Darwinian Conservatism: How Darwinian science refutes the Left’s most sacred beliefs.

The American Thinker ^ | 23 July 2006 | Jamie Glazov and Larry Arnhart

[dmz]

I don;t want anyone on this thread to put down their kilts. Leave them where they are.

[js1138]

Variations in allele frequencies over time take place without speciation.

And one can travel without completing a trip from one city to another. Nevertheless, getting form one city to another involves travelling.

Are you trying to invoke Zeno to refute "macroevolution"?

[Dimensio]

How do you define life from non-life?

Are you referring to abiogenesis, the term used for the process?

[VadeRetro]

Witnesses Murder John Fitzgerald Kennedy JFK Ex, President US, murdered by ilelgal used of time channeled cephalcis, froom 1997 in order to attempt to force -in corrletation with me, and to coverup crimes of illegal ascencion to the us presidnecy by the above named individuals

I have a friend who is always trying to get to the bottom of the JFK assassination. This is the breakthrough he's been dreaming of!

[js1138]

To be fair, tallhappy asked what the theory of evolution states, not for a definition of the word "evolution" as it relates to biology.

That sounds like lawyering to me.

There is evolution as a forensic statement about the history of life, and there is evolution as a theory of how populations change over time. I don't think the "theory" includes the forensic conclusion, even if the word evolution refers to more than one concept.

But as to what Darwin wrote, the answer is, he wrote a lot. There are few issues in biology that he didn't consider, and he changed his expectations over time, sometimes toward ideas that have since been discarded.

He moved form a saltationist position to a uniformitarianist position regarding the rate of evolution. He appears to have been wrong. Rates of change appear to vary, particularly after mass extinctions.

Darwin argued against periodic catastrophes followed by rapid evolution. He appears to have been wrong.

[tallhappy]

the theoly of evolution does not require that life originated through any specific process and also because the mechanics of the theory are not applicable unless life already exists.

If you do not define life this statement is meaningless.

How do you define life, used in the context of yoiur statement above, from non-life?

[tallhappy]

Are you trying to invoke Zeno to refute "macroevolution"?

No.

[Condorman]

The study of abiogenesis is handled by biologists.

Chemists, too, I believe.

[js1138]

How do you define life, used in the context of yoiur statement above, from non-life?

How would you define "human"?

You are lawyering. Both evolution and biology in general have trouble defining "life" in the abstract. And the problem is precisely because the definitions, at the extremes, are arbitrary.

[tallhappy]

Lawyering? Is that like using logic and intellect?

[PatrickHenry]

WOW! Holy neurological damage, Batman! Haven't we seen this stuff somewhere before.... didn't someone post this madness on FR as a thread?

I posted some links about that maybe 18 months ago. Here's another: Roland E. Vasco, victim of time coup.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Darwin's book was Called the Origin of Species."

And not the "Origin of Life".

[Dimensio]

How do you define life, used in the context of yoiur statement above, from non-life?

There is no single set of criteria, though a common definition is an entity that can grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli and reproduce. Of those characteristics, reproduction is the most vital for evolution; evolution cannot occur without reproduction.

[js1138]

It's the art of sounding plausible, for the moment.

[js1138]

There is no single set of criteria, though a common definition is an entity that can grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli and reproduce. Of those characteristics, reproduction is the most vital for evolution; evolution cannot occur without reproduction.

I've been down this road with AndrewC. It's a dead end. the objective here is to lead you into a box and shut the door.

[tallhappy]

I've been down this road with AndrewC. It's a dead end. the objective here is to lead you into a box and shut the door.

You are projecting. There is no reason for you to be scared or defensive.

[js1138]

Spoken like a true lawyer. If you were hones in these debates you would put your cards on the table and tell us how you think things work. Simply nibbling at the edge of arguments is beneath you.

The problem with your stance is that most of us are arguing with YEC types over whether evolution happens, and you come along with a completely different set of concerns -- issues you never actually reveal.

[tallhappy]

There is no single set of criteria

OK. There we go.

The distinctions you are making are understandable and generally known, they are pragmatic and practical but artificial and done for the facilitation of discussion and presentation.

Evolution comes from the root to roll or unroll. Evolution is a continuum and is studying how life as it exists now unrolled. This goes all the way to its initial origin.

[tallhappy]

you come along with a completely different set of concerns -- issues you never actually reveal.

I am very straightforward and direct. I think the issue is with you.

[js1138]

Evolution comes from the root to roll or unroll.

But this is not how Darwinian evolution works. This is a key question. Are you asserting that species are prefigured?