Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex
annalex: "That is precisely the fantasy not supported by fact."

But you have already confessed, in post #127, that evolution is "supported by fact" in the case of plants.
Now you wish to draw an unnatural distinction between evolution in plants which you admit can happen, versus evolution in mammals, which you pretend cannot.

The truth of the matter (not a "fantasy") is that descent with modifications and natural selection occur in both plants and animals, and that these leave records we can observe in fossils and in their DNA's.

For an example of evolution "caught in the act," consider these sub-species Grant's Zebras, which can interbreed with these closely related sub-species of Burchell's Zebras:

But neither interbreeds successfully with these different species Grevy's Zebra.

To anyone with a scientific mind, that is evolution "caught in the act" of happening.

annalex: "There is no need to explain it to me, it is a well-known thing.
When you so easily bring over ideas of selection into origination of species, it is you who doesn't understand "basic facts & ideas of evolution." "

You have repeatedly admitted one of the two key factors in evolution theory: "natural selection", but you have not yet confessed the truth of the other key factor, "descent with modifications."
As with "natural selection", "descent with modifications" has been observed and confirmed innumerable times.
So both are facts, but you won't admit them, will you?

annalex: "A scientist should perhaps look into this and ask himself: why is it so that viruses, plants and insects evolve between species and mammals don't? "

You again use a very odd, indeed meaningless, form of expression: "evolve between species".
I suspect it may be your devotion to the concept of biblically fixed "kinds" which causes you to employ such a strange locution.
Regardless, it is not scientific.

In reality, evolution happens from each generation to the next, and the definition of a new "species" is simply a matter of scientific convention.
By convention, we say that a new "species" has evolved whenever separated new populations can no longer successfully interbreed with their originals, as in the cases of different zebra species.

annalex: "Science simply cannot explain the origin of species..."

Of course it can.
By definition, scientists say that a "new species" has evolved whenever off-spring can no longer successfully interbreed with other off-spring of their common ancestors.
And the basic biological mechanisms are 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
Why should that be so difficult to understand?

annalex: "So evolution is something you first assume and then you see the world through the prism of that assumption.
This is where it stops being science. "

No, science itself by definition, is the assumption of "methodological naturalism".
If a theory such as evolution meets the requirements of methodological naturalism then however correct or incorrect it may be, it is still a scientific theory.

But if another theory, such as "Creationism" or "Intelligent Design", does not meet those requirements, then by definition, it is not scientific.

In other words, even if (somehow) pure "Creationism" turned out to be correct, and "Evolution" to be wrong, Evolution would still be a scientific theory, and Creationism would not.
And the reason is that Evolution is based on the scientific assumption of methodological naturalism, while Creationism is not.
Of course, if Creationism were somehow confirmable through methodologically natural methods, then it would become a scientific theory.
But today no possibility of a natural confirmation exists.

annalex: "How can anything be "by definition" unscientific?"

Obviously, you don't understand the basic concepts here.
The scientific enterprise is based on methodological naturalism and anything which does not meet that criteria is, by definition not scientific.

annalex: "Observation supports the separate creation theory: the fossils do not form a contiguous trace form species to species, but rather they appear in groups that show a stable species each time."

The existence of any fossil for any species is very rare, and no doubt that many separate species, much less sub-species, have come and gone without ever leaving even one fossil.

But no species receive more intense study than pre-humans, and there dozens of transitional forms -- of breeds, sub-species, species, genera and biological families -- are identified, for examples:

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls.
Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

•(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
•(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
•(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
•(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
•(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
•(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
•(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
•(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
•(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
•(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
•(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
•(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y •
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
•(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

annalex: "Between fossilized cars there is the same similarity, but, thanks for noticing, cars don't even reproduce themselves, let alone evolve."

But all creatures, great and small, do reproduce themselves, and therefore do evolve due to the scientifically observed and confirmed operations of descent with modifications and natural selection.

No other scientific theory fully accounts for these confirmed facts.
Of course, the science of evolution in no way excludes the Hand of God for those of Faith, as the old song says:

Science suggests the Hand of God works naturally through evolution.

131 posted on 05/22/2012 10:02:25 AM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies ]

To: BroJoeK

This is getting repetitive and, as it typical for your cult, attempts to drown the opponent in irrelevant detail, verbosity, and silly illustrations.

I responded to your zebras about a week ago. This is selection, not “evolution caught in the act”. “Descent with modifications” is a fantasy not observed among birds or mammals.

If there is anything you introduced in your last post that I did not react to, kindly point that out.

132 posted on 05/22/2012 4:50:00 PM PDT by annalex (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson