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.
Evolution: probably no other scientific theory has generated so much public controversy since Copernicus and Galileo proposed that the sun, not the earth, is the center of our solar system. This is most apparent in the realm of public education where “scientific creationists” repeatedly attempt to either remove evolution from, or add “scientific creation” to, science curricula (Zetterberg, 1983, p. 386-401; Belluck, 1999; Brown, 2000). The controversy was brought to the forefront most recently in Kansas during August, 1999, when the Kansas Board of Education voted to remove much of evolution from the state’s new science curriculum (Belluck, 1999; Scott, 1999a; Brown, 2000).
It is clear, from reading “creation science” books, that a major motivating factor in such efforts is the conviction that evolution is atheistic, anti-God, anti-Christian, and will produce immorality (Morris, 1994, p. 118-136). Nothing could be further from the truth. Morality is relevant and necessary for humans as gregarious animals to live together in societies. Theology, spirituality, and morality inform us why we are here, and provide a purpose for our lives and a code of conduct for us to live by. In contrast, evolution as science independently informs us of when and how we got here.
Dobzhansky (1983) stated that, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,” and the National Academy of Sciences’ curriculum recommendations (Kennedy et al., 1998) include evolution as a major component of science education. And yet “creation scientists” have convinced some school boards that evolution is invalid and that “creation science” is a better scientific explanation of the origin and diversification of life on earth. If scientists are so certain of evolution, how could this be? What is the evidence for evolution? What is “creation science?”
The purpose of this article is to inform the NOGS membership of the fossil evidence for evolution. In this article, I limit my discussion of evolution to whether or not it has occurred, not the mechanisms that explain how. Then, I will discuss the major tenets of “creation science,” and the primary arguments “creation scientists” present against evolution. Finally, in keeping with the scientific method, it will be possible to objectively evaluate the merits of both evolution and “creation science.”
For the reasons discussed above, “creation science” is definitely not science. However, proponents of “creation science” insist that it is and that it has equal merit to evolution (as a reason for either inserting “creation science” in, or removing evolution from, science curricula). Therefore, we must subject “creation science” to scientific scrutiny. Indeed, “creation science” cannot withstand such scrutiny; there are no verifiable, repeatable data to corroborate it. “Creation sci ence” is comparable to flat earth ideas, geocentric solar system ideas, alchemy, and others long since disproved. Please take special care to note that this falsifies the “creation science hypothesis” of the diversification of life on earth. It does not i n any way negate God, religion, or morality.
New thread bump.
New thread bump.
New CvE thread bump
New thread bump.
Yeah, don't bump me, you satanic evolutionist.
Physics
Chemistry
Astronomy
Geology
Biology
I could go on, but the point is I have a hard time thinking of anything that's really in its infancy.
Let's ignore the:
Yeah, right! If you hadn't hitched a ride with Luddite gore on this thread, you might have more credibility here.
Whoah there. You misunderstand me. Evolution (as you guys define it) is the magic I'm talking about. Obviously, you have history with mr. gore3000. No need to project that history on me; I spot the flaws independently of his direction. You might could say that what is noticed by one without reading the other is there to be noticed.
Society of Economic Paleontologists...
Do they have any theories about what dinosaurs considered the lowest sustainable rate of unemployment without inflation or atmospheric catastrophes? Oh, wait...that may be in my minutes of the last meeting of the Society of Microneuroplanetological Engineering. I'll be right back.
Did too!
The famous "list-o-links" (so the creationists don't get to start each new thread from ground zero). This is just the initial section, with the newest links I've assembled.
NEW:
aaaa. The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation". From VadeRetro
NEW:
aaa. Smooth Change in the Fossil Record
. From VadeRetro
aa. The Literal Meaning of Genesis. By Augustine, written in AD 401
a. Resources: Evolution vs. Creationism Debate
.
b. Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die. From garbanzo.
c. A List Of Fallacious Arguments. From VadeRetro.
Isn't calling this mental sewage "Creation Science" very much like calling janitors "Sanitation Engineers?"
-toddhisattva
I think they have something to do with looking for oil. They depend upon their knowledge to make money. (Your average professor is paid to teach, not perform.)
