OK I’ll give these a shot at an answer:
Roger << I’d LOVE to have you and Bob Sungenis come in and debate the issue–Would that be fun?? >>
You mean in person, in front of your class? What city are you in? I’m there dude.
Bob would probably win, he’s a better debater than me with more experience at public speaking. But I’ll give him a fight doing my best
Dalrymple and
Prothero imitation! And he’ll quote all his best Answers In Genesis, ICR, and Kolbe Center material!
Roger << I appreciate your help, however I do have a question. How do we determine if the “species” (the fossil) is the same “species” or a different species? >>
That’s a question more for professional scientists (how are species defined and determined), but I believe it is covered briefly in Prothero’s book. What you are looking for in “transitional species” is mosaic evolution (characteristics between species that overlap yet are different). The changes required for the Reptile to Mammal transition for example are quite large, what can only be called macroevolution. The changes from a land-dwelling artiodactyl to sea-going whale are also quite large. Again, macroevolution. We have plenty of transitional or “mosaic” species for these changes.
Roger << I mean it is kind of confusing since there are those who say that Archaeopteryx was a bird, and that the example of the horse was just simply that, the same species even though the horse evolved. >>
Archaeopteryx means “ancient wing” and is considered a “bird” because it has feathers. But now we know that several ancient dinosaurs had feathers as well (the “feathered dinosaurs” Sinosauropteryx, Caudipteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Confuciusornis). Archaeopteryx is also reptile or dinosaur because of the reptilian or dinosaurian features. It is a classic “mosaic” species and therefore transitional or intermediate between birds and dinosaurs. You said it is disputed as a transitional. It is not disputed except by creationists. I quoted all the documentation in some previous posts.
Roger << For example here is a portion of a review for the book “Death of Evolution” Author Eric Berhminghan review by Wallace Johnson. >>
Another bad book. What you need to start finding and reading are those books published by reputable university publishers, the kind you find in your evolution, biology, geology, paleontology sections at your local university library. These popular traditional Catholic anti-evolution books are just not gonna cut it when it comes to accuracy on the science. Another one is Gerard Keane’s
Creation Rediscovered (which I now have). A bad book on the science, but they are generally OK (if not simplistic) when it comes to classical Catholic theology and dogma. They need to reconcile modern science with Catholic dogma, and not misrepresent the science by suggesting evolution is not true. That’s why I recommend the recent Popes and Cardinal Schonborn’s book instead.
OK onto the review of the Wallace Johnson
The Death of Evolution anti-evolution book:
(1)
Second Law of Thermo does not apply to open systems, but to closed or isolated systems. The earth is not a closed system, and energy provided by the sun allows the total energy to increase or decrease as needed. All that is required for evolution to occur is reproduction, heritable variation, and selection, and that’s what we have going on in nature.
(2)
Most mutations are neutral, not harmful.
(3)
There are plenty of transitional fossils.
(4)
Archaeopteryx is a bird because it has feathers. It is a classic “mosaic” of evolution exhibiting both bird and reptile (dinosaur) features, therefore it is transitional / intermediate.
(5) The
Horse series is not meaningless. We definitely
see evolution there, from the small “dawn horse” the size of a dog with different toes, to the big modern Equus with one toe.
(6) The
known hominid species are not apes, men, and/or frauds. They are definitely
between apes and human beings. The
Piltdown hoax was exposed by evolutionist scientists 50 years ago.
All the scientific evidence or arguments in that book is either misrepresented, misreported, or terribly mistaken. I have about 20 of those kinds of books. Again, the antidote is the
Index to Creationist Claims (published in 2006 as
The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Univ of CA Press which I own).
Roger << I understand you may think these people are “nuts,” but Sungenis also quotes evolutionists, on his site >>
What does Sungenis quote for the most part? Well-known, discredited, out-of-context quotations of various “evolutionists” that are lifted from other creationist books (like Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and others).
This “creationist quote mining” is well-known. It is basically dishonest.
I don’t think Sungenis is nuts, I think his Not By… books are generally great Catholic theological books. He bought into a young-earth creationist mentality early in his Christian conversion, and now finds it hard to break that. I can’t explain his
"geocentrism" either (apparently picked up much later in life, when he read some of
G. Bouw’s books). These can only be broken by being honest with the science.
Roger << The DNA is similiar, but different correct? Are you saying that archaeopteryx would not half bird DNA, nor dino DNA but different DNA? >>
Don’t know the answer to that one, but from what I understand we cannot extract DNA from fossils.
DNA studies are done from the blood of living species (e.g. modern birds), but there are some extractions of DNA from more recently extinct species (like Neandertals). The phylogenetic “tree of life” indicating “universal common descent” (i.e. macroevolution) constructed from DNA or “molecular” studies is very similar if not identical to those constructed from geology, paleontology, and fossil studies. They confirm each other.
Phil P
