>>> Shane Mage
But consider this: 1. Birds have been proven to have been descended from dinosaurs. 2. Dinosaurs have been proven to have been exterminated in a
catastrophic set of events. 3. Birds are totally absent from the fossil record (ie., according to
the
> evidence they did not exist) before the demise of the dinosaurs.
consequently 4. Birds evolved from dinosaurs during the very short period during
which the dinosaurs became extinct. You can be sure that, asked how the birds evolved so rapidly from their dinosaurian ancestors, the neoDarwinian "modern evolutionary synthesis" will be able to offer no evidence-based explanation whatsoever.
^^^ CB: I don't think there is any direct evidence of a Lamarckian mechanism creating bird species either is there ?
I think you might be saying that the evidence of LaMarckianism might be that the bird species arise _relatively_ rapidly. However, consider that Gould and colleagues' punctuated equilibrium is based on the empirical observation that down through the eons there have been several mass extinctions of species that have been around for a relatively long time in "equilibrium" followed by "punctuations" or relatively short periods of extinction and re-speciation with new species. Darwin was wrong in his insistence on gradualism. In other words "evolution" should be a "evolution-revolution". Gould renders Darwinism dialectical by putting leaps in. Even though "leaps" in this case they can be tens of thousands of years, they are relatively short compared to tens of millions of years of "equilibrium".
^^^^^
And beyond that, the "Big Bang" postulates the origin of this universe-- governed by natural laws that have remained absolutely unchanged (because by definition uniform throughout spacetime) since its very first moment (that is how they retropredict the "inflationary" first moments of the universe)--in a "singularity." But just ask the question: "HOW
did the supposed singularity, in which no natural laws applied, give birth to a universe governed by the precise (to "many decimal places")
laws supposed to govern it today?" I defy anyone to come up with an answer that makes more sense than the Big Banger theory.
^^^^^ CB: Cool critique of Big Bang.
Just to play devil's advocate, an atheist version might be something like "things change, things turn into their opposite; a universe with no ( or different) natural laws turned into its opposite - a universe with natural laws." Of course, also, a "bang" is obviously a contradiction, no ?
^^^^