Wow! Two new List-O-Links entries in two days! :)
"Sanitation Engineers" is incongrous and a little dishonest, but it's not an oxymoron.
...since Copernicus and Galileo proposed that the sun, not the earth, is the center of our solar system.
And just when was this blasphemy spawned?
Next you science cultists will say the earth is spherical or something, or that there are more than the four elements of earth, air, fire and water.
Harumph. Unholy nonsense.
Don't forget "crevo_list" BUMP.
I think they have something to do with looking for oil.
They depend upon their knowledge to make money. (Your average
professor is paid to teach, not perform.)
Then I would call them Commercial Paleontogists
or some such. The name they chose is....fatuous.
The way I see it, there's been no creation yet. We're all just sitting around outside of space and time waiting for creation to happen. You claim creation has already happened? Prove it. Prove it now! Prove it here!!!! NO LINKS!!!!! Prove it!!!!!!!
</creationism mode>
...since Copernicus and Galileo proposed that the sun, not the earth, is the center of our solar system.
If ridicule for erroneous/incomplete knowledge is the order of the day, please get your facts straight. The solar system was not what was at issue, it was the whole universe.
While he was in Italy, Copernicus visited Rome, and it seems to have been for friends there that in about 1513 he wrote a short account of what has since become known as the Copernican theory, namely that the Sun (not the Earth) is at rest in the centre of the Universe.
.
.
.
Different source
The theory of an Earth-centered Universe held unchallenged until sometime between 1507 and 1515 when Nicolaus Copernicus proposed that the planets revolve around the sun and that the Sun, not the Earth, was the center of our Universe. It should be noted that the Copernican system was not a wholesale dismissal of Aristotlian and Ptolemic understanding: the planets are assumed to move in circles around the sun. Copernicus, whose theory of the order of the Universe would reign for centuries, did not publish his thesis until just before his death in 1543. During the remainder of that century and into the next Copernian theory had few followers; a few notable exceptions are covered below .
In 1599, a third alternative was offered by Tycho Brahe who suggested that the various planets, with the exception of the Earth, orbited the Sun and that the Sun in turn orbited a stationary Earth which was at the center of the then-known Universe.
Thanks for the reminder! We also could use a BACK POINTER TO PREVIOUS THREAD
ostensibly on another topic.
So I guess that's it. There are two possibilities: "Creation Science" and "Evolution Science." The referenced piece treats the former as nonsense, and the latter like dogma. Would it be any different if it were the Talmud and the Quran?
I'm not sure what NOGS is, but I followed the link and began to read. When I got to this I stopped:
The United States National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution has an excellent display of fossil horses, including feet, teeth, and skulls, that illustrate these changes. The evolutionary history of the horse was classically illustrated as a single straight line (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 62). It is now known that this was an oversimplification;Oversimplification, my arse? This is a fraud.
ML/NJ
Archive Post (from a discussion on talk.origins)
To a very close aproximation, all change these days is due to cultural evolution (memes). Any biological change will be through genetic engineering as you say. Genetic engineering is a result of cultural evolution. Overpopulation will be curbed by either mass culling of the population by starvation, which genetically would be almost a random cull (there's no correllation between genes and wealth/power) Or else by cultural evolution leading to population control by changing breeding patterns. Id prefer the latter. In a deep sense it would be humane to supply aid to fund payments for voluntary sterilization all over the world.
Consider the following as an alternative:
Friedrich Nietzsche had a lot to say about what he saw as the next step in human evolutionary development, the uebermensch; everything pretty much EXCEPT a believeable plan for developing or breeding him. I now know how that can be done. At the very least, I have a plan which would dramatically improve the genetic pool of the entire human race in one generation.
The plan requires what I would term an Infinitely Stupid Ideological Doctrine, or ISID for short which, while modeled on evolutionism, the only real-world example of an ISID, could not be evolutionism itself since that would weight the program in favor of the offspring of religious groups, rather in the desired direction of the uebermensch.
