AC> AC> KK> Fossilization is an extremely rare process.
AC> AC>"Rare" means a more random sample which
AC> AC>means a better picture of the history of life.
AC> KK> I would say exactly the opposite.  The acidic soils of jungles
AC> KK> and forests causes rapid decay of bones, so those animals will
AC> KK> be underrepresented.  Animals that die in conditions conducive to
AC> KK> rapid fossilization will be overrepresented.
AC>You're arguing that the fossil record is biased.
No kidding, Andrew.  If you actually studied geology instead of
avoiding it because it might 'test your faith,' you might discover
that the fossil record is biased.
Since you are implying that the fossil record cannot be biased,
kindly show us the skeleton of Adam with a missing rib.  By your
own definition 'rare' means a more random sample which means a
better picture of the history of life.  Produce the skeleton, please.
By the terms of your own argument, Adam's skeleton should be
present, but if you argue that Adam's skeleton is so rare that
it's unlikely to be found, you have just demolished your own argument.
AC>"Rare" does not
AC>mean biased.
Of course it does.  When you have only a tiny sample of something,
statistically you have to assume that your picture of it is skewed.
If you actually read science books you would know this.
AC> And, "bias" doesn't solve your problem either.
All the Archaeopteryx fossils we have were found within a formation
called the Solnhofen limestone.  This sedimentary formation is
unique in that it is so fine-grained that it is quarried for
use as lithograph stones, and preserves the feather impressions
of Archy.  A similar species could well have existed 200 miles
away from Archy but in a jungle environment where it would not
have been preserved; we would not know anything about that animal.
And since 'bias' doesn't solve anyone's problems, let me point
out that your bias is toward a rigid belief in a story told
5,000 yars ago by preliterate nomadic goatherds.  Your bias is
that whatever they said was the literal truth about earth science.
But then, 'bias' doesn't solve anyone's problems.
AC>Transitional species are no more likely to live in conditions less
AC>favorable for preservation than non-transitional species (btw,
AC>how can we even talk about non-transitional species if Evolution
AC>is true).
In marine species, where fossilization is much more likely, we have
hundreds of examples of series where each fossil in an upward
series looks almost exactly like the one in a lower stratum, but
has some small change.  This continues in stratum after stratum
and eventually shows an amazing divergence into very different types.
This is exactly what we would expect of descent with modification,
which was Darwin's phrase for evolution.
Now here's a problem.  All those fossils weighed almost exactly the
same, yet creationist "hydraulic sorting" says they should all have
ended up at the same level.  Kindly explain how the fossils not only
didn't all end up at the smae level, kindly explain why they sorted
themselves into exactly the series we would expect by evolution.
And while you're at it, kindly use 'hydraulic sorting' to explain
why we routinely find a _complete terrestrial ecosystem_ at one
thin sedimetary level, covered by a _complete marine ecosystem_,
which is covered by another complete terrestrial ecosystem.
I'm talking about everything right down to pollen and bacteria
fossils.  Perhaps you can explain to us how the Flood could have
settled thousands of complete ecosystems around the world, and
how the creatures therein are arranged just as though evolution
was the cause.  Tell us with a straight face that some pollen
grains are heavier than others and sank in perfect accordance
with the illusory evolutionary series.
AC> AC>Apes became threatened because the white man introduced
AC> AC>African-Africans (heh) to an abundant supply of guns and
AC> AC>medicine.  Before this century, Apes didn't have to worry much
AC> AC>about spears tossed by populations which remained small in spite
AC> AC>of astronomical conception rates.
AC> KK> So what you're saying is that the poor ignorant little darkies
AC> KK> should be left in ignorance where they belong, right?
AC>I'm saying that the black population of Africa was not a
AC>threat to apes, for reasons other than virtue.  That last
AC>bit was gratuitous, of course.  Shame on me for being
AC>politically incorrect, even if correct.
So since you're implying that you're correct, you're saying that
the poor ignorant little darkies should be left in ignorance
where they belong.  Answer the question.
AC> KK> It can be demonstrated in the lab.  And if you ever get a secondary
AC> KK> infection from an antibiotic-resistant bug, you will have more
AC> KK> evidence than you really want.
AC>Take away the antibiotics, put both versions of the bug
AC>in a room to fight it out.  Which do you expect would
AC>win?  The normal bug or the antibiotic resistant bug?
Do you want a real experiment or a Disneyland experiment?
In hospitals, huge use of antibiotics is the norm, and that is
where antibiotic-resistant bugs thrive.  And, your response evades
the real problem, which is that evolution produces antibiotic-
resistant bugs.
I should point out to other PHILOSOPHY participants that Andrew
was exposed to all this well over a year ago on the Evolution echo,
yet he is still presenting the standard young-earth-creationist
litalny as though nothing had happened.
I should also point out that a week ago Andrew claimed that there are
no transitionals, and in response I asked if he meant species
transitionals or higher-order transitionals.  He has not responded
to that question, crucial as it is, but currently he is no longer
talking about transitionals but 'species transitionals.'
Maybe it's because avoiding the facts is the only way he can persuade.
 * SLMR 2.1a * "... Mr. Reagan's plan is voodoo economics."  George Bush
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------