Problems of Evolution

Independent Individualist ^ | Apr 28, 2008 | Pamela Hewitt

[allmendream]

Being a nurse doesn't QUALIFY one, in and of itself, to make an academic argument on Evolution or Genetics. Proper urinary catheter placement perhaps, but not Evolution or Genetics. Nothing better than an educated layman, and the obvious language appealing to authority without giving actual qualification shows that the author knows it. And the writing shows that the author is obviously an ILL educated layman on the subject. Most of what the author thinks they know just isn't so.

[Soliton]

I suggest that the animal forms we see now have always existed as they do, but have minor variations within species, which can arise from a variety of sources, largely genetic recombination, and which has the effect of allowing specie continuity in the face of minor environmental changes, such as the case of pale and dark moths on trees darkened by industrial smoke pollution. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of sea dwelling animals, including the mammals, have an overall "fish" structure. The starfish and octopi are minimally represented.

This is a falacy rich environment

the vast majority of sea dwelling animals, including the mammals, have an overall "fish" structure

This ignores molusks, crustaceans, Cnidaria (jelly fish) and many others that comprise the vast majority in number and number of species. Further, the evolution of fish from reptiles via amphibians is thoroughly established science. There are intermediate animals alive today. Sea going mammals evolved from land mammals http://www.maverickscience.com/whales-legs.htm

[CarrotAndStick]

So that little girl in India who was born with two faces is a remnant of when Humans were two-faced?

The little girl in India was actually attached to her parasitic twin that died in her mother's womb, but whose body remains were sourcing nutrition from the complete twin' body. The parasitic twin was partially absorbed by the healthy twin's body, until birth.

The dolphin's rear fins are NOT of any parasitic twin.

[MrB]

In denying the supernatural, you have an opinion, or theology about it, by definition.

Go ahead and try to claim a “neutrality” position, I understand the desire for stealthiness.

[CarrotAndStick]

In denying the supernatural, you have an opinion, or theology about it, by definition.

Firstly, opinion != theology.

That been made crystal-clear, let us look at 'theology'.

Theo'logy: From 14th century, via French and Latin; Greek theologia, "study of divine things".

Where exactly does Atheism fit in here, other than the fact that Atheism is about the denial of those "divine things" in the first place?

[MrB]

I’m in a theology course.

Any viewpoint you have on the divine, on creation, on origins, on purpose of life, of the existance and definition of right and wrong,

is a theology.

Now, let’s take your assertion.
“Study of divine things” - if you’re an atheist, and you’ve rejected the divine, did you do so without some sort of study? That’s not very “intellectual” of you.

[Coyoteman]

Sorry, this article is tripe.

One example. It is claimed:

A Professor of Geology found, in the lower Pliocene strata of Castelnodolo, near Brescia, a complete human skeleton indistinguishable from that of a modern woman. The staining in the bones, the depth and number of different strata above the skeleton and its position made it very highly unlikely it could have been a more recent burial. The inescapable conclusion is that this speciment of homo sapiens sapiens was walking around 3.5 million years ago.

This is a popular internet myth. Rather than being 3.5 million years old, this find was modern. Details here and here.

This is more evidence that archaeology should be left to archaeologists.

[CarrotAndStick]

Any viewpoint you have on the divine, on creation, on origins, on purpose of life, of the existance and definition of right and wrong, is a theology.

That's like saying that if I have an opinion on root canals, it makes me a dentist.

[CarrotAndStick]

You should ping this to the author of the piece, who is apparently on FR.

Soliton was replied to, by him/her earlier.

[MrB]

Sorry, your analogy is not even close.

You have a lot invested in denying that atheism is a theology, a religion, and a belief system based partly in faith, so good luck with that.

Good day.

[Coyoteman]

You should ping this to the author of the piece, who is apparently on FR.

Why? I read the article. It's full of nonsense.

I took a couple of minutes and research the facts behind one claim. The claim was false, as I suspected.

I don't have any trust in the other claims, nor the conclusions, and I have no desire to debate the author. She clearly has nothing of value to say.

[ml/nj]

My point was that the article writer seems to accept the figure of 3.5 million years, but that her basic argument undermines this number.