Nonetheless, a religiously neutral ISID would be devised using evolutionism as a model, i.e. the doctrine would require belief in an infinite number of impossible/zero-probability occurances as evolutionism does, require infinite expanses of time as an enabling mechanism for believing in things which cannot be made to happen in real life as evolutionism does, and generally be unfalsifiable as is evolutionism.
Moreover, to students at all K12 levels, the new ISID must appear to be supported in entirely the same manner as is evolutionism. It must appear to be backed by every organ of American government at nearly all levels, supported by hosts of "experts" with PHD degrees and no common-sense or judgement, defended by vicious attacks upon the intelligence and judgement of any would-be doubters, and in fact the new ISID must appear to be part of a winning program for the final victory of light over darkness, good over evil; people opposed to the new ISID must be cast as mindless "staroveriyeh", people who want to bring back the dark ages.
The truth and beauty of the new ISID must be drummed into the heads of every child in America from the day he is born until the day he graduates from high school by every facet of his existence, school, MTV, radio, the movies, mod clothes, beer cans... all should bear witness to the grandeur and beauty of the ISID.
And then, on graduation day, the kids should be brought into an interview room one at a time and asked "Do you believe in the ISID?" The ones who reply "No" should be allowed to live.
I've already posted this one on talk.origins once, and the following exchange was worth noting:
But Ted, it wouldn't be evolution. It might be politics and eugenics, but it wouldn't be evolution. Indeed, you are obvioulsy refering to Hitler's masterrace, such ideas lead inevitabally to ibredded populations with low genetic diversity that are vulnerable to extinction through the forces that cuase evolution. Remember, Ted, Social Darwinism is NOT Darwinism, or evolution. It is a political ideology that mistakes political and racial tests for evolution.
The reply:
One facet of communism was the new kind of person which it was supposed to produce, the "new communist man" so to speak. One of the reasons for the current disenchantment WITH communism which has not been publicized in the west overmuch, has to do with this same new communist man; apparently there were a number of well publicized situations in which a particular incarnation of the "new communist man" ended up in some sort of a critical situation and screwed up in some sort of a highly visible and highly costly way, and critical analysts were able to fairly easily show that, yes, this guy really was what the system intended to produce as the "new communist man" and, yes, the guy really did screw up in some indefensible sort of way in a situation in which a normal person would not be expected to screw up, and yes, the whole deal was predictable from the nature of communism.
The problem was that communism itself was acting like a breeding system for flawed human types, and then putting those flawed types into critical situations. Basically, a certain well defined type of individual was succeeding in life, getting ahead and all that, and nobody else was and, along with all of the other problems involved, the entire system collapsed.
Now the Holden/Nietzsche plan (TM) (Which is a pure fantasy by the way, i.e. don't try it at home) would invert the above process. You start off with a doctrine (the only doctrine) which is actually stupider THAN communism, i.e. evolutionism as a model, devise a religiously/culturally neutral clone (e.g. the doctrine of metallurgical advancement, the doctrine of the great pumpkin and pumpkinism...), and then cull all of the losers who buy off on it. That would have to have the opposite effect of communism and actually improve the human race.
An idea of the sort of thing I mention regarding the "new communist man" may be seen on the Anti-Stukachi WWW system:
THE STORY OF PAVLIK MOROZOV
In the 1930's, Stalin attempted to eliminate independent Russian peasants by confiscating all of their grain supply and forcing them to become kolkhoz serfs. Millions of peasants starved to death during this "collectivization".
Pavlik (Pavel Trofimovich) Morozov was born in 1918 in the village of Gerasimovka in Verkhne-Tavdinski rayon of Sverdlovsk(????new name???) oblast'. Pavlik was the chairman of the pioneer organization in his school. In 1932 the little stukach Pavlik Morozov denounced his own father to a representative of Communist Party raykom for hiding some grain that was supposed to be taken away ("khlebozagotovki"). Pavlik served as a witness at his father's trial and condemnded him as a traitor. His father was executed by the Soviets. At a general meeting in the village, Pavlik pointed out to the authorities other peasants who hid grain, and helped the OGPU search their homes. On Sept. 3, 1932, Pavlik's own grandfather killed him with an axe. The grandfather and other family members were also executed by the Soviets.
