Phony Theory, False Conflict

Washington Post ^ | Nov 17 | Charles Krauthammer

[raj bhatia]

A brilliant piece by Krauthammer, as usual. The punch line: "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too."

[BackInBlack]

That's an excellent interpretation I hadn't heard before. Thank you!

[GOPPachyderm]

Thanks for clarification but I'm still confused. The point I was trying to make was that blue gills in different lakes in Wisconsin [or even Minnesota where I live] are still in the same kingdom phylum, genus, class, order, genus, species are they not? Where did I go wrong? Okay, okay, I'll go back and read the full article.

I understand some have defined speciation as members of the same classification that cannot interbreed, such as a chihuahua and a great dane. Is this your definition as well?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

When you say,

"In fact, that IS what 'punctuated equilibrium' says occurs. Many significant changes occuring in very short periods of time (and therefore the reason no transitional forms are found)."


To clarify your previous statement,

"I've had evolutionists paint me a picture telling me to imagine the first 'bird' hatching from a dinosaur egg. This is how these people think it could have occurred."

That's a lie. NOT ONE biologist says that a dinosaur gave birth to a bird, or that they could. That is most certainly NOT what PE says. PE still has speciation occurring in tens of thousands of years, it is not an instantaneous event. You have built a strawman that has no relationship to what ANY biologist has said.

[BackInBlack]

Yes, ability to interbreed is my, and the, definition.

[Antonello]

In fact, that IS what 'punctuated equilibrium' says occurs. Many significant changes occuring in very short periods of time (and therefore the reason no transitional forms are found).

What does punctuated equilibrium consider to be a 'very short period of time'? And why is it then that the wealth of transitional fossils from the Montana site seem to be created during a period of punctuated equilibrium during the late Cretaceous if punctuated equilibrium is being used as a reason as to why they don't exist?

[Secret Agent Man]

What you are describing is simple variation within a species, not inter-species evolution. The final analysis is that you still have a dog. By your definition then, every breeder who forces a new breed of dog to occur is causing what you call 'evolution' to occur.

You guys are the ones who have the theory that says life arose from non-life on its own; that all life comes from a common ancestor, and that higher order species evolved from lower order forms of life. I've never seen any of that occur. What is observable is that animals are able to adapt to their environments, but they still are the same animals. Dogs in cold weather have different body and hair than dogs in warm climates, but they still are dogs, they don't 'evolve' or bring forth offspring that aren't dogs.

So what you're really telling me is that over time you may get (and actually you would need TWO dogs on each island, male and female for your example) dogs that do not resemble the original dogs. You also assume they aren't purebreds, and you also assume they are not already adapted to their current environment. Given all of this, let's say they do adapt nad variations occur over time, and certain features become more prominent and certain things become less prominent. You still haven't added any NEW information. More fur, a smaller muzzle, longer legs is not evidence of evolution, but variation. Where is the new genetic information? It's just a modification of genetic information that was already present. Adaption doesn't create a dog with a beak, it may create a dog with different features than its predecessor - but it's still a dog, and will always be a dog.

[GOPPachyderm]

"The fact that virtually all scientists believe in evolution isn't a reason?"

Only if majority opinion determines truth, but I think you would agree that historically that hasn't always been the case. There are some fascinating books and articles that challenge the assumption that evolution is capable of explaining the variety of life we find on this plant.

[TheCrusader]

"For Conway Morris, nature’s ability to produce moral creatures, humans, indicates that God must have orchestrated evolution."

Mr. Morris is presumptious in two areas, I believe. One, his personal notion that he is a Christian who can believe in evolution; two, that evolution is factual, hence God created it.

Mr. Morris seems to believe that God did not create us, but rather that He created an apparatus called evolution that would only later create us as we are today. It is beliefs like this that dilute the Christian faith. Since truth cannot be diluted and still remain truth, these people are no more Christians than a drop of water placed into the ocean remains a drop of water. Darwinism is a faith-stealer which amounts to the parable of the birds "that devoured the seeds" of (Christian) faith before they had a chance to take root and grow. (Mathew 13:4).

(If Morris' God is the God of Christianity), then he should be reminded that Christians believe in the holy Scriptures, aka "the Bible". To reconcile his personal views on darwinsim/evolution, he has to either re-write the Bible or reinterpret it to suit his personal/prideful needs. The true Chrisitan faith still, and always will, teach that Adam was made immediately, from the slime of the earth; and that Adam was the first man, was one man, and that all men are his descendents.

