Life expectancy
Tomorrow I Start My New Career: Brain Surgeon
Deepak Chopra has decided to weigh in on the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate and man is it an ugly, ugly thing. What is most amusing is that Chopra says that one doesn't have to be Christian Fundamentalist to believe in Intelligent Design then goes on to use some of the favorite examples of Christian Fundamentalists.
Gadzooks, would somebody explain the process of fossilization to good ol' Deepak here. Fossilization is not a common event. So, if fossilization is rare, then it stands to reason taht we will see gaps in the fossil record. On top of that, we don't know where all the fossils are. Even in fossil rich environments such as Hell Creek Montana the paleontologists stil have to go out looking for fossils. So what is a gap today, in 10 years could very well be filled in with new fossil discoveries.
Also note how Chopra appeals to the abiogenesis issue. One can only conclude that Chopra is nearly clueless when it comes to evolutionary biology as evolutionary theory does not need abiogenesis, but merely the presence of life. That is, evolutionary theory assumes that life is a given. So bring this up is a nice handy form of red herring. Both of these arguments are favorites of Creationists that go way, way back. These two have been answered so many times that only somebody who needs to be beaten repeatedly with a clue-by-four would make them.
Probably because we don't observe mutations directly in the fossil record. And interestingly enough, one of the more well known examples of a transitionary fossil, Archeaopteryx, is to the best of my knowledge considered a dead end.
Man somebody sure does not understand the concept of natural selection do they. There is nothing to suggest that evolution has "stopped" in sharks. For one thing we don't see older species of sharks. When was the last time anybody saw a Meglodon cruising the oceans? How about 1.6 million years ago? Or how about this strange shark, Stethacanthus. Only somebody who is supremely ignorant of evolutionary theory would make such a statement.
I'll skip ahead to both keep this short and get to some of the real howlers.
Yeah and cameras steal your soul too. Sheesh, doesn't this guy realize the time scales in question here? We have gone from bird-like dinosaurs such as Sinosauropteryx prima from 121 to 135 million years ago to this blog's namesake Deinonychus antirrhopus which was around about 100 million years ago. Both are considered precursors to bird's and the differences in time frame was about 20 million years. Again, this is simply a stunning degree of ignorance.
Really? No benefit? Well, how about reproductive success? You sure can't pass on your genes if you don't reproduce, and hence beauty might very well have a benefit in the ability to attract a more fit mate. Chopra notes this, but tries to get out of it by saying that beauty also attracts predators. Really? I don't think any elephant is beautiful, but amongst elephants who knows. And as for things like peacocks, why is that the males are always that are so stunning? Maybe because they are not as important to survival as the female is. After all, one male can impregnate several females. So having the attractive male could serve the role of drawing attention away from the pregnant female?
Further, Chopra is completely clueless that the Anthropic Principle actually provides evidence against design not in favor of it. Chopra strikes out in just about every aspect of this article save spelling his name correctly.