Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/103020579/issue
Titles and abstracts are free online, the articles are available by subscription (either paper copies or online).
Any good library will have copies both online and paper.
I don't think so. The notion that monkeys gradually learned how to drive, play chess, and solve quadratic congruences by random improvements in banana-picking and mating skills is laugable on the face of it. Triply so, considering there isn't a particle of evidence in favor of it and so many of the prime exponents of "evolution" or "darwinism" or whatever were (and are) charlatans posturing as Scientists (note the capital S).
Your qualifications for such a statement are?
Thanks! I gotta pay, to see these mountains of evidence? Is that $30 per article forever, or $30 per day per article?
It’s looking more like lots of little mole hills of evidence, each in a separate article. [grin]
Anyway, I’ve jotted down “American journal of physical anthropology” in my PDA and will try to see what my local library has
Thanks,
-Jesse
I have been looking for all this evidence. So far one thing leads to another which leads to another, and I’m still not finding these solid proofs or mountains of evidence.
I can see how, if one had an aversion to the possibility of a supernatural first cause, they could sort of piece together a bunch of little facets and believe in their hearts that it could have happened Darwin’s way. But so far, my search for anything even nearing faith-free science on the topic has been unconvincing.
Of course everywhere people repeat the mantra “Oh it’s true, we all evolved from slime; slime came from the rocks; the rocks came from, ultimately, nothing...” but my observation is that for most people it’s just pure faith. They believe it not because they’ve seen evidence, but because they’ve decided to trust in people they’ve never met.
What am I to do when for most people it’s a pure faith, and those who are certain that it’s fact for them have a hard time showing the evidence?
Thanks,
-Jesse
Well, you could follow the lead blazed by some notable darwinian posters here (ie Coyoteman and others) who flatly assert by fiat that truth has no place in science, and what you believe has no relevance either way. Following their peculiar philosophic outlook on science, you can can conveniently disregard darwinism as untrue, since according to them there's no truth in science anyway, and disbelieve the whole lot of it, since what you do or do not believe is irrelevant, as they say. That should make them happy.
If by slime you mean myxomycota, we didn’t come from slime and slime didn’t come from rocks. Myxomycotes are pretty complex themselves and quite interesting.
Introduction to the “Slime Molds”
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/protista/slimemolds.html
As for the rest of your post, I don’t participate in obfuscatory argument, just provide bits of information, where relevant.
Not very hard. Instead of demanding to be spoon fed, you could actually visit your local university library, and you could peruse the approximately 93,000 journal articles available here. It takes time and effort to learn the specifics of evolutionary biology. I know, I know. It really should be as easy as watching TV. But it's not.
Adaptations within species are extrapolated as a basis for assuming one species can become another.
At least not until the recent dumbing down of the definition of “species”.
The idea that mutations have occurred and prevailed in any given species, at the same time, in sufficient numbers to sustain the mutation, and have that trait become dominant, and result in a new species, is as ridiculous as the number of commas and conditions in this sentence.
They are readily apparent. But as I said, it takes time and effort to understand the specifics of evolutionary biology. Hard work pays off with understanding.
I have no idea why this is so mysterious to creationists. There is no expectation that physics, mathematics, chemistry, engineering, etc. be reducible to a sound bite and put on a post card. But there is this perpetual demand that evolutionary biology be explained in its entirety during a 30 second commercial break.
Spend some time studying the journal articles available here. Then critique the actual science, instead of the childish creationist caricatures of the science.
You could also stop being an idiot about science and its proper role.
Below is the definition of "truth" that I have posted several times and which so upsets a couple of you. I didn't just make this up -- note the source:
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.For those too lazy to click the link it leads to a list of scientific definitions on a CalTech website.
The title of that page is A Glossary of Frequently Misused or Misunderstood Physics Terms and Concepts.
I'm curious: what would be an example of the kind of evidence you're looking for? I think you've abandoned the idea (if you ever held it) that there was ever such a thing as a half-dog, half-fish. And it seems like you understand that the 5000 years of recorded history is minuscule compared to the evolutionary timescale. So what would be something that really made you think, wow, that's strong evidence?
Someone should have informed Darwin of this before he asserted that the "progress of the United States" was due to natural selection.
That's actually a very interesting point. The mental abilities of mankind as far back as recorded history are amazing. The number of generations it would have taken where all along intelligence was a major selective pressure is mind baffling to a small mind like my own. But I'm wagering that nowadays intelligence isn't much of a selective pressure -- just look around.
-Jesse
I didn't have to read 93,000 articles in order to learn about all the other sciences I've dabbled in. This one's a special case, I'm telling you! :-)
But I'm seeing a theme here. I ask for the best evidence -- and people keep responding with lists of thousands of hits. Why not just provide me with a good one? Or do I have to read thousands of articles and make it my life's work to learn evolutionary biology in order to see the evidence? What constitutes trying hard enough? Are only those who devote their life to studying it able to ever learn enough to see these solid mountains of evidence?
I've got to be real here. After enough of this same thing -- being referred to 93 thousand articles when one good one would get me started -- it's only logical for me to wonder if the evidence really doesn't stand on its own too well, so inquirers should be thrown thousands of pages which they cannot possible read entirely, in an effort to frustrate them till they give up and go away.
Is there a particular article in there I should read in order to understand? or do I have to read them all? What does constitute trying hard enough?
