As to the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, nothing is certain either from data that Gould had access to in 2001 or since. Embryologists, as well as respiratory physiologists and a myriad of ornithologists outright reject the whole idea of dino-bird linkage. There is so much difference between the dinosaurs and the birds of today that it is impossible, except to imagine, how the transformation occurred. Yet that is what materialistic science is best at… imagination.
Archeopteryx: a true bird by all ornithological tests. No intermediate here.
Mammals from reptiles? Says who? Because it seems like a good fit? There are many reptiles other than dinosaurs that may have had some general morphological features of some small mammalian creatures. How does this prove an ancestral relationship existed except by the assumption that the relationship existed? From a technical standpoint the changes in circulation, gestation, arrangement of the organs of the head and hundreds of changes in dermal (scale) to skin coverage, fight behavior, changes in feeding, nesting and mating, teeth, tongue, larynx, reversal of knee and elbow placements are just a few of the hurdles to overcome in order for evolution to proceed. This is not evidence or fact. This is a good spooky story though!
Telling spooky stories!!
And if brain size is a major difference separating us from some ape-like ancestor, take pity on our ability to reason with this large brain. It may just be a well-organized chunk of fat between our ears, especially when you can’t see the overwhelming differences between humans and troglodytes (chimpanzees). Brain size has been shown repeatedly to have little to nothing to do with human intelligence. Modern man has a range of brain sizes from 750cc to 2500cc. Our Neanderthals neighbors averaged 2500cc. We average 1500cc. Genius is not determined by the size of the brain but complexity of the folds of brain tissue of the cortex. Little people have the same average intelligence as do people with big heads. Some people with big heads show themselves of questionable use of their intelligence when they begin to speak of things like evolution which have no facts to support it.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Finally, Stephen Gould makes his fourth major attempt at proof of the facts of evolution by noting the incredible number of imperfections in the creatures and plants that exist today. There were once over 200 vestigial organs numbered in humans that were supposed to be leftovers from some ancient past life. Do we have any useless organs of the body? I could list them and then show we now know that all of these tissues and organs keep us alive, protected, and comfortable in our own skin. In the animal world, you would be very hard pressed to find vestigial organs as well. The whale has a pelvis but no limbs. Yet without the pelvis certain muscles would have no attachment to aid in reproduction. The dog has a thumb we call a dewclaw and we have it removed as a useless organ to a house pet. Yet in the wild, that claw is used to hold prey down or to pin a meaty bone in place so the animal can strip it of the flesh and marrow.
They all have a purpose.
Gould was the right man to ask to write the introduction. His comments are transparencies of the failures of Carl Zimmer to critically think on the things he has read and what he has been told.
Oh, I will read the rest of the book and add it to my collection of pitiful blunders of human arrogance. Carl Zimmer is an excellent writer and will be for me a pleasant read, as he will arm me with silly stories, inconsistent remarks, bold assertions for which there are no facts. He cannot be blamed for popularizing evolution when people with Harvard PhDs commit to materialism with such ease and evolution of any kind so long as it is devoid of God.
But very deep, this poor naked ape (me), is a soul saddened by the obstinance of scientists who for the sake self-gratification and professional acceptance reject reality for myths built on the superstitions of what is falsely called science. Theology has its transubstantiation and science has its transmutation and somewhere between this world of make believe there lay a reality that rejects both. There are far better explanations that are both intelligible, consistent and accept experimental data for the often prejudice dependency on inductive reasoning.
“In the case of the bread, it has the qualities of being white, round, and soft. The whiteness is not the bread, but it is a quality the bread has- the same is true of the roundness and softness. The senses can perceive these qualities, but they cannot perceive substance (the thing in itself). Through Jesus’ presence, the Church teaches that during the mass, the substance has been changed to his body and his blood.”
I have to ask, are the teachings of evolution any different?
Leave a Reply