| June 2006 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Last week I posted a review of the Darwin chapters of Coulter's new book. One of the most telling points Ann makes, is that Darwin as a mechanism for the origin of species, appears to be disproved by the fossil record. If new species arise via Darwinian evolution, there should be a massive amount of fossil records of species mutating into new species. But there is not.
The comment thread for that post was started by several knowledgeable readers, who favored Darwin. In that thread, I asked:
How do you explain the absence in the fossil record of the massive amount of fossil evidence of random mutation of one species into another, which would appear to be required if Darwinian evolution is the mechanism for the origin of species?
So far, none of the pro-Darwin commenters have responded.
I just did a search of Google Groups for "evolution coulter." There are lots of discussions in many groups -- but no discussions yet in the scientific groups, at least in the first 7 pages of results. It appears that the scientific community may be trying to avoid discussing the questions Coulter is raising.
I really want to get a serious response from the scientific community on this important question.