[Antonello]

Secret Agent Man, it saddens me that I had imagined you were sincerely open to learning what evolutionists were really claiming vs. what your preconceived notions were. I devoted several posts to clarifying the points you still want to use, and since you aren't refuting my earlier clarifications, I can only assume you are ignoring them.

It's too bad, really. I did enjoy the illusion that I was conversing with someone other than a talking point mouthpiece.

[Aracelis]

I love that line! LOL!

Got about the same reaction, too...

[Aracelis]

Theories and laws are two different kinds of statements in science. Theories do not become laws. Laws are not graduated theories.

The poster in question has a dictionary on a shelf gathering a thick layer of dust because of the highly-evolved trait of clairvoyance. No need for references in this individual's case...just gaze into a crystal ball for the answers.

[BackInBlack]

Not majority opinion -- consensus opinion. There are always a few stragglers who pretend to be scientists and disagree -- just like there are still flat earth people out there. But when the consensus is so overwhelming, those folks don't count.

(By the way, if the Bible is really to be taken literally, we would have to conclude that the world is flat. See this: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)

[BackInBlack]

"I did enjoy the illusion that I was conversing with someone other than a talking point mouthpiece."

Beautifully put. You are a good writer!

[Coyoteman]

Good explanation. Thanks!

[RightWingNilla]

Creationists who cite Einstein need to learn more about this very interesting fellow everything.

[doc30]

No Problem :)

[bobdsmith]

In fact, that IS what 'punctuated equilibrium' says occurs. Many significant changes occuring in very short periods of time (and therefore the reason no transitional forms are found).

Punctuated equilibrium happens over hundreds of thousands of years. Quick compared to geological time, but not as fast as a single generation.

[ml1954]

This proliferation of ignorance, self-righteous, anti-science fools is going to reduce FR to a meaningless internet clowntown.

And it may destroy the current majority conservative coalition. The religious fanatics may well put the DIMs back in power.

IMO, nothing will turn voters, even religious voters, to the DIMs like the thought that religious theocratic fanatics might significantly influence Republican policies. IMHO, the majority of religious voters in the US are of the 'you worship your way and I'll worship mine and we should leave each other alone' variety.

[Coyoteman]

IMHO, the majority of religious voters in the US are of the 'you worship your way and I'll worship mine and we should leave each other alone' variety.

Loosely translated:

One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

[spinestein]

[Adaption doesn't create a dog with a beak, it may create a dog with different features than its predecessor - but it's still a dog, and will always be a dog.]


In the past few tens of thousands of years, evolution has created what are now dogs from wolf ancestor. There is not very much difference between a wolf and a dog, but the difference is just enough to justify calling them different species.

The same thing can be said for most species alive today. For example, I'm looking at a book right now called "Birds of North America" [GOLDEN] and I can look at nearly any page and see different species of birds which are not very different from each other but which are distinct species.

From page 174-180, for example, There are listed and pictured these owls (family Tytonidae and Strigidae):

EASTERN SCREECH OWL
WESTERN SCREECH OWL
GREAT HORNED OWL
LONG EARED OWL
SHORT EARED OWL
BARN OWL
SNOWY OWL
BARRED OWL
SPOTTED OWL
GREAT GREY OWL
NORTHERN HAWK OWL
BURROWING OWL
BOREAL OWL
NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL
WHISKERED SCREECH OWL
FLAMMULATED OWL
NORTHERN PYGMY OWL
ELF OWL
FERRUGINOUS PYGMY OWL

These are all considered distinct species and a good question to ask is "Did these owls evolve from a common ancestor according to what we expect from natural selection, or did God decide that all these species needed to be purposely and separately created?"

This argument can be applied equally to the rest of the bird families in this book such as waterfowl (family Anatidae) which includes all the species of ducks, swans and geese, or the accipiter family (Accipitridae) which include all the species of kites, hawks, eagles and ospreys.

Pick up a book on insects, trees, flowering plants, reptiles and amphibians or any of a number of other organisms and see the same thing; many, many, discrete species which are not much different from any of its most closely related species, and this is just what we expect from the evolutionary process.