Stukach Pavlik Morozov, who denounced his own father, became a hero to Soviet children. The "kolkhoz" organized in the village of Gerasimovka was named after Pavlik. Many schools and "Palaces of pioneers" were named after him.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
| . . , , | ____)/ \(____ | _,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._ | ,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-. | ,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `. | | | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | | | ,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `. | |/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\| | ` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember:
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist. Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological doctrines.
Cleanup codes for Netscape 6.0.
I suppose it's a small miracle you made it that far.
Copernicus had followers dotted around Europe, but they were not outspoken about their views. It was Michael Mästlin, a mathematics professor at the University of Tübingen, who introduced Kepler to Copernicus' ideas. Kepler, who had entered the university in 1589, immediately perceived the essential correctness of these ideas and started on a course in life which would culminate in his development of the three laws of planetary motion.
An interesting tidbit in this history is that Galileo was not interested in Kepler's ideas, did not acknowledge him in his publications, and insisted to the end that the laws of planetary motions were unknown.
Galileo, who has become the triumphant symbol of scientific reasoning against dogma and faith, was not immune from a bias which blinded him to the truth of new ideas.
Pavlik (Pavel Trofimovich) Morozov was born in 1918 in the village of Gerasimovka in Verkhne-Tavdinski rayon of Sverdlovsk(????new name???) oblast'.
I suggest writing in English for the FR audience, Tovarisch. "Region" and "Province," respectively.
I suppose it's a small miracle you made it that far.
I'm sure you know what you mean. Maybe you will let the rest of us know too.
Let us know too if your SAT score for "Analytical Reasoning" required anything other than four elipses to be reported.
ML/NJ
I guess I was lamenting that, bailing when you did, you missed the "Mammal-like Reptiles." Then again, if you were looking for reasons to bail, there's no reason to think going any further would have helped.
Let us know too if your SAT score for "Analytical Reasoning" required anything other than four elipses to be reported.
I think it was asterisks. They did a lot with FORTRAN back in the 60s.
Did you forget to invite me to the party Vade? Well, I have been out of town a lot lately.
Actually, I can't get into the article past...
I limit my discussion of evolution to whether or not it has occurred, not the mechanisms that explain how.
Please. The mechanisms are what must be shown in order to prove it has occurred. The fossils document one time, non-repeatable historical events the causes of which are open to interpretation. Plus, the scientific method is lousy with history.
THe mechanisms are what, hypothetically, are still operating and what can be repeated in the lab or in the field- If macro-evolution were true.
Show me the mechanisms that produce the observed amount of change in the allowed amount of time. Right now at least, you can't do it. You know it, I know it, the American People know it, Bob Dole knows it. Yada Yada.
Please. The mechanisms are what must be shown in order to prove it has occurred.
Please. You can get that elsewhere. How many threads have you been on? That's the most ridiculous reason to refuse evidence since gore's "I don't do links! Post it here!"
“Scientific creationists” classify organisms not by standard Linnean taxonomic procedures, but rather group them into basic “kinds” (the terms “type” and “kind” are apparently synonymous; Gish, 1995, p. 29-31). As Morris & Parker (1987, p. 137, 138) stated, “For creationists, it’s the created type that is the real unit in nature.” Gish’s (1995, p. 29) definition is that, “A basic animal or plant type would include all animals or plants which were truly derived from a single stock.” As e xamples of “basic kinds,” Gish (1995, p. 30) offered the following: “Among the vertebrates, the fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously different basic types. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs..., an d ichthyosaurs...would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each. Within the mammalian class, duckbilled platypuses, opossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs , cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to different basic types. Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind.” That is curious: “kinds” are identified to exist as a hierarchy, “kinds” within other “kinds.” Yet Gish (1985, p. 34; 1995, p. 35) stated both that God separately created all of these basic animal and plant “kinds,” and that a “kind” includes those variants which have been derived by genetic variation from a single stock. If a “kind” consists of all those variants derived from a single stock, then how can some of the variants also have been created separately? At what level did God r eally create? This is both internally inconsistent and a major logical fallacy. Furthermore, it renders “creation science” neither falsifiable nor scientific. Scientists, and to some extent “creation scientists,” both agree that finding transitional forms between taxa (or “kinds”) would falsify “scientific creationism” (Cuffey, 1984; Gish, 1995, p. 40, 41). But, given the internally inconsistent definition of “basic kind,” what should be looked for? If intermediates between two species of the brachiopod < i>Eocoelia are found, it can be explained as “variation within the Eocoelia kind.” If intermediates connecting Hyracotherium with Equus are found, it can be explained as “variation within the horse kind.” If intermediates between mesonychid ungulates and whales are found, it can be explained as “variation within the mammal kind.” If intermediates between reptiles and mammals are found, it can be explained as “variation within the vertebrate kind.”
