At bottom, the "quote mining" charge is just a buzzword that means nothing.
Maybe so. Quotes are irrelevant anyway. The scientific research behind evolution is solid. The science behind creation is crap. That's the bottom line. Read a science book.
posted on 07/05/2005 12:55:10 PM PDT
(Where's the science?)
The scientific research behind evolution is solid.
Well, that's just wrong, Roscoe. There is no scientific research to prove evolution. It's not observable. There's only research to uncover observable facts, and then a decision is made to apply those facts to an interpretive model. NeoDarwinsim, despite its admitted faults, is usually chosen. That's an artifact of recent history and bias mroe than anything else.
As Stephen Gould said, the the total evidence for macorevolution theory falls in 3 categories: 1. observed adaptation (microevolution); 2. assumptions from homology and comparative anatomy; 3. the fossil record. That's it. The whole theory rests on one observed event and 2 assumptions. All facts elucidated by research and used by some people to "prove" MET falls into those categories.
But that 3-legged stool just won't stand:
1.Natural selection and variation has only and always been observed to be limited within the species level (or at most genus, depending on taxonomy choice). Even thousands of generations of artificial laboratory selection of fruit flies (Drosphila) has produced only ugly fruit flies. To extrapolate macroevolution form that (much less scores of thousands of new critters)takes a remarkable exercise of blind faith. Thats' not science; it's philosophy.
2. The homology argument assumes similarity of form could only arise from from common descent. That's a logical fallacy, since common design is not necessarily excluded. In any event, the argument falls apart at the biochemical level. That's why your side is left to argue things like "the eye must have evolved independently over 40 times." Again, tremendous faith.
3.The fossil record? Gimme a break. Even Darwin and Huxley new that was a big problem, but they assumed it would turn up soon. It didn't, not after tens of thousands of tons of fossils excavated over the next 150 years. There should be many thousands of transitional forms, geologic strata teaming with the "older to newer" columns of descent-- as pictured in textbooks. Paleontologists have known for years that there's no such record (and even when a aprticular record was assumed by takening creatures taken from different regions, they were often in the opposite strata position they should have been in). The record is not there. Not even for even one creature, much less the thousands of fossil records that should exist. That's why Gould was so very excited in 1997 about about the whale record he thought had been pasted together from different from different regions-- the bone hunters had finally found one! (after the disppointment of the "records" of the horse, pig, dog, etc., ad nauseum.) Turns out even that one is another "not-so-fast-my-friend." :)
Macroevolution Theory-- A whole philosophy based on an assumption from one limited observation and two more categories of weak assumptions. I marvel at that kind of faith. I wish I could muster that kind of faith.
(btw, not to overlook your diversionary ad hominem attack-- I've read quite of few science books-- so many they finally had to give me a degree. Then I got two more :))
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson