Posted on 12/15/2005 9:10:41 AM PST by flevit
Simon Schama appears to have little understanding of biology (Opinion, September 4). With an ostrich mindset that tries to ignore reality, pseudo-scientists continue in the vain hope that if they shout loud and long enough they can perpetuate the fairy story and bad science that is evolution.
You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to question evolution theory - you just have to have an open and enquiring mind and not be afraid of challenging dogma. But you must be able to discern and dodge the effusion of evolutionary landmines that are bluster and non sequiturs.
No one denies the reality of variation and natural selection. For example, chihuahuas and Great Danes can be derived from a wolf by selective breeding. Therefore, a chihuahua is a wolf, in the same way that people of short stature and small brain capacity are fully human beings.
However, there is no evidence (fossil, anatomical, biochemical or genetic) that any creature did give rise, or could have given rise, to a different creature. In addition, by their absence in the fossil record for (supposed) millions of years along with the fact of their existence during the same time period, many animals such as the coelacanth demonstrate the principle that all creatures could have lived contemporaneously in the past.
No evidence supports the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs, nor that whales evolved from terrestrial quadrupeds, nor that the human knee joint evolved from a fish pelvic fin. And the critically-positioned amino acids at the active sites within enzymes and structural proteins show that the origination of complex proteins by step-wise modifications of supposed ancestral peptides is impossible. In other words, birds have always been birds, whales have always been whales, apes did not evolve into humans, and humans have always been humans.
But you might protest that it has been proved that we evolved from apes. In fact, the answer is a categorical No. Australopithecines, for example, were simply extinct apes that in a few anatomical areas differed from living apes. If some of them walked bipedally to a greater degree than living apes, this does not constitute evidence that apes evolved into humans - it just means that some ancient apes were different from living apes.
Gosh, a moronic fact-free opinion from an Indian gentleman in a foreign newspaper. Now what did this contribute to the forum?
It depends on what your refering to.
If you're talking about morality, salvation, and the way people should lead their lives, in effect, theology, I follow the Bible.
If you're talking science, I read science texts. The Bible is not a textbook on evolution or biology. Its a guide to living a decent life, a history of Christ's people and their realtionships with God, the promise of a Saviour, and ultimate salvation for mankind.
Therein lies the crux of the problem: the theory of evolution has yet to be verified by experiment, TTBOMK. Time constraints make that rather problematic. Perhaps someday, maybe using single-celled organisms that may reproduce faster, we will one day demonstrate the evolution of something like an ameoba into something like a paramecium, e.g. Until then we should give the theory of evolution the same respect, the same deference, we give any other tenet of faith.
My point was that we have seen it change, but not with anything near the result your implying (new species)
Perhaps. But Ed Bradley, of "60 Minutes" fame, is starting to look a bit "chimpy" as he ages. Maybe Ed is "devolving"?
...;^)
Evidence that stupidity is universal, and that the anti-evolution threat is global.
Except that the genuine Howler Monkey is easily the more visually appealing specimen.
The presumption is that these changes take far longer than "we" have been around observing things directly and taking notes.
When you are teaching a science course, you should be presenting scientific data. The data upon which the premise of evolution has been based are in themselves irrefutable. Its the interpretation of that data that has yet to be tested in a lab, and given the time constraints involved, unlikely to ever be so. Its hardly a mater of faith.
There is no way to scientifically "proove" a lot of what's in the Bible. That is taken on faith. But that's o.k., its personal religious beliefs. But its not science.
Theology shouldn't be taught in science courses and science shouldn't be taught in theology courses.
All against the evolution - raise your tails and throw a coconut at the vote counter.
A cursory search of the web reveals no females with 47 chromosomes (maybe some of your exceptions would apply). The sperm of the males "seems" to consist of 46 chromosomes, one is somehow dropped.
All life resulting from sexual reproduction seems to require an even number of chromosomes, right?
I'd like to buy that book, but it is pretty expensive. I've never been able to totally buy into evolution; it seems that humans and other species are devolving rather than evolving, partly due to medical discoveries that have allowed humans susceptible to certain diseases live to an age where than can and do reproduce, thus throwing natural selection into a spin.
I'm not sure what your point is. All you have to do is go out into an interesting geologic strata and find a fossil of an organism that shouldn't be there. A billion-year-old human fossil would be all the experimental evidence required.
Evolutionary biology has been verified by the fossil record in the morphology of organisms, in the evolution of cells, the evolution of organs, and in modern times, through genomics and the evolution of genes.
If the theory was so grossly wrong, there would already be millions of contradictions. But there aren't any. The modern study of biology has passed you by as we actually work with teasing apart DNA and understand gene expression and regulation. Everyone's looking at the mechanisms now.
You should take a look through PatrickHenry's links. There's more than enough experimental data on evolutionary biology to show how consistent it is.
Now if only the phylum thing could be resolved.
I'm not sure what book you are referring to. Textbooks are expensive these days, but there is a healthy aftermarket. If money is an issue you might search (www.bookfinder.com is good) for whatever you are looking for.
As for buying into evolution, you should be careful to distinguish between micro and macro evolution. Almost everyone believes in micro evolution which can result in changes within a species. It is macro evolution (generation of new species) that is controversial here.
ML/NJ
Does anyone have any solid examples where one new species has resulted from a parent species, preferably not in the misty, distant past?
For one species to spring from another, it seems to me that first one mutation should happen having x characteristics, presumably is able to mate back with the parent species. Then at some a point a mutation of the opposite sex with similar mutated x characteristics would have to evolve such that a male mutation and female mutation can mate and produce offspring.
Then at some point, the off switch takes over and mating with the parent species is no longer possible.
This stretches the bounds of credulity AFAIAC. What would cause the switch to turn off?
Obviously there is intelligence in design, considering the symmetry and intricate complexity and functions of all life forms, but is the "intelligence" built in or is it caused by some external sentience? So I believe in intelligent design, but not necessarily in the context in which it has been put forward as an alternative to evolution. If evolution ultimately proves true, it constitutes intelligent design whether by chance, evolved causation triggers, or something else.
You not have seen the evidence yet. You may have seen evidence and not considered it as evidence. It's one thing to say you haven't seen or considered the evidence, but it's another thing to say there isn't any. The latter is equivalent to a claim of omniscience.
Cordially,
Except for all the proof, that is.
Should take a look, but won't. Anyway, a small sample from The List-O-Links
WHAT IS EVOLUTION?
TONS OF EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION.
NOT JUST FOSSILS ... EVIDENCE OF OBSERVED SPECIATION.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.