HAH! I love it! Kinds are separately created, and yet these "kinds" are also heirarchical. As Ross Perot would say, "Now that's rich!"
Hey, you know what? We simply add one more heirarchical "kind" to the mix: Carbon-based lifeforms. You see, all evolution, even macroevolution, is merely change within the "carbon-based lifeform kind". Works for me.
You see, all evolution, even macroevolution, is merely change within the "carbon-based lifeform kind".
Hey! That way the Ark could have been a rowboat!
Gish’s (1995, p. 29) definition is that, “A basic animal or plant type would include all animals or plants which were truly derived from a single stock.”In addition to Gish's logically self-contradictory definition of hierarchical kinds, he also, almost explicitly, defines a "kind" as a Clintonian concept:
It's the same trick Clinton's supporters used -- they divided the accusations against their Glorious Leader onto those which "do not rise to the level of impeachment" (micro-corruption) and those which "if proven, would justify impeachment" (macro-corruption), and placed every charge that did stick, regardless of objective severity, into the former category.
[steve-b, FreeRepublic message board, 1999]
OK, if it gets you unstuck: here's a page on mechanisms. But the lead article of this thread is about how the fossil record proves that evolution happens. Your demand for mechanisms looked to me like an attempted change of subject when you were faced with strong proof of something you don't want to see. That's an unfortunate impression which I'm sure you didn't intend to make.
It would look particularly bad if, reading the page on mechanisms, you came back and asked, "What's the proof any of this stuff really happens?"
I guess I was lamenting that, bailing when you did, you missed the "Mammal-like Reptiles." Then again, if you were looking for reasons to bail, there's no reason to think going any further would have helped.
Again, I do not know what you are talking about. Based upon your lauditory self-review, I'm sure whatever reply or message you sent was extremely intereseting, but I don't think you flagged me.
And re the SATs and asterisks ... I'm not sure about this comment either. I took the SATs last in 1963. There were no asterisks on my report.
ML/NJ
This is a fraud.
So you are claiming that the scientist(s) who created the classical single-lineage portrayal of horse evolution at the museum (Henry Fairfield Osborn?) was INTENTIONALLY doing something he KNEW to be fundamentally deceptive? I'm sure you wouldn't make a claim like this without having some reason or evidence in mind (as if). Please share.
I assumed you were joking, so I went along. A field full of asterisks is standard FORTRAN arithmetic-overflow handling. (The number is too big to fit in the digits allotted.) In fact, I lost track of my SAT scores a long time ago.
I suggest writing in English for the FR audience
Thoughtful of you, Vade (& Patrick), to consider the interests of the remaining few who do not simply scroll past Holden's posts.
. . . the remaining few who do not simply scroll past Holden's posts.
Bet there aren't many of those. Should have pinged you up top! Sorry!
bump for the always lucid VadeRetro.
Should have pinged you
No problem. I've never been able to keep up with you folks anyway, and my participation may be even more spotty than usual for awhile due to various distractions.
... the remaining few who do not simply scroll past Holden's posts.
You gotta be kidding. I love Splifford the Bat and all his links. I devour every golden drop of information they offer. I am never so happy as when medved is posting his wisdom -- no matter how often the same material appears. Centuries from now, medved will be hailed as an unsung genius, a man far ahead of his time. It's too bad you don't appreciate him. It takes courage to persevere in the face of universal scorn. Medved is an intellectual giant.
Forgot to bump you.
