Since I didn’t want to force Dex to move a thread (something he hates), I figured I’d post my response here.
Where to begin, though? The claim that there is no proof for species changing into others? Simply wrong, as discussed in the very Mailbag item that thread was referring to!
Ok, what about it being used to justify horrible things? So what? That has nothing to do with the scientific theory itself. If somebody used the theory of gravity to throw people off the tops of towers to their deaths, that wouldn’t make gravity wrong. If we use electricty in the death penalty, that doesn’t make electricity wrong.
And the last statement about Darwin changing his mind is also simply wrong. Worse, it’s completely bogus.
Overall, I’d love to see Capacitor come in here and back up any/all of his statements.
Jimmy Swaggart is a virulent pustule on the ass of humanity, but his worst crime, here, is the mindless repition of fundie mythology. The “Darwin repented” lie was begun by the wife of a British admiral in a speech to an American Protestant seminary just after Darwin’s death in 1882.
Like I have said before: Evolution is a Fact, not a theory, the Theory part comes in as to HOW Evolution works. There are some links between Phylums, ie Amphiouxus & Tunicates with Vertebrates.
And Nazism & Fascism both are independent of Evolution, and do not “owe their existance” to Evolution. True, both used it as an excuse, at times, but never was it a major portion of their beliefs or a cornerstone. No more than, say, vegetarianism was to Nazism.
Okay let me modify. I believe in microevolution, that which occurs within a species, and within each animal as it grows into adulthood. However, transmutationism, the radical changes in structure that is required for a reptile to turn into a bird, for example, I find it harder to believe, even with the so-called evidence. What if it is the case that God manipulated DNA to create the many varieties of animals, without using the process of birth? The above statement is only allegedly nonsense because you have not seen the hand of God gently putting down the new animal. But is it not similar to transmutationism, with the difference that the originator of a new species is coming from the womb, rather than from up above? Why I have not heard of any fossils of one type of animal gestating a very different one, probably a new species unknown to science because it died in the womb?
By the way, Darwin stated that his theory of evolution should not be applied in matters of social construct.
actually, capacitor, genetic mutantsare fromed every day “in the womb” and often die still born. There is a whole museum, in Europe devoted to “monster” embryos, and many are genetic mutants. There are few major changes, because there is no need for them. You have heard the stroy about the sparrow sharpening his beak on a mountain, and eventually wearing it down? well, Evolution is like that. The line from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapians is pretty marked out, as well as the Horse line from what used to be called Eohippus.
And there have been new species in just thousands of years, eg Darwins Finches, and many more. There are new species developeing as we speak, and we a e tracking some of these. There just are not enough fossils to show an unbroken line from Newt to man.
Now, does this rule out a little Nudge from God? No, in fact the beginnings of life are still unsolved. If there is a God, he wants us to have free will. Think how much more wonderful his Creation is-- if it is free from huge obvious Godly intervention. Would not such obvious handwork by God- reduce free will? In fact, the creationists are ANTI-God: they are saying God is such a bumbler, He can’t even manange to create a world without constant “tinkering”, and with big mistakes that are clear to all. I don’t think so.
And this does not make Genesis wrong, either. How could God explain Genetics, Evolution & Quantum Physics to some goatherders, who didn’t even have iron, yet. Heck, some today, like YOU, can’t understand these even now. So, assuming God DID create the Earth, and DID tell about it, he made it so that they could understand. Genesis is really not such a bad way of describing the scientific evolution of Life on Earth, it’s the time scale that’s a mite off.
capacitor, if you believe in microevolution, then you believe in evolution, for they are exactly the same effects accumulated over time. Accepting microevolution while denying speciation is similar to being convinced of time measured in seconds or minutes, while rejecting the concept of hours, days, months or years.
You are sorely confused about evolutionary theory. I recommend a thorough examination of the Talk Origins site to gain an understanding of the science of evolution.
No animal gives birth to an entirely different species. Besides, what beast would this new animal mate with? It is entire populations that evolve gradually until they can (presumably) no longer interbreed with the parent species. But keep in mind that our designations of species are an artificial classification built atop the continuum of nature.
Then, as already noted here, you “believe in” evolution. Because “microevolution” is different from “macroevolution” only by a matter of scale. Otherwise, they are exactly the same thing. Look for an upcoming Mailbag item on this very topic (though it may be a couple weeks). I’ll give you a preview, in the form of a quote from Niles Eldredge, in his new book, The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism:
"There is utter continuity in evolutionary processes from the smallest scales (microevolution) up through the largest scales (macroevolution)." (p. 119)
So you admit you’re ignoring the evidence because you, personally, find it hard to believe. Well, then I guess there is little anybody else can do. The evidence is there. It shows it to be correct. Yet you prefer to believe otherwise. What, exactly, would you like us to do?
Huh? What other process would he use? Cloning?
Because evolution is made up of small changes over time. For example, you don’t just poof see a dinosaur become a bird. You see small changes in the fossil record showing how dinosaur features changed into bird features.
Good. Then why did you bring it up as a way to attack evolution?
Survival of the fittest does not apply to just physical attributes. Social evolution these days have become just as important. Evolution deals with populations surviving better then others. The social component becomes involved when they
species work together. This of course can overcome genetic inferiorities.
