I was refering to this question from the OP and thinking the references might cast doubt on interpretations/findings of the fossil record (shakiest element).
Regardless of the validity, was this a mistake in logic?
Otherwise, thanks for the enlightenment. My participation here is one of a non-scientific, open-minded (yet stubborn) Christian. I wouldn’t have the foggiest notion of how to prove or disprove any of the evolutionist points being made here. I am, however, interested in the topic.
I have always struggled with my love for natural wonders and being careful not to forget my faith. I waver from one extreme of thinking all this minutia is too complicated and unnecessary to pondering something like the human ear and saying it’s too complicated to develop without intelligent design.
If I seem like a fly in the ointment, I apologize.
IMHO yes, although it’s admittedly a difficult line to walk. Appeal to authority is a well known logical fallacy. In this case, although the people quoted are indeed experts in the field (of course Darwin’s expertise is dated), the discussion numbered 3 at the link is relevant.
Strictly speaking, what an expert says is not evidence for anything. Since we cannot all be experts in everything, we must often leave interpretation and explanation of the evidence to experts. When discussing the evidence itself, however, it is appropriate to quote experts only as amplifications of the basic argument or particularly well-stated expositions of the argument.
Questioning evolution because of gaps in the fossil record is a valid argument, although it’s fruitless in this case; gaps in the fossil record leave us in doubt about many fascinating details, but the literally trillions (counting pollen and small sea creatures, which are tremendously interesting and useful fossils but don’t get much media attention) unequivocally establsh the fact of massive and nearly-continuous changes over incredibly long time, which is only explained by evolution (although there is a formal possibility of a new theory arising which esplains it better).
Creationists tend to repeat arguments, which have been shown to be invalid, over and over and over and over again. This naturally irritates “evolutionists” and this irritation often shows through. You appear to be sincere and interested, and I am trying to answer rationally and politely. This is a moderated forum where a certain level of decorum is required and enforced; you should look at talk .origins (which is moderated but not moderated for content) …
I suggest you look at some non-creationist sources in your quest. “Tower of Babel” by Robert Pennock is an excellent critique of the current creationism, “The Creationists” by Ronald Numbers is excellent for understanding the players and the history, and “Science and Earth History” by Arthur Strahler is an excellent critique of creationism as it was up to about the early 90’s. The Talk.origins Archive is an excellent resource (it’s interesting to compare the number of links to creationist sites posted there with the number of links to non-creationist sites posted at creationist sites). For excellent pages by former creationists who are still deeply comitted Christians, see Greene’s Creationism Truth Filter and DMD Publishing Co. Home Page (be sure to read the “About the Author” page). See also Site Map about Creation/Evolution, Philosophy 333: Evolution and Creation (an incredible and balanced collection of links), and Creationism and Pseudo Science (whcih may show an incredible amount of blank space at the top of the page, depending on how your browser reads it).
Which theory of the origin of life would you prefer? The soup theory or the sandwich theory?
The origin of life is still a murky area with several promising theories, but not a sufficient amount of data to conclusively support any of them, yet.
It has no bearing on whether evolution occurs among existing life forms, since the only statement that the Evolutionary Theory addresses is what happens to life forms that exist. Attempting to “defeat” evolutionary theory thought by attacking abiogenesis is futile. Even if God dropped fully functioning life on the planet a few billion years ago, the Neo-Darwinian theory of Natural Selection is the only coherent theory that has been put forward to explain species and genera that has survived scientific analysis.
It was laziness on my part, and I apologize humbly for that–and for being snippy.
How’s this: The evidence seems to indicate that the dichotomy drawn by some of those who oppose evolution between “micro-” and “macroevolution” is a false one.