From the link:
Of prime importance is that science begins with a series of facts from which hypotheses are developed by application of inductive logic.
In contrast, “scientific creation” is a belief system based upon the untestable assumption that scripture is infallible.
I disagree with both of these statements. The first restricts science to ex post facto hypothesizing, which is fine for the fossil record, but too restrictive for science in general. Further, scientific creationism is scientific as an empirical body of data which has been falsified.
The author engages in some misleading hyper-dichotomy in order to make his argument. His blurring of the micro-macro distinction, with the support of a single reference (he knows the scientific community is not behind him on this one) is a case in point. He may be on the right side of the argument, but I abhor the deceitful means he uses to advance his side as much as the creationists do theirs.
I'm sorry, I'm not a native English speaker.
I disagree with both of these statements . . . I abhor the deceitful means he uses to advance his side as much as the creationists do theirs.
I see no deceit.
Cuffey: Of prime importance is that science begins with a series of facts from which hypotheses are developed by application of inductive logic.
He only says here that you start with a collection of real data. That's an induction. "So far, there's this pattern." Nowhere does he say you don't then begin thinking deductively, and I imagine that he's fully aware that deduction is the next step.
Cuffey: In contrast, “scientific creation” is a belief system based upon the untestable assumption that scripture is infallible.
It may not be airtight, (it overlooks some non-YEC flavors of creationism) but it conforms to my own experience and does not strike me as deceitful.
Here's the entire paragraph containing the sentence you decry. In context, it looks even more accurate.
Science proceeds by hypothetico-deductive reasoning (Kyburg, 1970; Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 53-55). Scientific investigation is an ongoing, self-correcting cycle of observation, inductive logic, deductive logic, hypothesis testi ng and modification. This has become known popularly as the scientific method. Of prime importance is that science begins with a series of facts from which hypotheses are developed by application of inductive logic.
So far, two creationists made a point of announcing that they bailed out of reading before they hit this:
The top two are considered mammals. As you go down, you go back in time through a line of reptiles.
Note the "motion" of the hole(s) around the eye-socket. You could almost make a movie of it. The lower jaw and some bones that are jaw bones in reptiles but ear bones in mammals get a lot of discussion in the text, too.
The top two are considered mammals. As you go down, you go back in time through a line of reptiles.
That is obviously another Darwinist hoax. But even if you can prove that it's not (which you can't because you're pure Clintonesque slime), then it's nothing more than proof of divine creation. Heads or tails, it doesn't matter; creationism always wins!
</creationism mode>
No! It's like this:
1) What's the proof of that?
2) Excuse me, but WHERE are the intermediate fossils between those forms?
Thanks for the bump :)
"creationism always wins"
Just like truth, isn't it!
Galileo, who has become the triumphant symbol of scientific reasoning against dogma and faith, was not immune from a bias which blinded him to the truth of new ideas.
More evidence of what we all should know, we all walk with a limp.
What?
Huh?
What stela protruding from my eye?
Galileo, who has become the triumphant symbol of scientific reasoning against dogma and faith, was not immune from a bias which blinded him to the truth of new ideas.
Yes, and Kepler spent all his time trying to explain his findings as the 'Music of the Spheres'. Even though he had stumbled on the basic concepts Newton would later use, he didn't really see it either.
“creation science” is definitely not science.
Fine, it's not science. I'm not sure what "creation science" is. I have never promoted Genesis 1-3 as a science curriculum for public school, if that's what he means.
Lets have a science class called Origins Speculations and we can cover evolution and creation and everything in-between. Let everyone have all the information and decide for themselves. What always happens, to the dismay of evolutionists is that people are incurably aware that there must be more to it than Function Origins. What I protest is that evolution has become the sole unquestionable scientific approach; all dissent being labeled "creationist", the proponents of dissent being isolated, and opposing ideas totalitarianized for the public's safety.
What is this unwarranted fear? Because it has wonderful explanatory powers, evolution is allowed the only microphone. So does the Bible. Same category. An authoritative quote from Dobzhansky (1983) hardly makes evolutionary theory become "science". An intro to philosophy maybe, but not science.
