Posted on 02/13/2004 3:14:29 AM PST by The Raven
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:51:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"
Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
That's been my view all along. I've never seen the idea of Divine Creation and evolution as mutually-exclusive (or even competing) ideas. In fact, I find it even more awe-inspiring to consider that God built living things to be so adaptable to non-optimal conditions.
And this is kind of a mirror image of the argument that I have put forward, that if you are going to use faith to invoke a creator, why bother with trying to "debunk" all the evolutionary evidence? Just accept, by faith, that it was all created when the creator created the universe, complete with fossils, radioactive half lives, and ancient star light.
Interesting? The word is in the title of this thread. The subject matter itself is on that very topic. And my use of the word in a message is "interesting"?
I suppose we can also say that God has "evolved" as well...from the worship of gods of fire, war, etc....
Beats me, man. From what I've read, the last time God tapped anyone to speak on his behalf was over 2,000 years ago. He's been quiet on all matters of discussion since.
Moreover, the individual parts of complex structures supposedly serve no function. Because evolution selects only the fittest innovations, useless ones vanish. The odds against a bunch of useless parts lying around at the same time and coming together by chance are astronomical, mathematician and evolution-critic William Dembski of Baylor University correctly notes. emphasis added
For a feature to disappear, evolution must select against it. Selective pressure is a 'negative' in essence. If a feature decreases survival, then that feature is removed from the gene pool. If the feature aids or has no effect on survival, it remains.
Vestigial organs like the appendix are the obvious examples.
But that's what makes the anti-evolution arguments amusing at least, the shocking lack or misapplied knowledge.
If we do not "see" a purpose for something, it doesn't mean it isn't there, it only means we haven't learned enough yet to discover it. The more we learn, the less we really "know".
Ever heard of the Anthropic Principle?
We're at a distance from the sun that could generate advanced life forms capable of thinking about and posting an internet message commenting on how far the earth is from the sun. Planets at the incorrect distance from the sun(and there may be trillions of those) will not generate advanced life forms posting on a message board commenting on their distance from the sun. And given our distance from the sun we're going to evolve life forms perfectly adapted to that distance from the sun.
Basically, our distance from the sun could very easily be dumb luck rather than divine intervention.
Yes
Actually since the moon is receeding from the Earth, this phenomena is a very short lived one indeed.
All of your examples give rise to the reason life is here at all. They do not posit a diety.
This isn't quite the case anymore. Studies have shown an increase in stomach cancer after an appendectomy but this is attributed to the H. pylori infection. The H. pylori is also the aggravating factor for the inflamed appendix. Colon cancer in populations actually decreases after an appendectomy as the appendix is the initiating site for many colon cancers. (Appendectomy during childhood and adolescence and the subsequent risk of cancer in Sweden. Pediatrics, June, 2003, by Judith U. Cope, Johan Askling, Gloria Gridley, Adam Mohr, Anders Ekbom, Olof Nyren, Martha S. Linet and Boffetta P. Infection with Helicobacter pylori and parasites, social class and cancer. IARC Sci Publ. 1997;138:325-329)Although the presence of hematopoietic and lymphoproliferative malignancies confounds a direct causal relationship. There may in fact be a preventative relationship between appendectomies and colon disease although this is still under debate. (Does Appendectomy PreventUlcerative Colitis? Reviewed by Douglas K. Rex, MDIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN[Rev Gastroenterol Disord. 2001;1(3):160] and Appendectomy and Protection Against Ulcerative ColitisAndersson RE, Olaison G, Tysk C, et al. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:808814.) Again, this may be related to the removal of a possible instigating site. There was some evidence for the relationship you mention 20 years ago (A case-control study of risk factors for large bowel carcinoma, Vobecky J, Caro J, Devroede G. Cancer. 1983 May 15;51(10):1958-63.)but it was found that these populations used there was an overall greater occurrence of colon cancers. It is now thought that the increase in cancers is due to an induction of tumor metastasis from the stress of the surgery. (Increased surgical stress promotes tumor metastasis. Tsuchiya Y, Sawada S, Yoshioka I, Ohashi Y, Matsuo M, Harimaya Y, Tsukada K, Saiki I. Surgery. 2003 May;133(5):547-55.)
Basically, the trauma from the appendectomy causes small pre-cancerous or early cancerous area to become very active in the abdomen.
Plus there is some argument that the narrow band isn't as narrow as previously thought.
Ancient cultures used to believe that a god existed only as long as he had followers. So, in a way, gods are also subject to evolution- those that cannot adapt to new spiritual environments end up dying out.
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.