In comments here Craig and I exchange a few words about evolution. I wanted to end the conversation, but as I mentioned some things without offering a link as to where they might be, I thought I would provide that. While I doubt it will do any good - as Craig does not "believe in" evolution, it is doubtful he would accept a scientific discussion of evolution based upon the fossil record interpreted through the lens of said theory - I wanted to make sure my "i"'s were crossed and my "t"'s dotted, as it were.
The link, to an article by Stephen Jay Gould published in Natural History magazine in 1994, discusses the evolution of whales from land mammals. Should Craig's interest be piqued, he can scan through the available archive for articles on all sorts of issues in evolutionary biology.
One of Gould's books, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the History of Nature, was eye opening for me. It discusses the reconstruction of the fossil record contained in the Burgess Shale formation in the Canadian Rockies, and a second reconstruction of that same fossil record that completely changed the way the eco-system recorded in the shale looked, as well as the revamped toxonomical tree that emerged. What was most fascinating for me was the discovery of an entirely extinct eco-system - not just one or two species, but literally hundred, both plant and animal, from which there exists today not a single living example. The beauty and power of life, and its fragility and contingency as well, are all there, and Gould highlights both in a far-ranging discussion on the lessons both scientific and social to be drawn from this example of science doing a pretty good job of correcting its own errors.
I honestly do not wish to "debate" the issue of evolution. It's a bit like debating the theory of relativity, or whether or not the earth revolves around the sun. The kind of ignorance involved that leads someone to ask a question, as Craig did, about the location of the fossil evidence for evolution is truly a marvel (Yes, Marshall, I said "ignorant", and no that's not being judgmental, it is simply a factual determination). As I pointed out in my response, the evidence from the fossil record is plentiful; those who reject evolution reject the evidence as well, precisely because the evidence is interpreted through the lens of evolutionary theory. For some reason, evolution-deniers see this as a problem. Most scientists do not, because that is the way science works.
Virtual Tin Cup
