Posted on 12/15/2005 9:10:41 AM PST by flevit
Simon Schama appears to have little understanding of biology (Opinion, September 4). With an ostrich mindset that tries to ignore reality, pseudo-scientists continue in the vain hope that if they shout loud and long enough they can perpetuate the fairy story and bad science that is evolution.
You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to question evolution theory - you just have to have an open and enquiring mind and not be afraid of challenging dogma. But you must be able to discern and dodge the effusion of evolutionary landmines that are bluster and non sequiturs.
No one denies the reality of variation and natural selection. For example, chihuahuas and Great Danes can be derived from a wolf by selective breeding. Therefore, a chihuahua is a wolf, in the same way that people of short stature and small brain capacity are fully human beings.
However, there is no evidence (fossil, anatomical, biochemical or genetic) that any creature did give rise, or could have given rise, to a different creature. In addition, by their absence in the fossil record for (supposed) millions of years along with the fact of their existence during the same time period, many animals such as the coelacanth demonstrate the principle that all creatures could have lived contemporaneously in the past.
No evidence supports the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs, nor that whales evolved from terrestrial quadrupeds, nor that the human knee joint evolved from a fish pelvic fin. And the critically-positioned amino acids at the active sites within enzymes and structural proteins show that the origination of complex proteins by step-wise modifications of supposed ancestral peptides is impossible. In other words, birds have always been birds, whales have always been whales, apes did not evolve into humans, and humans have always been humans.
But you might protest that it has been proved that we evolved from apes. In fact, the answer is a categorical No. Australopithecines, for example, were simply extinct apes that in a few anatomical areas differed from living apes. If some of them walked bipedally to a greater degree than living apes, this does not constitute evidence that apes evolved into humans - it just means that some ancient apes were different from living apes.
Of course, thats about all they will ever be able to study in detail, so they have to fill in some blanks...leaves them open to criticism.
Actually, I'm facinated by DNA/Genetic analysis....Google Haplogroup sometime. Talks about y Chromosome mutations which likely occurs once every few thousand years or so.
..and that PROVES evolution is a fact how????
I have bones and bone fragments from the Triassic and Jurassic period. The animals from that period had hands...feet....skulls. It does NOT prove evolution.
It proves that animals of that type were alive at some time in the earths past.
Your picture of that skull does NOT prove evolution.
It merely proves that an animal (semi-human like) existed at some time in the earth's past.
redrock
Very funny! I guess John Lennon wouldn't have been able to write "Imagine".
Must take exception to this statement - just look at the members of Congress.
There IS a "THEORY OF EVOLUTION"....which may or may not be true.(I'm kinda skeptical...but open).
It is NOT a proven fact....and never can be with our current ability (or perhaps lack of) to replicate. (REMEMBER....in science...unless you can REPLICATE in a lab...it's just a THEORY).
redrock
True. But they're all sterile, which is sort of bad news for "evolution."
There was lots of hand-waving in your response, lots of "cans," but "cans" are hardly evidence. And you missed the larger point. Once something is born with the "wrong" number how does it propagate. If it needs to find a mate right away with the wrong number, then it's in trouble. And if it doesn't (i.e. it can mate with the existing population and generate either right or wrong numbered offspring) then that would give rise to a mixed population within a species. But we don't see such mixed populations now, so don't you have to explain why this process that takes zillions of years isn't happening now.
ML/NJ
Wonder what that proves????? (must be somewhay to link it to evolution..maybe??)
redrock
could he create a rock so large that he could not move it?
That is the important question. And why did he create ed asner?
Thanks for the link! I was needing a good laugh to break the work day.
Says you.
It is NOT a proven fact....and never can be with our current ability (or perhaps lack of) to replicate. (REMEMBER....in science...unless you can REPLICATE in a lab...it's just a THEORY).
Your apparent ignorance of how science works is telling. No fact can be proved; it can be observed regularly, but not proved.
Likewise, no theory can be proved. It can be well-supported, but not proved.
Evolution is a fact, as there is change from one generation to the next. There is also the theory of evolution, which explains that change and how different forms developed.
Replication in a lab does not change a theory into a fact, or a fact into a theory.
All of these, and much more, are addressed in PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.
Here are some definitions which may help.
Definitions (from a google search):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
Actually, I am surprised that more people who staunchly defend Creation don't accept a senario that fits both sides of the argument:
The human animal form evolved over millennia, but did not possess the holy spirit (sometimes referred to as the conscious/soul) until it was provided by the Creator.
I read about this several years ago and it me think....I don't believe the human animal was doing anything special until about 6 thousand years ago...then something happened.
Maybe God liked all the animals he created, but decided to create one with consiousness and a soul and came up with man.
Think again. There is no proof that Ed Assner has evolved from anything...
You musta read my earlier post ;^)
That's the whole point.
MOST genetic mutations are NOT viable or fertile which explains WHY the process takes so long. Were this not the cas,e there would be far less uniformity of appearance among species.
The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow9], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel.Do you really expect anyone to take this kind of nonsense seriously?
"nothing" else explains it, ONLY if you first pre-suppose that there is NOT a God.
Which is your right, but that is merely a supposition. Once you presuppose there is a God who can create, there is an alternative explanation for everything.
Just because we COULD have evolved (something I happen to believe is so highly improbable as to be laughable, but improbable is not impossible) does not mean we DID evolve.
I don't believe we DID evolve, I believe God created the world, and man. Nothing about the "science" of evolution has ever caused me a problem, but I have lost count of the number of times the "history" of evolution has been proven false and had to be re-written.
Science does evolve as we learn more, but when we find a previously believed "science" is false, we don't "evolve" it, we throw it out and label it for what it was, FAKE.
But with the history of evolution, there is NO WAY to falsify it. Any time new historical evidence is found which refutes the current mythology, we simply re-write the mythology, and send out a new set of SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS.
I don't want science textbooks that have to be re-written every time we dig up a new fossil once again showing that the "science" of evolutionary origins is simply a bad guess.
The closest I can come to calling this form of evolution a "science" is to label it "forensic science", analysing clues using the scientific method to make educated guesses as to how we came to be.
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.