randman dissects talkorigins.org FAQ

This is the quintessential evolutionist argument. Simply claim something as proven and observed when it isn't.

Micro-evolutionary changes are not evidence or observation of macro-evolutionary changes. Basically, the evolutionists set the threshold of "evidence" so low that the same evidence that can be used for creationism is somehow evidence of evolution. Their whole argument is disingenious.

This is the quintessential evolutionist argument. Simply claim something as proven and observed when it isn't. Micro-evolutionary changes are not evidence or observation of macro-evolutionary changes. Basically, the evolutionists set the threshold of "evidence" so low that the same evidence that can be used for creationism is somehow evidence of evolution. Their whole argument is disingenious.

...this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor

totally bogus, but this link answers better than I can
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

3. Here transitionals are extremely rare.

"Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species."

But elsewhere they are extremely numerous.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

As in the first section, Wallace does not point to any empirical data to support his position that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He only ridicules Isaak's FAQ. He does this by relying on quotations from various scientific papers and books. He wants desperately to ally himself with the scientific literature as a show of credibility. However, if you, the reader, will simply obtain the papers and books he quotes and read them completely, you will find them a perfect list of references to refute Wallace's claims. He, I suspect, has never read his own references and does not know they refute his position. This is why I strongly urge the reader to obtain these references and read them completely. His selected quotations totally misrepresent the material presented as I am about to show.

The first thing I discovered is that the second law of thermodynamics can be stated in many different ways and to understand it you must know the state of a given system. In fact, there are different mathematical formulations of the law depending on the system being described. This is where most of the confusion arises. Most of Wallace's quotations are taken from sections where the authors are discussing a system that is not representative of a living system.

Wallace takes his quotation from a section called "3. Complexity and Organization." It is obvious that Wallace has not read this paper because the very next sentence after his quotation is "As will be discussed, the role of natural selection in evolution is to transform the structurally complex systems generated according to thermodynamics principles into organized systems."

. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.


"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994