Survival of the fittest still rules, just not always those who are “genetically” more fit. Today technology and intelligence accounts for alot.
Evolution as a theory nessecitates that a new species must come out from an old one. Some say gradually, other say by mutation.
About this quote: There is utter continuity in evolutionary processes from the smallest scales (microevolution) up through the largest scales (macroevolution).
You just can’t assert something with a premise that is in dispute as proof of your conclusion. You decry religious people when they do such a thing, rely on faith. Scientists, with the requirements of experimentation and observation procedures, demand something higher than that in arguments. The fact that there is at least thirteen schools of thought on evolution, many of which are radically different in theory to Darwainism and Lamarckism, is an indication that evolution in the macro scale has not a set theory that everyone agrees on. Also, note that for each fossil discovered and analyzed changes, a radical new theory related to evolution comes about, discarding old views.
Some people say what good are theories if you cannot put it in active practice? You cannot force the applications on these theories of macroevolution on people and expect people, once they realize what is going on, revolting. You want a revision of Social Darwainism? I think not.
You know they say; if there is a watch, there must be a Watchmaker. I guess they have a point, but it sure would take an awful clumsy watchmaker to leave greasy fingerprints all over everything inside.
Cap: do you really think that God, if he exists, could only create a world that required constant tinkering, and would leave huge mistakes everywhere (that us mortals could find)?
Don’t you have more respect for God as a Creator than that?
No. Well, maybe; there may be a few die-hard Lamarckains out there. Some scientists say gradualkly, some say by puhctuated evolution, and some by other methods; but *all say by mutation. Mutation is not a dog giving birth to a cat.
True. However, the quote to which you refer is not a premise; it’s a conclusion from mountains of evidence. Links to some of that evidence have been provided, and they contain many other links to more evidence. The point is that the premise of evolution is not in dispute in the scientific community.
Your “at least thirteen schools” is somewhat vague; I can’t tell to what you are referring. Your inclusion of Lamarkism, which is dead in the scientific community, is suspicouos. From what source do you derive that statement?
However, it is indeed true that exactly how evolution works on a macro scale is not universally agreeed on. That evolution on a macro scale happens is so well established that there’s no significant disagreement.
Now, I do acknowledge that there are people who claim to be scientists and claim that macro evolution is not well established or does not occur. I have read a lot about and by those people, and their claims are wrong. They are not scientists; they are dogmatists who start with an unshakable premise. They look only for evidence that supprots that premise. They ignore contradictory evidence. Antyhing that looks like evidence that supports their premise is never questioned, even when shown to be wrong.
Actually, it’s gradually by mutation. They are not mutually exclusive, but rather one and the same thing.
I wasn’t just “asserting” anything. As I explained, it was a preview of an upcoming Mailbag, which discusses it further.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with anything here. I’m not just relying on Eldredge because he said it. I’m quoting his conclusion, which has reams of evidence to back it. If you don’t understand the difference there, I’m afraid there is little hope for this discussion.
Actually, what it shows is that scientists agree that evolution happens, and are just worrying about the details now (Lamarckism, by the way, is not taken seriously by just about anybody anymore, so using it in a comparison is pretty silly). I urge you to read Eldredge’s book, as it goes into this point as well. Creationists like to point to disagreements over details and say, “See! They don’t even agree amongst themsevles!” But no matter how much Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins (for example) disagree on punctuated equilibrium vs. neo-Darwinism, those are just minor details in what to call things. They agree on the fact of evolution, how it occurs, etc. And I’d have to start a Pit thread to say what they both probably think of creationists who take their words and disagreements out of context to make it seem like evolution is in doubt.
Excuse me, but, baloney. New theories on timing or specific ancestors may occur, but not radical new theories about evolution itself. You are again confusing issues.
Are you one of these people? Because if you are, I’ll reply. If you’re not, there’s no point in my bothering.
What are you talking about? How many times do we have to explain to you that evolution and social Darwinism are two completely different things? What will it take to get this through to you?
Hey, this topic EVOLVED from a topic in COMMENTS ON MAILBAG ANSWERS, didn’t it?
BTW, I am curious, about the evolution of feathers… Presumably there would be lots of in-between stages, from the scales/skin of dinosaurs to the feathers of birds. Are those reasonably documented? (Lack of documentation is by no means disproof; the fossil record is very sketchy. Alas, it is not the case that every creature leaves a fossil.
Although I know a few people at the office who are fossils.
Sorry, just read them. They start explaining the beginning of development of feathers in reptiles, then skip 200 milion years and voila–birds. Inadequate. There are important intermittent steps missing, such as the development of wings, the development of longer limbs needed to support flight, and in learning how to use these new wings to fly. Those are not gradual steps in the development of birds, but radical ones indeed.
Which brings up another aspect. How do you account for instinct?
Interesting how you completely ignored my response to you, cap.
Anyway, you said in response to somebody else:
No, they are gradual. Longer limbs didn’t develop overnight. They gradually got longer. Learning to use wings gradually evolved with the wings themselves. There are other species today that have something that is not quite a real wing but can be used for gliding.
Huh? Want to be a little more specific?
“The most amusing threads on this board involve David B kicking some obnoxious creation scientist ass.” – Greyson3
