Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fact, Fable, and Darwin, Part 1
The American Enterprise Institute. ^ | February 2005 | By Rodney Stark

Posted on 02/10/2005 1:06:55 PM PST by restornu

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last
To: Ichneumon

That's one of my favorite posts of yours. I hope you posted it on our earlier thread about platypuses (playtpi?0


61 posted on 02/11/2005 10:42:19 PM PST by RightWingAtheist (Marxism-the creationism of the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell

Evolution of the eye:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/The_eye_is_too_complex_to_have_evolved

"A team of scientists at the European Molecular Biology Laboratory http://www.embl.org in 2004 provided concrete evidence about how the human eye evolved. Researchers in the laboratories of Detlev Arendt and Jochen Wittbrodt have discovered that the lightsensitive cells of our eyes, the rods and cones, are of unexpected evolutionary origin -­ they come from an ancient population of light-sensitive cells that were initially located in the brain."


62 posted on 02/11/2005 10:43:54 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Youngblood
It is both of those? Why didn't anyone tell that to Asa Gray and Robert Millkan?/sarcasm
63 posted on 02/11/2005 10:44:27 PM PST by RightWingAtheist (Marxism-the creationism of the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LauraleeBraswell
I'm an adherant to intelligent design. Phi- the golden ratio.

ID is not science.

64 posted on 02/11/2005 10:44:54 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: xm177e2; PatrickHenry; curiosity; Right Wing Professor; Junior; Doctor Stochastic; Ichneumon
Well, I guess we're all disillusioned about the AEI right now, but this is a good time remind all of you that the next issue of National Review is supposed to feature an evisceration of ID and creationism in general by John Derbyshire. "The Derb" has been posting some of his arguments in NRO's The Corner as a preview, and we can expect the usual wit and cogent arguments from one of NR's finest contributors.
65 posted on 02/11/2005 10:52:28 PM PST by RightWingAtheist (Marxism-the creationism of the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

Whoops, forgot to ping you to #65.


66 posted on 02/11/2005 10:53:43 PM PST by RightWingAtheist (Marxism-the creationism of the left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist

Cool! :-)


67 posted on 02/11/2005 10:58:59 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RightWingAtheist
Well, I guess we're all disillusioned about the AEI right now, but this is a good time remind all of you that the next issue of National Review is supposed to feature an evisceration of ID and creationism in general by John Derbyshire. "The Derb" has been posting some of his arguments in NRO's The Corner as a preview, and we can expect the usual wit and cogent arguments from one of NR's finest contributors.

Really? Good! I could use some good news for conservatism - like a conservative magazine actually standing up FOR science & rationality. Maybe I'll even pick up a copy at the newsstand to ostentatiously read at our local Seattle coffeeshop.

68 posted on 02/11/2005 11:55:39 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Professional NT Services by Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
It never ceases to amaze me how much the anti-evolutionsts *don't* know about the actual evidence. Aren't you supposed to actually *know* something about a topic before you attempt to critique?

Why should that ever occur to a creationist? They don't know anything (that's why they're creationists), and they naturally assume that no one else does either. In their "minds" they're just battling against a competing cult. No homework necessary. Just sling the ol' BS and fire up the faithful.

69 posted on 02/12/2005 3:02:39 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: restornu

Today, the fossil record is enormous compared to what it was in Darwin's day, but the facts are unchanged. The links are still missing; species appear suddenly and then remain relatively unchanged. As Steven Stanley reported: "The known fossil record...offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid."

One of these days, creationists will actually search out the sources of their quotes, rather than just posting them.  Nine times out of ten, creationists' "quotes" are fallacious, making me wonder whether they are just stupid, or outright liars.  Neither reflects well on their movement.

From the Quote Mine Project:

The quote comes from the start of Chapter 3 (see Point 5):

Some distinctive living species clearly originated in the very recent past, during brief instants of geologic time. Thus, quantum speciation is a real phenomenon. Chapters 4 through 6 provide evidence for the great importance of quantum speciation in macroevolution (for the validity of the punctuated model). Less conclusive evidence is as follows: (1) Very weak gene flow among populations of a species (a common phenomenon) argues against gradualism, because without efficient gene flow, phyletic evolution is stymied. (2) Many levels of spatial heterogeneity normally characterize populations in nature, and at some level, the conflict between gene flow between subpopulations and selection pressure within subpopulations should oppose evolutionary divergence of large segments of the gene pool; only small populations are likely to diverge rapidly. (3) Geographic clines, which seem to preserve in modern space changes that occurred in evolutionary time, can be viewed as supporting the punctuational model, because continuous clines that record gradual evolution within large populations represent gentle morphologic trends, while stepped clines seem to record rapid divergence of small populations. (4) Net morphologic changes along major phylogenetic pathways generally represent such miniscule [sp] mean selection coefficients that nonepisodic modes of transition are unlikely. Quantum speciation or stepwise evolution within lineages is implied. (5) The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.

The quoted text is part of a list that Stanley believes supports "quantum speciation". And what is "quantum speciation"?

