Imagination and Science combine to give us a good picture of the past.
Aside from the paleontologists, though, there are many men we have to thank. The most obvious is Darwin, but a close second is Thomas Henry Huxley, who supported Darwinism at a preliminary debate in Oxford. It's hard to think that had it not been for his courage and the "extent he carried an unwilling audience with him by the force of his speech"(Huxley, 222), we may not have the Texas Memorial Museum today. If the men at the Huxley-Wilberforce debate could see the dinosaur tracks at the Museum that "document a battle between the theropod and the sauropod"(228) or the Mosasaurus skeleton, a "mythical 'sea serpent'... extinct for about 65 million years"(227), perhaps they would change their minds.
Richard Owen, a very talented scientist and speaker.
But are Dinosaurs and the Theory of Evolution truly linked? Ironically enough, Sir Richard Owen, the British scientist who gave dinosaurs their name, presented his research in order to refute the idea of Evolution. Later, it became important evidence that ended up aiding Darwin's book. One great example is the Great Texas Pterosaur. The Pterosaurs "were not close relatives of either birds or bats"(226) but rather "flying reptiles"(226). Why did this species die off completely? If evolution is true, why do we not see any evidence, even if it's not recent, of a similar subspecies?
Here, we can introduce the concept of convergent evolution. This is where two similar species evolve with similar features, but are in no way related to each other. For instance, bats and birds. The fact there is nothing like a Pterosaur indicates that the environment did not favor the Pterosaur for whatever reason.
The Pterodactyl or Pterosaurus is actually much more massive than most of us think.
Smaller animals perhaps survived because there was not a large enough food supply to support the massive dinosaurs. All extinctions and evolutionary features are triggered by an environmental change. With this in mind, it's very interesting to note that in Genesis, it is stated that "a flood was rising from the earth and watering all the surface of the soil"(231). This environmental change apparently spurred god's creation of man. Additionally, the idea that "God made every kind of wild beast, every kind of cattle, and every kind of land reptile"(231) is not totally incorrect. The most common misconception about evolution is that one species transforms into another. This is not true. Apes did not slowly transform into humans. Rather, apes share a common ancestor with us, and we evolved separately in respect to our environments. This is why evolution is described as a "a great tree"(237).
A good example of a phylogenetic tree. Notice that one species does not transform into another, but they branch from similar ancestors.
The only reason this part of the Genesis is incorrect is because all creatures shared one common ancestor, and this was originally a sea creature. There is also indication of this in Genesis since on the fourth day "God said, 'let the waters teem with living creatures'"(231) and on the fifth day, "God said, 'let the earth produce every kind of living creature'"(231). Before it all, on the second day, "God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation'"(230). These days follow a scientific line of reason. The Evolutionary Timeline shows that 2800 myr ago was the "beginning of photosynthesis by blue-green algae"(241A), then 600 myr ago "eukaryotic cell organisms develop[ed]"(241A), and finally 450 myr ago was the "rise of the... first vertebrates"(241A). Beyond all that, we have to remember the audience that the Bible targeted was not the most educated and everyone, even the prophet, is entitled to a little creative license. (P.S. That was a joke).
God separating land and Earth while creating vegetation before creatures.
No comments:
Post a Comment