Posted on 03/09/2005 1:46:32 PM PST by metacognative
Opinions
There are valid criticisms of evolution
BY DAVID BERLINSKI
"If scientists do not oppose anti-evolutionism," said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Council on Science Education, "it will reach more people with the mistaken idea that evolution is scientifically weak."
Scott's understanding of "opposition" had nothing to do with reasoned discussion. It had nothing to do with reason at all. Discussing the issue was out of the question. Her advice to her colleagues was considerably more to the point: "Avoid debates."
Everyone else had better shut up.
In this country, at least, no one is ever going to shut up, the more so since the case against Darwin's theory retains an almost lunatic vitality. Consider:
• The suggestion that Darwin's theory of evolution is like theories in the serious sciences -- quantum electrodynamics, say -- is grotesque. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to 13 unyielding decimal places. Darwin's theory makes no tight quantitative predictions at all.
• Field studies attempting to measure natural selection inevitably report weak-to-nonexistent selection effects.
• Darwin's theory is open at one end, because there is no plausible account for the origins of life.
• The astonishing and irreducible complexity of various cellular structures has not yet successfully been described, let alone explained.
• A great many species enter the fossil record trailing no obvious ancestors, and depart leaving no obvious descendants.
• Where attempts to replicate Darwinian evolution on the computer have been successful, they have not used classical Darwinian principles, and where they have used such principles, they have not been successful.
• Tens of thousands of fruit flies have come and gone in laboratory experiments, and every last one of them has remained a fruit fly to the end, all efforts to see the miracle of speciation unavailing.
• The remarkable similarity in the genome of a great many organisms suggests that there is at bottom only one living system; but how then to account for the astonishing differences between human beings and their near relatives -- differences that remain obvious to anyone who has visited a zoo?
If the differences between organisms are scientifically more interesting than their genomic similarities, of what use is Darwin's theory, since its otherwise mysterious operations take place by genetic variations?
These are hardly trivial questions. Each suggests a dozen others. These are hardly circumstances that do much to support the view that there are "no valid criticisms of Darwin's theory," as so many recent editorials have suggested.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side question:
In the middle of WHAT?????
I've always wondered.....
Sounds like MY brother, too!
Bifurcating posts?
True, but Spider Woman Rock is an EVENING picture event; NOT early morning!
I think that if you have a small outward acceleration, then the earth never gets into orbit at all. Not for a billion years, not for a million years, not for a thousand years, and not for a day. It just does not work that way.
If you have some different inward acceleration than what you thought you had, then you simply wind up with a different obital postition than you first would have calculated. You do not go flinging out into infinity. Orbits are just like that.
Kind of like: "This statement is a lie."
The fact of evolution is; it cannot be questioned!
It is vanishingly small for an object which is a comet tail particle somehow blown up big without introducing a host of new problems. The calculations provided show the effect vanishing with increasing mass, never mind the other things that kick in when you increase mass.
But the other things do kick in. The effect isn't just vanishing mathematically, it vanishes into clouds and water and heated rock, friction and evaporation.
Your model is deliberately naive. BTW, as you zooom out to x trillion miles, do you change the irration factor from 1 AU or are you leaving the same number plugged in?
Creationism is a theory put forth to undermine Conservatism and the Conservative movement.
It won't stop the catfight. I've noticed that people cling to numerical errors even more tightly than to philosophical ones.
What an irrational misspelling! "Irradiation."
Gee, I guess being called a jerk is better than being called a dumbazz...
1) As has been said countless times already, Evolution is NOT about the origins of life. 2)Also, if you believe in natural selection and adaptation, then YOU DO accept evolution. 3) The fact that scientists cannot produce life from just the elements at this time says absolutely NOTHING against evolution. A few centuries ago they didn't even know those elements existed. Scientists can't make most non-organic molecules from scratch yet either; does that mean their theories of chemistry are all wrong too?
BTW, i never called you a cave dweller.
Molecular biology would disagree. See also The Consilience of Independent Phylogenies portion of the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. You might also check under Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics.
It's about the mutations. Think about it. Unless the world is more lamarckian than we thought by some huge factor, it can't be about anything else.
You're well beyond "rank amateur"...got the ideas, ready for details.
Here's a website that shows some undifferentiated colonial critters.
Ignore all the words you don't understand..it's the pictures that give the real message.
These are way beyond the imaginary bacteria of my first post. The important feature is the flagella (hairlike structures that stick out of a cell and move about)
Flagella can move the cell around, or they can move the surroundings toward the cell. Hunters and gatherers so to speak. Or they can help hold a group together. (there are a few more "ors" which I'll omit for now.
http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/indexmag.html?http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag/artmay03/branched.html
I'm looking for a website with a good picture of how we are currently connecting various forms of organisms. Then I'll go back to organizing imaginary bacteria and inventing a totally different form of colony called eukaryotes (that's your vocabulary word for today, means cells with nuclei)
Anyplace I'm not clear, redundant or going off on sidetracks let me know.
"It's in the NUMBERS! The numbers don't lie!"
Except they probably have the math all messed up, too. However, I'm bored by arithmetic and never check the math until I've thoroughly kicked the tires on the model. Creationist models are always wrong. Always.
No, but scientists don't claim that lead transmutes into gold in nature. If they did or thought it did, they would attempt to repeat it in experiments.
Then try that statement again with 'lead' replaced by 'hydrogen' and 'gold' replaced by 'helium'.
I never even start the math without checking the model.
I see you are just here for the insults. Serious, civil discussion is beyond your grasp.
Adaptation within a species is not evolution. Where did the Species come from? Yes I am a Jerk and not ashamed of it.
Are you a michael moore conspiracy guy?
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.