Evolution Looking into the 21st Century [Galapagos World Summit]

Universidad San Francisco de Quito via Newswise ^ | 23 June 2005 | Staff

[Dataman]

Evolution is pseudo science

If a convincing case could be made for the fantasy of evolution, it wouldn't be fighting for its life right now. If there were a convincing case, the materialists would use it.

No one is threatened by the charge that the moon is made of green cheese because a convincing case to the contrary can be made. But because a convincing case cannot be made for evolution, the evos are extremely threatened.

[Doctor Stochastic]

More like sitting on a cusp.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Poofreaders neet not apply.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Several hundred, several hundred million -- what's the difference among friends?

Certainly nothing if you are a Member of Congress.

[Gumlegs]

More like sitting on a cusp.

What the h was that about proofreaders?

[dread78645]

UranusDidit place mark

[rrr51]

I feel compelled to reply to your post

They just had a conference with lots of professors and professional scientists working with evolution theory every day. And you think there might be some books on the subject? YA THINK?

You missed my point. Just writing about a subject doesn't mean what you write is true. YA THINK. Also, many professors and scientists don't believe in evolution www.designinference.com

And they couldn't convince the OJ jury either. They had their mind made up in advance with the strength of a religion. Just like you and evolution.

Wrong on both counts. I didn't make my mind up in advance and although I believe in God, I am not a church-goer and am not affiliated with any religion.

You're not open minded. You've already made up your mind and you just admited it in post #63.

I admitted no such thing. Now you are making things up.

What you are is a typical lying Christian. You lied about having an open mind, and merely wanting to find out information. Your post #7 was an invitation for PH to give you some information, so that you could proclaim it "unconvincing", and thus "win" your argument.

Wrong on all 3 counts. I am not lying, I am not a Christian and I didn't invite anyone to do anything except answer a simple question

Snake oil salesmen. Every one of you.

Everyone of who? Everyone who doesn't agree with you?

65 posted on 06/24/2005 12:20:15 PM PDT by narby (There are Bloggers, and then there are Freepers.)

[PatrickHenry]

Consider the alternate title of The Origin of the Species: The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection
or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

Consider reading beyond the title. You will learn that Darwin considered the term "race" to be a fuzzy construct, as difficult to apply as it was to determine when a village became a town; and he used "race" interchangeably with the term "species" and sometimes "sub-species."

[PatrickHenry]

I had that a bit backwards. It was the term "species" that Darwin considered fuzzy, or imprecise, because one species blends imperceptibly into another, so he would sometimes use sub-species and race instead. Particularly with humanity. Contrary to the prevailing attitudes of Englishmen of his generation, he regarded all mankind as one species. This attitude was, I believe, the opposite of the "racist" label you tried to pin on him. But then, your error is understandable, because you don't read beyond the title.

[ChessExpert]

The Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection
or
The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

"Consider reading beyond the title." Well at least I reported the entire title! That is seldom done. I wonder what Darwin meant to convey with his alternative title. Actually, I've read most of the book - though not recently. To me, the work has pronounced strengths and weaknesses. I recall little discussion on the evolution of man.

I have not read Darwin's The Descent of Man. I've seen electronic bulletin board postings of vivid quotes - but have not confirmed their validity.

Darwin clearly considers speciation to be a very gradual process. Is it so gradual that all the evidence is historical? Or could one look around and find some evidence in the present - different varieties or races?

My complaint is with modern dogma. We must believe in evolution. We must not be racists. We must not consider any logical connection between evolution and race. This strikes me as two musts too many. One should reject racism for humanitarian reasons; it's just not nice to people. But it seems to me that a complete discussion of human evolution would include a discussion of race.

"This conference was unique because it compromised all subfields of evolution from microbes to humans," Post 9

I think the presentations on human evolution would be interesting. Let's hope that they have not been "compromised" too much. :)

[PatrickHenry]

Darwin clearly considers speciation to be a very gradual process. Is it so gradual that all the evidence is historical? Or could one look around and find some evidence in the present - different varieties or races?

It depends on how rapidly a species reproduces. Bacterial evolution is quite visible in the lab. For other species where thousands of generations can take a long time, the evidence is in the fossil record -- as expected.

My complaint is with modern dogma. We must believe in evolution. We must not be racists.

You don't have to believe in evolution (or atoms, or relativity, or anything else that bothers you), and you can be a racist if you like.

One should reject racism for humanitarian reasons; it's just not nice to people. But it seems to me that a complete discussion of human evolution would include a discussion of race.

Darwin discusses the races of man extensively in The Descent of Man. And he concludes that we're all the same species. Interestingly, that wasn't a mainstream view in his generation.

[balrog666]

Allow me to rephrase the obvious (with apologies to Rich Cook):

Evolution today is a race between scientists striving to build a bigger, better, idiot-proof model of the history of life on Earth, and Nature trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, Nature is winning.

[longshadow]

Poofreaders neet not apply.

"Nothing is foolproff, for fools are ingenious fellows." - unknown.

;-)

[Gumlegs]

Or, "You can make something fool proof but not damnfool proof."

[RadioAstronomer]

But because a convincing case cannot be made for evolution,

Only because you refuse to look at the evidence.

[RadioAstronomer]

Sheesh. Make one mistake.......LOL!

[b_sharp]

I did post the theory of evolution but you then came up with some artificially contrived version of what a theory has to look like. I determined from your response that you would be unable to accept anything I could present as a scientific theory.

For your information, very few scientific theories would meet your stated criteria.

[longshadow]

Sheesh. Make one mistake.......LOL!

Janitors at Darwin Central are held to a higher standard of excellence.

[RadioAstronomer]

Gots to polish that silver trim in the hallways you know.

[RightWhale]

Huxley said that evolution implies eventual devolution. Can we ever return to that blissful state of nature before there was a State and bickering over the nature of private property? Would anybody want to?