Posted on 07/13/2008 2:47:38 PM PDT by Soliton
At long last, the world has recognized the importance of the fossils Dawson discovered a century and a half ago as a young geologist walking along a beach at Joggins, N.S.
His finds would inspire Charles Darwin, document the emergence of the world's first reptiles, and supply evidence that reptiles, mammals and birds share common ancestry.
(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
The title of this is so wrong.
Does this mean that without scientists, evolution would never occur?
Yeah, why am I picturing a Best of the Web coming up with this title?
I believe they are speaking about the theory of evolution and not evolution itself, but good point!
The last sentence is telling.
"The emerging fossil record was making it clear that the Earth was much older than some 6,000 years, as a literal reading of the Bible suggests. But Dawson never doubted that faith could be reconciled with science. Perhaps, he speculated, days in the Bible's story of creation really meant geological periods".
Looks like he changed his mind about the young earth and changed his definitions to preserve his religion to me.
That "shouting" was coming from the quarters of geology, vulcanology, tectonics, and radiometry. That disagreement started with Hutton, not Darwin.
I'm willing to assume his non commitance to what appeared to be fact and truth was left open for further study ... but I don't think he really had belief other than a young earth.
Poor guy had his own little jihad.
These were such matured sciences in the early to mid 1800's that they could be used to batter down a respected scientist theory?
Global warming is real ... buy a wet suit.
I think he was conflicted between evidence and faith. He wanted to believe his Bible, but the evidence was too overpowering, so he changed his interpretation of the Bible to maintain his faith.
But we'll never know now, will we?
The noise was too great and eventually gained popularity ... not necesarilly true ... but popular.
If Darwin had not published when he did Wallace would have done so shortly. And if not Wallace, then someone else would have.
That is why the creationists' attempts to demonize Darwin are so senseless, although quite amusing.
They actually published on the same day, but Wallace was years behind Darwin in developing his theory as Darwin's journals show and as Wallace admitted.
You are right as usual about Darwin's vilification. If he hadn't published, Wallace would have and IDists would be struggling with "Wallacian Evolution" and we would be called "Wallacians". All in all, I'm glad Darwin won. :)
I don't have any problems with micro-evolution.
That is correct.
I'm sure you don't and you shouldn't. It doesn't exist. It is an artificial construct of evolution deniers to admit to what they can't refute. It's like Bill Clinton denying having sex with that wooman right up until the DNA test.
I have asked this a number of times of creationists, with no answer.
What prevents a bunch of micros from going far enough to constitute a macro? What is the mechanism that lets just so many micros, but no more, occur, and prevents them from adding up over time to become a macro?
The word evolution is so over used that people no longer have any idea what it really means.
Actually if you add up enough micros you do get a jump in species (a macro).
To your way of thinking, can you relate some mechanism that would prevent this?
I really don't see a mechanism that can combine hundreds of proteins in the early slime they make a few slow changes then all of a sudden elplode with a thousand species in a few years.
That's off topic. I am looking for a mechanism that will prevent micros, which everyone acknowledges occur, from building up into a macro.
If you equate microevolution to a "drunkard's walk," with lots of little changes throughout the genome, at what point does some arbitrary boundary prevent those changes from straying beyond a certain point and adding up to a macro?
In the course of that "150 years" frame of reference they are. Hutton's Old Earth theories pre-date Dawson's fossil discoveries by several decades. Since then multiple lines of inquiry have supported Hutton's theory that the Earth is a least a billion years old, and failed to find evidence in support of the 6000 year figure calculated from the genaelogical record of the OT.
Do you belive the geologists are wrong?
I think the breeding of dogs might have an answer for you. The DNA does not have coding to change into something other than a dog. Man has come in and changed things to get say a human ear growing on a mouse. Someone or something has to interfere with the DNA to make something outside the boundary. With the proteins coming together everything has to be perfect in the slime because one thing missing and nothing works. Do you know where a guy might get some of the modified E-coli so I can make a mountain of sawdust into crude?
But that's not the case. Those little mutations, which you call micros, over time add up to macros. First you get dog/wolf/coyote. With more time depth you add fox and a lot of other critters. The micros have clearly added up to macros over time.
Someone or something has to interfere with the DNA to make something outside the boundary.
That's what the mutations are doing. Enough of them, along with natural selection, and you get macroevolution.
With the proteins coming together everything has to be perfect in the slime because one thing missing and nothing works.
Actually things don't have to be as perfect as creationists would suppose. Take a look at this video dealing with the subject:
Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Dr. Garrett Odell.
Description: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.
Do you know where a guy might get some of the modified E-coli so I can make a mountain of sawdust into crude?
Have you tried a biological supply house?
There's something wrong with either the grammar or the logic of that statement. Anyway, mathematical models do not constitute scientific proof of anything. Remember that the scientific fallacy of anthropogenic global warming largely depends on mathematical models.
I remember many an occasion when mathematical models have been used to claim evolution is impossible. This video shows the opposite. Its not a youtube amateur quickie, its a university lecture that has been placed on the web. You might check it out.
And on the AGW I think the problem there is the models are not accounting for all of the variables. I believe they admitted lately that cloud cover was not included.
The models are only as good as the variables they include; miss a lot of important variables and you model will probably not be of much use.
But check the online lecture I linked to and see what you think.
My ISP connection, which is even slower than macroevolution, makes videos impractical. Anyway, somebody involved in the linked site can’t even write logical English. And I continue to maintain that mathematical simulations per se are not science. The may help people visualize or conceptualize, but they are not evidence.
Sorry to have to tell you this the theory of evolution is stronger than ever, and getting stronger with each fossil find and genome that is sequenced.
You came on as someone that had questions then you come on like a holier than you zealot.
You stated that you didn't have problems with micro-evolution, implying that you did have problems with macro-evolution. I posed a question asking where is the boundary, and what is the mechanism, that prevents micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution. You were unable to answer that question. So far, no creationist has been able to answer that question for me.
I don't thing that shows zealotry in the least. And I hope it gives you something to think about.
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.