Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DLL who wrote (16100)	5/23/1998 12:11:00 AM
From: Gregory D. John	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 39621

Donald, I think there may be a much simpler answer to why we may not see a continuum in the current fossil records. I'm certainly not an expert, so there may actually be sections of continuous fossil records of which I am unaware; however, in response, I'll assume the (possibly ignorant) view that there is no continuity. Consider how many animals have ever lived. Now consider how many fossils we have. Or... consider how many different species have ever existed - use a determination of species as follows: two animals are of the same species if they can produce fertile offspring. Now consider how many fossils we have of different species. I think in both cases, the fraction that end up as fossils is extraordinarily small. I have no idea what a reasonable estimate is, but I'll try to make this idea seem more reasonable with some examples. Take a mile-long rope: 63,360 inches. Now... suppose we have a fractional sample of the rope... say 1 in 10,000. So we have six one-inch pieces of the original rope. Now... if you were ONLY given these six pieces... could you ever say there was an entire mile-long rope? Even a continuous section? Take a ratio of 1 in 100. Chop 634 one-inch pieces out. Could you say there was ever a continuous rope? Even a continuous section? Mark the rope in some way like a ruler. Consider the 1 in 100 ratio again. Could you, even then, ever show a continuous section of rope? You can actually be more precise with the odds by using simple college statistics. But I hope these little made-up examples suggest to you that the "non-continuum" argument against evolution may be flawed. This strikes me as a pretty simple arguemnt; perhaps the creationists have a counter-argument. :-) Greg p.s. It's like a puzzle with a huge majority of pieces missing. Who can see the whole picture? This may be why there are so many theories even just within the realm of evolution, itself. But just because the theories may not be consistent with each other, does not mean there isn't a whole picture. And all the theories could be wrong, but the theory of evolution, itself, could be correct; or at least that the pieces of the puzzle do form a whole picture. Whether the pieces evolved or were just created... well... In any case, the "non-continuum" argument against evolution may be flawed.