and chimpanzees? If you really want to show me that there is a distinct barrier of species and a special creation of intellect, tell me which fossils on the following page are ape and which are human:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html
To quote the Dead Kennedys, "Where Do You Draw the Line?; I'm not telling you, I'm asking you."
I'm seriously open to new information here. Science absolutely does not have all the answers. I'm desperate for insight into greater knowledge on this subject. I'll latch on to anything you can provide, but I'm afraid my standards are pretty high in this area.