The Origin and Extinction of Species

The American Chronicle ^ | July 25, 2008 | Darrell Williams

[Soliton]

Understanding the origin and extinction of species is of paramount importance to our own existence and survival. Unfortunately, the vast majority of humans understand neither. About 90% of humankind professes to adhere to a religious philosophy that has absolutely no interest or concern in understanding the most fundamental ecological relationships that exist in nature. Human failure to respect this relationship has resulted in human failure in our own stewardship of our own planet.

[Sopater]

But if I am inclined to believe in a God, I find more proof of God in the beauty and vast complexity of science than I do in the literal and often biased and uniformed personal interpretation of scripture.

Please humor me while I quote some scripture:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. - Romans 1:20-25

[Soliton]

experiements (sic) that busted the myth.

Spontaneous generation is an old theory that predated Darwin. All Pasteur proved was that nothing grew in his flask. This does not prove or even support the idea that under the right conditions, the right compounds might form to be able to reproduce. The state of the art today is the RNA World hypothesis. Ribozymes and Riboswitches have been found in nature that are probative for an RNA World theory. The building blocks of RNA are pyrimidine and purine. They have been found embedded in the Murchison Meteorite.

[Caramelgal]

Please humor me while I quote some scripture:

Point well taken but humor me by also considering that your scriptural reference could also support my point of view.

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

I could propose that it is you that fails to see His invisible attributes and that even though his divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, that you are without excuse. For even though you knew God, you did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but you became futile in your speculations.

Perhaps the physical evidence for a really old Earth in the fossil record and evidence of evolutions is really a sign of His invisible attributes and His divine nature that has been “clearly” seen and being understood “through what has been made”, that you are the one who is futile and without excuse.

[count-your-change]

The dogma of environmentalism has much in common with the dogma of evolution. The official pronouncements have been made and none dare question them except to support them.
From spontaneous generation to the moth fraud to embryonic recapitulation to acquired characteristics the search goes on. Like global warming everything is proof of the dogma.
If it floods, if there's drought, if there's cold, heat, in between and everything along the scale, it's all proof of global warming/climate change produced by bad stewards.
Evolutionary environmentalism or Environmental evolutionism, believe or suffer the consequences!

[Coyoteman]

The dogma of environmentalism has much in common with the dogma of evolution. The official pronouncements have been made and none dare question them except to support them.

With regard to the theory of evolution, don't you think that those who question it should be required to present some evidence to support their questioning?

[Soliton]

You are wrong. AGWists are against science just like the IDer/ Creationists are. You are on the same side. You both support your agendas by corrupting real science.

[count-your-change]

This is the title of one of the current posts. While just a headline it speaks volumes.
“M.I.T. Scientists: Warming Will Actually Reduce Number of Hurricanes
American Meteorological Society report contradicts claim tropical activity increases due to climate change.”.
Now who corrupted whom? Who has the agenda when some fraud like the peppered moth example is used to support evolution?
And trying to revive the defunct spontaneous generation idea by cooking up goo in a flask? I’d say science is quite capable of corrupting its self with out any outside help.

[Soliton]

“The fact that they are theories does not make them uncertain, even when various fine details are still under dispute. This is particularly true of the theory of evolution, which is under constant attack from people who are either ignorant of science or, worse, who allow their superstitions to overcome what knowledge they might have.”

-Dr. Isaac Asimov, PhD. Professor of Biochemistry, Johns Hopkins University

[Sherman Logan]

A few million years ago, the only humans on Earth lived in east Africa. They essentially had black skin, black hair and brown eyes.

I found this a truly amazing assertion. While this is certainly the way to bet, we have no evidence whatsoever about the skin, hair or eye colors of early hominids. We have a few bones, that is all.

For all we know, Australopethicus had long wavy blond hair, pale skin and dark blue eyes.

This from a guy who purports to be speaking solely from the evidence.

[count-your-change]

And evolutionists, Asimov included, are in the position of relying on unknown processes under unknown conditions to account for unknown life arising at an unknown time at an unknown place for an unknown reason/s they cannot demonstrate any part of. But those they deride as “creationists” are said to place faith in myth and superstition.
You're right, “Once upon a time in slime pool, far, far away” doesn't sound like a bit uncertain at all.

[Coyoteman]

I found this a truly amazing assertion. While this is certainly the way to bet, we have no evidence whatsoever about the skin, hair or eye colors of early hominids. We have a few bones, that is all.

For all we know, Australopethicus had long wavy blond hair, pale skin and dark blue eyes.

This from a guy who purports to be speaking solely from the evidence.

If you study human races, you will find that black skin, black hair and brown eyes is the way to bet.

The intensity of the sun in central Africa would quickly eliminate pale skin through natural selection. (The other two traits appear to correlate highly with melanin levels--unless there is newer research since my grad school days.)

[Sherman Logan]

I agree this is the way I’d bet, but it’s a logical deduction, it’s not evidence. It’s certainly not something one should state as a fact, as the author did.

[grey_whiskers]

They completely deny the established science.

And there are others who ignore or disparage theology.

(From atheists to some fundamentalists to 'modernist' denominations).

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

When an animal species is existing in a slow changing environment and there is little competition, the species doesn´t have to struggle so hard to survive. If there is a lot of food available and life is easy, the species may literally become lazy. This slows down the metabolism and slows down the rate of evolution. This is exactly what the species needs. It´s already adapted to the environment and doesn´t need to evolve, so it doesn´t need to change any characteristics.

Raises an interesting question -- what if you have a population introduced to an environment to which it is not native, so it is not "optimally adapted" (whatever that means). But the environment itself is stable or very slowly changing, so there is little immediate survival pressure.

How does the rate of change of the species differ from another situation where the environment *is* rapidly changing?

(Think of curve following on a hypersurface where you rush to the nearest *shallow* minimum, or seek out the deepest minimum.)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

WTF?? When was Asimov at Hopkins?

(I thought he got his PhD from Boston College and stayed further north than Maryland).

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

He could have filled us with marshmallow creme and we would stll work

"I tell you, God is able to raise up from these stones children of Abraham."

Sounds consistent -- but if we were filled with marshmallow creme, then eating Moon Pies would be tantamount to cannibalism, and then what would the Southerners do?

...although they'd still have RC Cola.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

They have been found embedded in the Murchison Meteorite.

Do you accept this as evidence of panspermia, or that interstellar clouds happened to give a leg up to the precursors of ribonucleic acids?

...incidentally, are the amino acids from the Murchison Meteorite racemic mixtures, or do they prefer one enantiomer over another?

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

With regard to the theory of evolution, don't you think that those who question it should be required to present some evidence to support their questioning?

What is interesting is that there are different levels of evidence considered acceptable in different areas of life. If you don't have a clean chain of evidence, even DNA isn't admissible in a court of law.

OTOH, mistaken eyewitness identifications are fallible too.

The scientific method cannot eliminate errors, but it does give a systematic way to minimize certain errors and provide confidence in the results obtained, within limits -- and different disciplines rely on the scientific method more or less stringently.

Cheers!

[Coyoteman]

...and different disciplines rely on the scientific method more or less stringently.

And religious belief relies on it not at all.

[Soliton]

Sounds consistent -- but if we were filled with marshmallow creme, then eating Moon Pies would be tantamount to cannibalism, and then what would the Southerners do?

I had an uncle who owned a gas station/general store in rural Mississippi. Better than a RC Cola and a moon pie, was pouring peanuts into an ice cold Doctor Pepper on a hot Mississippi Summer day.

As an evolutionist, I of course believe eating any meat or vegetables is a form of canibalism.