For the present, we can define quantum speciation simply as speciation in which most evolution is concentrated within an initial interval of time that is very brief with respect to the total longevity of the new lineage that is produced. Implicit in this concept is the idea that during the rapid, early phase of evolution, the seminal population has not yet expanded from its small, initial population size. [bold in original] [pg. 26]

And since, as we see on page 39, Stanley writes that "quantum speciation is a real phenomenon", there should be no doubt that he believes that evolution has occurred. However, he doesn't believe that evolution happens by changing an ancestral species into descendant species, but rather by descendants branching off from ancestors, as we can see on page 211:

Major trends in evolution are the result, not of phyletic transition, but of divergent speciation. Most are phylogenetic trends: net changes produced by multiple speciation events.

He comes to this conclusion by examining the fossil record. But the mined quote would have the reader believe that the fossil record doesn't support evolution, where as Stanley believes that it does.

- Jon (Augray) Barber

[Editor's note: In a blurb on the back cover of the paperback edition of Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (1998. Johns Hopkins University Press; Reprint edition), Douglas J. Futuyama notes that Stanley's book "addresses from a paleobiologist's perspective, the question of whether punctuated equilibria or gradualism offers the best account of the history of life."]

 

70 posted on 02/12/2005 6:07:23 AM PST by Junior (FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Q: He still can't explain HOW life came about.

A: Claiming to read minds of the dead now? Fascinating.

Humm.. Darwin couldn't explain it, Mayr is no better, AND apparently, neither can you.


71 posted on 02/12/2005 6:46:36 AM PST by austinmark (If GOD Had Been A Liberal, We Wouldn't Have Had The Ten Commandments- We'd Have The Ten Suggestions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Good work.


72 posted on 02/12/2005 6:58:11 AM PST by PatrickHenry (<-- Click on my name. The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Same old Creationist lies.

Wouldn't you think one of these "fellows" could do even 5 minutes of research before putting pencil to paper?

[Sigh]

73 posted on 02/12/2005 8:04:48 AM PST by balrog666 (A myth by any other name is still inane.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

And what if the textbooks are wrong? (As they often are.)


74 posted on 02/12/2005 8:53:37 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day (This is a president who wants to leave his mark on more than a cocktail dress. --Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Choose Ye This Day
A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism

"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U. • Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member • Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U. • Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U. • Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois • Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U. • Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK • Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder • Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College • William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago: • George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington • Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universitaet Muenchen • Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis • Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member • Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho • Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho • David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U. • Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T. • Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia • Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M • Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada) • Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School • Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories • Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences • William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens • Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia • Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U. • Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College • Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin • Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U. • Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College • Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College • William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U. • Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine • Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U. • Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T. • Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor • John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin • Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia • Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author • Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland • John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U. • James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory • Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa • Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U. • Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute • Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior • James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm • Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas: • Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School • William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City • Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U. • Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College • Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington • Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U. • Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College • Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley • Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha • Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U., Professor, Human Nutrition, Ohio State University • David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U. • Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley: • James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U. • Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M U. • Robert Waltzer: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Belhaven College • Vincente Villa: Prof. of Biology: Southwestern U. • Richard Sternberg: Pstdoctoral Fellow, Invertebrate Biology: Smithsonian Institute • James Tumlin: Assoc. Prof. of Medicine: Emory U. Charles Thaxton: PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U.

75 posted on 02/12/2005 9:00:55 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day (This is a president who wants to leave his mark on more than a cocktail dress. --Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Choose Ye This Day
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of [How some scientific theory is supposed to work] to account for [whatever the theory concerns]. Careful examination of the evidence for [the theory in question] should be encouraged."

Scepticism is the lifeblood of science. Every scientist should be able to sign the above about every theory. The problem is that laymen don't understand that and equate scepticism with near-rejection. And while we are swapping lists of scientists, here is a much longer one of scientists who unequivocally reject ID and creationism, all of whose names are Steve. How many Steve's are there on your list?

76 posted on 02/12/2005 9:10:31 AM PST by Thatcherite (Conservative and Biblical Literalist are not synonymous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Choose Ye This Day
What do you thing about the following statement:

Darwin's evolution theory is wrong!
(Hint: This is only a hypothesis and it is not my opinion!)

You think this statement is wrong. Then you are wrong!
You think this statement is right.
Then you're wrong too.

No solution?
The statement itself is wrong!
A scientific hypothesis can't be proven en in total. Therefore wrong is wrong.
A scientific hypothesis can't be false even the hypothesis is "refuted". Therefore right is wrong.

http://www.xenodochy.org/article/popper.html

Is ID a scientific theory?
77 posted on 02/12/2005 10:05:24 AM PST by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: PeterFinn
Rational commentary will be met courteously.

LOL! Yeah, after you've preemptively declared anyone in disagreement to be "irrational," "idiots," "anti-Christian" and "anti-American"!

78 posted on 02/12/2005 10:17:03 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

That was fascinating. Thanks!


79 posted on 02/12/2005 1:16:19 PM PST by pharmamom (Ping me, Baby.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Junior

That was great. I was wondering earlier in the thread, how we got species that remained--which supposedly had evolved. I.e., how come we still have monkeys, if they evolved into the hominids? Phylogenetic branching occurred to me, but of course not the elegant terminology.


80 posted on 02/12/2005 1:21:22 PM PST by pharmamom (Ping me, Baby.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

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