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,”
What does "makes sense" mean to his guy?
Making sense out of biological life is what the Bible does. It explains. Evolution "explains" nothing!!! Think about it. Evolution merely *describes* form and offers what? A confused description of apparent descendancy based on related forms.
Nevermind that the flow chart doesn't follow the prescribed-according-to-theory patterns.[thread II Gore3000's post 298] Anytime you hear the word "explosion" or "punctuated" you are hearing repair patches on the gradualistic micro-changes-over-time that are supposed to equal macroevolution.
Puff!! species appear!! Puff!! theory blown to smitherines. But wait, let us explain. No it isn't because this theory is not able to be disproven...ha-HA!!! We just insert one more variable to describe the way gradual change over time occurs...in rapid moments, evolutionary bursts, similar to, but certainly not, creation events.
My point has validity and so do the points of others. These are philosophical issues of interpretation, not scientific explanations. When you limit the conclusions to the natural you make one HUGE philosophical assumption...that the cause was natural all the way, from start to finish.
That's where science must moor its boat? It must only consider the natural? Then perhaps evolutionary "science" cannot answer the questions being posed to it for explanation. Did that ever occur to you? There are possibly better than scientific explanations required and the evidence does point in that direction if you are willing to look at the whole picture.
Evidence for miracles is much too poor and anecdotal to put them in just to celebrate diversity.
You could almost make a movie of it.
Yeah the nostrils are kinda strange though. As you go up they get bigger and smaller etc. The holes even change shape. Wait!! The top animal doesn't have a nose. Come on now. You expect me to believe there's a mammal running around without a nose??? :^D
"Dobzhansky stated that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution". Evolution would fly if it didn't keep getting it's wings snapped off when it smashes into the fossil record and the fruit fly.
When we ladies create a quilt, we sew little patches of different colored fabrics together to form a quilt. We may take a blue patch of fabric and sew together a horse on the quilt, and use that same blue fabric to sew together a bear. Isn't it possible that the D.N.A. chain is put together this same way?
Why would God have to make totally different harmones for example for each creation, when one harmone will work in several creations? For instance man and cockroach have the same harmone in their brains, that does not neccessarily mean they evolved from some common branch that forked. Couldn't it mean that this harmone was plugged into each DNA, mans and cockroach because that is what was needed to make each work the way it was suppose to? I think a deliberate blind eye is turned to this possibility.
Besides man was created from the dust of the earth, not some single cell in the ocean that got lucky. If man were not created from the dust of the earth, God would have said so.
From the article
As a second example, until 20 years ago, a significant gap separated whales from their inferred ancestors, the mesonychid ungulates. Mesonychids were wolf-like, carnivorous, hoofed mammals (Carroll, 1988, p. 520, 521). Subsequently, about a half-dozen genera have been described, mostly from the Tethys, that form a geochronologic and morphologic link between mesonychids and whales (Gingerich & Russell, 1981; Gingerich et al., 1983; Kumar & Sahni, 1986; Gingerich, Smith, & Simons, 1990; Thewissen & Hussain, 1993; Gingerich et al., 1994; Thewissen, Hussain, & Arif, 1994; Berta, 1994; Thewissen et al., 1996; Thewissen & Fish, 1997). These specimens document the morphologic changes in the skull , ear (Gingerich & Russell, 1981; Gingerich et al., 1983; Thewissen & Hussain, 1993), and loss of functional walking legs (Gingerich, Smith, Simons, 1990; Thewissen, Hussain, & Arif, 1994; Thewissen & Fish, 1997).
Forgot to deal with your last point:
The author engages in some misleading hyper-dichotomy in order to make his argument. His blurring of the micro-macro distinction, with the support of a single reference (he knows the scientific community is not behind him on this one) is a case in point.
Now, he does indeed claim majority status for the idea that macro- is simply micro- writ large. But he also mentions that this is not unanimous. His impression as--I believe--a geologist may vary from yours.
Yes, he mentions the mesonychid, whose place is now in question. But he's not citing meso- as a new transitional--he's correctly saying that Rodhocetus and Basilosarus--I hope I remembered those names right--have been added to the picture.
<