ML/NJ

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

“Argument by fable. “Somebody told me once that way back in 1921, scientists discovered a dinosaur and a cave man in the same rock strata...”

It's not fable. Oh perhaps, the example you posted may be, but not all. I remember reading in the National Geographic back in the mid-70s about the discoveries of the upright human footprints, a femur belonging to “Lucy” who walked upright, and an almost complete modern skull that were hundreds of thousands years older than expected according to the then accepted evolutionary “history”. The National Geographic is a staunch advocate of darwinism, and they said that these discoveries would force a reassessment of that evolutionary calender. Since then, they have determined that many of the later humanoid fossils that were thought to be ancestors (Australopithecus, habilitis and erectus) were, in fact, contemporary “cousins” to homo sapiens. I believe that is still the hypothesis. As a result, they now have no clear ancestors to homo sapiens, only speculation.

To the die-hard darwinists out there, after nearly 100 years of intensive laboratory effort to show how a creature can change into another, why is it that all that can be done is create minor mutations of the same organism? If we, with DIRECTED EFFORT cannot make such a leap happen, how on Earth do you think random chance accomplished it???

I am NOT someone who believes in a six-earth-day creation of the world. I believe that evolution within a species happens; that is readily observable and is also called adaptation. I also believe, because of that readily observable phenomenon, that Darwin, with the knowledge of the nineteenth century, made a reasonable theory about macro-evolution. However, in the past 15-20 years, we have discovered how incredibly complex and organized a SINGLE cell is; that the idea that it all could happen by chance with a random lightning bolt in a “primordial soup” is absolutely ludicrous! You might as well believe that lightning could create a brand new corvette out of a scrapyard!

It is time to retire the theory of Darwin.

[CarrotAndStick]

Well, I’ll leave you with this:

Atheism: Greek “a-theos”: without-god.

Good day.

[Non-Sequitur]

No she doesn’t. She explains that until the questions she raises have been answere, evolution is not a science, only a conjecture. Perhaps you can explain why you cannot read.

I read far enough to see where she refers to it as "the so-called Theory of Evolution". If she doesn't know the scientific definition of a theory then it's pretty plain she doesn't believe any of the concepts. I understood that part.

I don’t know why you should. She doesn’t. You really cannot read, can you.

I really, really can. So neither she nor you are prepared to offer anything in place of Darwin's theory? Or do neither of you support any alternative?

[atlaw]

It is time to retire the theory of Darwin.

Seems to me the "theory of Darwin" is pretty well established. We have much of Darwin's correspondence, his publications, manuscripts, and proofs, his birth records and gravesite, and many contemporary accounts confirming that Darwin in fact lived in England between 1809 and 1892. Seems about as solid as the "theory of Washington," if you ask me.

[JamesP81]

Regardless of how the SH’s and atheists are claiming a neutral position, the desire is to TEACH THEIR THEOLOGY to kids in public schools.

Which is why government mandated education and the Constitution are mutually incompatible with one another. The schools, an arm of the state, wishes to impose an essentially theological idea on its students, and will use its police power to make sure it succeeds in doing so. Everyone knows that certain freedoms (such as freedom of speech) have to be curtailed in a classroom setting in order to teach anything. This is not a problem if it's a private school, since the parents have sent their children their by choice. But the state cannot Constitutionally mandate a religious teaching and use the police to enforce it. Or rather I should say that state isn't supposed to be able to do that, but in effect does.

[JamesP81]

Nothing better than an educated layman

I find the high and mighty disdain of 'layman' by our so called scientific community to be quite telling.

[Hank Kerchief]

Fist of all, evolution is not at theory. It is a hypothesis. People who do not understand the nature of science do not ususally understand the difference. A hypothesis cannot be a theory until it has been proven, and so long as there is more than one hypothesis, as there is for evolution, none are theories.

Secondly, I do not much worry about origins, or how things got be what they are now. Except to satisfy curiosity, knowing whether things evolved or came about some other way doesn’t matter a pickle. I certainly am not going to embrace some unproven hypothesis, as most gullible academics do, just because I don’t happen to have an “answer,” especially when the “answer” isn’t needed for anything anyway.

Even if evolution were proved, it would not be science. It would history.

Hank

[ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY]

SIERRA ALPHA!