Thanks,
-Jesse
Great question!
An example of the kind of evidence I'd consider as "wow that's strong evidence" would be, for example, two things: if we found almost nearly complete skeletons all the way connecting the the man to the ring-tailed lemur and the Charlie Darwin with a skeleton at least every 10 generations -- or with no gap more different then is common in 10 successive generations.
Secondly, we would have to not find a random cloud of variations that encompassed the whole progression. (I'll explain this in a minute.)
Now I know that following this evolutionary path climbs up the tree, then sideways, then down the tree, but the point is, it would provide very strong evidence that the ring-tailed lemur was related by common great great great grandpa to man.
Here's why I specify that there not be found a cloud of random specimens enveloping the selected finds:
I know enough about statistics to know that if you have, for example, a tack-board covered with thousands of randomly placed tacks, somebody could remove just the tacks they didn't want left and end up leaving a trail of tacks winding from any one point to any other point on the board, making it look like somehow a random placement of tacks had created a line of tacks, when in reality the randomness evenly distributed the tacks, but our non-random selectivity of qualified evidence is what caused the appearance of a line of tacks. (The only thing I intend to illustrate with this analogy is that by selecting results we can influence the outcome to fit our goal.)
Likewise, we must consider all the data, not just what fits with a certain idea -- otherwise we'll end up distorting the evidence in favor of the idea we're testing it against.
And it seems like you understand that the 5000 years of recorded history is minuscule compared to the evolutionary timescale.
I agree 5,000 isn't very big compared to 3,870,000,000 if that's your question.
I think you've abandoned the idea (if you ever held it) that there was ever such a thing as a half-dog, half-fish.
I'm not sure what a half-dog or half-fish is. Help me out here -- what's a half-dog and a half-fish?
But the question as to whether I hold the idea or not is telling: I shouldn't need to hold an idea -- I ought to be able to know that it's true. Only when I am to believe something without evidence do I need to hold it.
What's not strong evidence for speciation macroevolution is showing a series of bones that jump unknown generations in some cases and show a bunch of similar bones that are no more varied then todays horse or dog.
You see, in my mind, there are two kinds of evolution -- that which I have seen and that which I have not seen. That which I have seen I believe myself to know as fact. As I've mentioned, I grew up on a family farm -- we never had a kid, kittin, puppie, piglet or calf born or a chick hatch that was perfectly identical to either of its parents. Furthermore, common dog and horse breeding has brought about super tiny and super big dogs and horses. Long noses, short noses. Long ears, legs, bodies, and short thereof. I have no problem with any of this.
But what I don't see is anything drastic like would need to happen to for the ring tailed lemur to be related to Rev Charles Darwin.
And there is no reason for me to be certain that something I've seen proves something I haven't seen. You can throw a 10 pound rock 10 feet. You could probably throw a 1 pound rock about 20 feet. You can probably throw a 0.1 pound rock 50 feet. But I wouldn't bet on your being able to throw a 0.001 pound rock 500 feet.
It is perfectly appropriate for me to desire reasonably clear evidence before I take as fact the idea that Charlie and the RT Lemur descended from the same thing.
Does that answer your questions?
-Jesse
Readily apparent to who? I see microevolution all the time, but the fact that the dog and the fish share the same great-great granddaddy is not anywheres near readily apparent to me. Just what does one need to read before it will be readily apparent?
Thanks,
-Jesse
By slime I meant "Primordial soup" or more specifically "whatever you you want to call that very first substance that transitioned from non-life to life."
So how did it happen? Wasn't there water and rocks and then there was mud and then there was this rich slime/sludge that was ready to sprout the first life? Anyway just provide me a link on the current theory and then we can be reading from the same page.
But my point was that most people who believe in evolution around me are quite certain that from nothing came matter, from which came primitive life, from which came more advanced life, from which ultimately came mankind, but to them it's a pure faith -- they are just trusting in people they've never met regarding things they've never seen - for them it is a faith.
-Jesse
I believe "dabbled" is the operative word here. You obviously want someone to spoon feed you, and it is equally obvious that your response to anything presented will be either "not enough" or "too much -- make it simpler." Educate yourself. Nobody really wants to play games with an adult in a high-chair.
Okay, okay, enough empty insults :-)
Seriously, getting an intuitive grasp of other sciences was not as difficult as this. But I digress.
There is at least one valid situation where a person is perfectly justified in complaining about being given all or nothing -- and that is when they are indeed being given all or nothing.
The claim has been made that there are mountains of evidence, that it's plainly clear, or the like.
But I think maybe it's only clear to those who have studied it for hundreds of hours. Why not just say "Here. Jesse, go read this in-depth article and then you'll be able to see the evidence." Is it because I'd have to read a couple hundred in-depth articles? well then just say so! Just tell me that I won't be able to see the evidence without reading thousands of articles, if such is the case.
But after a while of not hearing that I gotta devote my life to it, and after a while of not being directed to one good article that will do it for me, it is natural and proper of me to suspect that nobody knows of these mountains of clear evidence.
How come it has to be 93,000 or nothing? If any one of those would do it, just say so and I'll go pick one!
(I'm no genius to be sure -- but by now I've seen enough to know that if I just pick one you'll say it was the wrong one.)
Thanks,
-Jesse
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.
