real life wrote:Hi Setanta,
Good to hear from you.
Regarding your question about the fossil record, there is no fossil that 'only evolution explains'.
That is not the question, which you continue to evade. How does the mere existence of a "fossil record" (the use of fossil as an adjective modifying the noun record is telling) constitute circumstantial evidence for a creation by a deity?
Quote:Since fossils are not time stamped and are not accompanied by any evidence as to their ancestry, these things are inferred not observed.
Fossils are "time-stamped" in that they are found embedded in rock formations, many of the various isotopes of which can be dated by the evidence of atomic decay. The state of decay of the isotopes can be observed.
Quote:In our discussion of bears recently, I asked the question: isn't it possible that many fossils regarded as 'transitional' could be examples of interbreeding between two similar creatures. (And the example of the polar bear was discussed at great length.)
Fossils constitute morphological evidence. Even were any given fossil the product of what you are pleased to describe as interbreeding, the evidence that this has occurred would likely not be obvious in the fossil record, if only a single example were forthcoming. That is why every datum upon which a theory is based is subject to falsification. "Lucy" was only tentative evidence unless and until more evidence were found--and it subsequently was found. In the case of your bear example, to turn a favorite dodge of yours on its head and throw it back at you, this mating did not result in anything which were not a bear. The ability to determine that there had been breeding between a grizzly and a polar bear arose from being able to see the bear--it cannot be said with certainty (without killing and skinning the critter), that any significant morphological differences were present.
To that extent, it might be possible to suggest that singular examples in the fossil record were the product of "interbreeding" (although by definition, any two critters which can successfully breed are
not members of different species)--although every iteration of evidence of a particular species makes the probability more remote, and the most you could hope to insist upon in the face of mounting evidence would be that "interbreeding" were one of the processes upon which evolution depends, in a feeble attempt to account for the proliferation of fossils which are morphologically the same.
In none of the foregoing have you established circumstantial evidence for a deity having created the diversity of life forms which one finds on this planet.
Quote:Well, the obvious answer (but an uncomfortable admission for the evolutionist) is yes, they certainly can be.
See all of the above. No, that would not be "an uncomfortable admission" for those who accept the validity of a theory of evolution. (Once again, "evolutionist" is a false label--it only exists to the extent that those who by policy insist on creation insist upon it [the label "evolutionist]; creationist is a valid term because it derives from the insistence upon a religious creed, while "evolutionist" does not apply to those who accept and understand a theory of evolution, because they are reacting to the inferential meaning of the evidence. You attempt to "shoehorn" the evidence into your creed; those who accept a theory of evolution view the evidence as confirming the theory, or falsifying the details of the theory. If the latter takes place, the theory is not thrown out like a hapless baby in the bath water, the theory is refined thereby, and restated so as to more accurately describe the thesis in terms of all the available evidence. This is a crucial distinction in that religious creeds are not subject to revision, and must be accepted as they are--no amount of evidence can acceptably alter the credo, and all evidence to the contrary must be explained away or denied.)
On the basis of a single instance in which a grizzly and a polar bear appear to have successfully interbred, you wish to make an attempt to invalidate all fossil evidence. You have not done so. The most you can hope for is to show that some morphological change
might be the product of interbreeding, and each new example of fossil evidence for a particular species serves to invalidate your thesis.
Quote:So this is an example of how inferences drawn from the same evidence can differ widely.
No, that is an example that demonstrates only that grizzly and polar bears are not different species, at least to the extent that these two examples of bear can successfully interbreed, and are therefore by definition not separate species.
Which beings us back to the question which you so sedulously avoid. That question is what circumstantial evidence you have for a deity having created all of the life forms which are to be found on this planet, and since you insist, in the fossil record. Proving that any particular assumption of a theory of evolution is flawed (something which you have not accomplished) simply functions as falsification, requiring a revision of the theory to more accurately account for the evidence. Any such "proof" does not function to establish your contention that a creation has taken place. If you want to insist upon the fossile record, all it does is make the question more detailed--as is the case with the scientific method, any putative falsification simply requires an effective revision.
What evidence do you have that a creation by a deity is responsible for the diversity of life found on this planet?
If you assert the fossil record, what is it about the mere existence of fossils which serves as circumstantial evidence of a creation?
If you assert stratigraphy, what is it about stratigraphy which serves as circumstantial evidence of a creation?
If you assert "etc.," what is it about "etc." which serves as circumstantial evidence of a creation?
Upon what basis do you assert that the inability of someone here to explain a theory of evolution to your satisfaction constitutes evidence of a creation?
