Replies

If evolution happened gradually, why does the fossil record show uniform stasis within species?

It does? Perhaps you could elaborate on this?

The fossil record, as a rule, exhibits morphological stasis within species. Creatures disappear from the fossil record in the same form that they appeared. Moreover, we have examples of "living fossils," creatures that seem to have failed to have evolved over the course of thousands of years. Finally, supposed "transitional forms" like archaeopteryx exhibit morphological stasis in the fossil record. Seven fossilized archaeopteryx's have been found, all exhibiting the same morphology.

Some species may well remain constant.

OK, so where are their ancestors? Where are the fossils of the countless transitional forms that must have lead up to the temporary state of stasis?

Another interesting problem with strict, materialistic evolution is the fact that it contradicts the first principle of medicine, the restoration of health to the body. How can health, or the proper operation of the body, be defined in an evolving life form? Logically, no species is fixed, but instead is in a state of perpetual evolution.

This makes absolutely no sense and seems built not only upon a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution but also a misunderstanding of "species" and a semantic argument regarding disease.

Have human beings evolved? Yes or no. Are we evolving? Yes or no? How do you know?

When you have a cold, it's because a virus is interfering with the efficiency of your body. When you do things to facilitate recovery from a cold, you're working to aid your body in overcoming the effects of the virus.

The question is, should I aid my body in recovering from a cold? Maybe I'm being culled from the herd. Should I act to prevent my culling?

Who's to say if a disease isn't culling the herd?

A disease may well "cull the herd", creating an environment where only those able to survive the disease are able to pass their genes on to the next generation, resulting in new populations that are resistant to the disease.

Do you have an actual point here?

Do you consider medicine to be scientific? Do you consider doctors to be scientists, or practitioners of science?

If so, should doctors (scientists) work to cure disease or should they let evolution "cull the herd"? In other words, is it good or bad to allow the herd to be culled?

You say that "science does not deal in 'good or bad,'" which is why I asked you if you consider doctors to be practitioners of science. "Scientific" evolutionary theory has some very practical consequences. Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler were well aware of them.

In fact, how could "disease" be defined under an evolutionary rubric?

Multiple ways. Diseases caused by viruses or bacteria could be examined through the bacteria/viruses themselves. Disease can also be looked at as an environmental factor amongst the affected population.

Personally, I'm not very concerned about the fate of viruses and bacteria. I'm more concerned about diseases relating to human beings. My question is, how can human diseases be defined under an evolutionary rubric if death and destruction is part of the evolutionary process, or "the survival of the fittest"?

If "science does not deal in 'good or bad,'" science must remain agnostic regarding the cure of so-called "diseases," correct? Or should scientists work to combat "diseases"? Are they judging diseases to be bad?

Are mutations good or bad?

Science does not deal in "good or bad".

Someone should tell the scientists who are working on cures to genetic diseases. They're acting as if some mutations are bad.

Would it even be possible to define a good or bad mutation?

No, because science does not deal in "good or bad".

This is a fundamental contradiction, because scientists every day are working to cure diseases. Medicine is based on the judgment that there is such a thing as health (good) and illness (bad).

OK, so evolutionists are sure how man got here. How about the earth they live on. Can't have a primordials soup without a petri dish can you.

The universe came about in four ways:

1. We are just imagining it, i.e. the Matrix
2. It just appeared (not scientific, huh)
3. It has always been here (again not scientific)
4. It was created. (A line from the movie "The Notebook" is "Where science leave off, God picks up"

The fossil record, as a rule, exhibits morphological stasis within species.

What, you're expecting endless streams of fossils showing the gradual change from one species to another? Even Darwin didn't predict that. Fossilization is very rare.

Creatures disappear from the fossil record in the same form that they appeared.

Which indicates that they existed in periods where conditions were ripe for fossilization to occur.

Moreover, we have examples of "living fossils," creatures that seem to have failed to have evolved over the course of thousands of years.

As I said, that's what happens when there's no mutation that would provide the offspring with a greater survival advantage than the parents.

Finally, supposed "transitional forms" like archaeopteryx exhibit morphological stasis in the fossil record. Seven fossilized archaeopteryx's have been found, all exhibiting the same morphology.

Which, as I said, would indicate that they lived in a time when conditions were good for fossilization to occur. I'm sure that other, more informed people can offer an even better explanation.

OK, so where are their ancestors? Where are the fossils of the countless transitional forms that must have lead up to the temporary state of stasis?

Provide an example of a species exhibiting such a static nature.

Have human beings evolved? Yes or no. Are we evolving? Yes or no? How do you know?

Yes and yes, though any changes will be far less noticable and drastic as we have taken such control over our environment.

The question is, should I aid my body in recovering from a cold?

That is entirely your decision.

Maybe I'm being culled from the herd.

Culling, with respect to evolution, is not a deliberate process. It is simply something that just happens.

Should I act to prevent my culling?

If you wish to do so, then do so. There is no rule that an individual is "required" to be culled from the herd. It's just what happens when they're not able to survive in their given environment. If you're able to get over the cold by some means, then clearly you're able to survive in your environment.

Evolution is descriptive, it is not proscriptive or prescriptive. It does not tell us that we should exterminate species or allow species to be exterminated. It just tells that under certain conditions, the 'less fit' (that is, less able to survive and reproduce in its given environment) will not pass their genes on the subsequent generations.

Do you consider medicine to be scientific?

Do you consider doctors to be scientists, or practitioners of science?

Not all medical doctors -- even good ones -- are scientists, just as not all auto mechanics are engineers.

If so, should doctors (scientists) work to cure disease or should they let evolution "cull the herd"?

I think that they should work to cure diseases. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. There is no deliberate 'culling' process, it's just what happens when individuals in a population are unable to survive in the environment. If doctors create an accessable cure, then the environment is altered in such a way as to allow more individuals to survive. It's not about seeing that evolution happens as it should. Evolution happens, you can't stop it from happening, you can only change the environment in which it happens to allow a greater chance for survival amongst the individuals.

In other words, is it good or bad to allow the herd to be culled?

Science does not make moral judgements. There is no "good" or "bad" with respect to evolution. All science is descriptive, not proscriptive or prescriptive. You cannot determine "good" or "bad" action purely through the scientific method, you can only dig up explanations as to how things work.

You say that "science does not deal in 'good or bad,'" which is why I asked you if you consider doctors to be practitioners of science.

Science does not deal in good or bad.

"Scientific" evolutionary theory has some very practical consequences. Margaret Sanger and Adolph Hitler were well aware of them.

Why is it that creationists are always happy to blame evolution for Adolph Hitler? In addition to invoking Godwin, you again demonstrate your fundamental ignorance regarding evolution theory. Evolution states that in a given environment, individuals who have a genetic predisposition toward survival will be the ones to reproduce, passing on their genetic advantage to their offspring while those without the genetic advantage will eventually die off and face extinction. Nothing in there makes for good social policy. Adolph Hitler's plans and actions are not founded in the theory of evolution, not matter what you read or hear from dishonest creationist sources or even from cranks espousing "Social Darwinism" pseudoscience. Evolution merely describes how things occur in the natural world amongst biological life forms. It does not tell us that we need to exterminate a group of people.

Anyone who claims that a scientific theory of any kind makes for a good social policy is an idiot. Anyone who blames a scientific theory for an abhorrent social policy is an even bigger idiot. I'm not even going to get into the theological justifications that Hitler used for what he did (no, I'm not claiming that he was a good Christian lad).

Personally, I'm not very concerned about the fate of viruses and bacteria.

So you don't think that it's worthwhile to study them?

How, exactly, are we to combat them if we don't know how they work? It's this kind of attitude that leads to the abuse of antibiotics which creates resistant strains of bacteria.

I'm more concerned about diseases relating to human beings. My question is, how can human diseases be defined under an evolutionary rubric if death and destruction is part of the evolutionary process, or "the survival of the fittest"?

It really can't be defined with respect to evolution unless the disease strikes people with a genetic predisposition to it, in which case it becomes an environmental factor hindering the survival rate of the individuals with the genetic makeup that makes them succeptable, possibly leading to their elimination from the gene pool.

If "science does not deal in 'good or bad,'" science must remain agnostic regarding the cure of so-called "diseases," correct?

There is no "scientific" position regarding the curing of disease. That is an ethics concern. There is no requirement that scientists must give up their ethics.

Or should scientists work to combat "diseases"?

That's their choice, and many choose to do just that.

Are they judging diseases to be bad?

Yes, they are. They are using non-scientific processes to make the judgement, and proceeding with research to cure the disease from a scientific stanpoint. That is perfectly valid.

I forgot to finish up...

Someone should tell the scientists who are working on cures to genetic diseases. They're acting as if some mutations are bad.

I said that science does not deal in 'good' or 'bad'. That does not mean that scientists can't deal in such things.

This is a fundamental contradiction, because scientists every day are working to cure diseases.

There is no contradiction. You just fail to understand. Medicine is based on the judgment that there is such a thing as health (good) and illness (bad).

Yes. And while the procedure for researching disease to find cures is itself scientific, the definition of the illness as bad and curing the illness as good is not scientific. Science is great for finding out how the natural world works, but it's not really going to give you an explanation of what is "good" and "bad". You'll have to use something else to make those judgements.