Posted on 12/30/2005 9:12:43 AM PST by RightWingAtheist
When a federal judge in Pennsylvania struck down the efforts of a local school board to teach "intelligent design," he rightly criticized the wholly unscientific nature of that enterprise. Some people will disagree with his view, arguing that evolution is a "theory" and intelligent design is a "theory," so students should look at both theories.
But this view confuses the meaning of the word "theory." In science, a theory states a relationship between two or more things (scientists like to call them "variables") that can be tested by factual observations. We have a "theory of gravity" that predicts the speed at which two objects will fall toward one another, the path on which a satellite must travel if it is to maintain a constant distance from the earth, and the position that a moon will keep with respect to its associated planet.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Yet in the spirit of the thread, I am forced to ask, if low metabolic rates are such an advantage we do we not see a preponderance of species with low metabolic rates?
Because few creatures live in the precise type of environment that Celocanths inhabit.
Evolution does not happen in a vacuum - it is driven by environmental pressures. That's why two isolated populations of a species (for example, finches) will evolve differently - what works in one environment may not work in another.
It was mentioned that the Celocanth lives in an environment with extremely low predation. That's unusual, and might be a reason that the low metabolic rate developed. An organism in constant danger from predators is less likely to have a slow metabolic rate - it doesn't have that luxury, if you'll forgive the expression. I seem to recall that Great White sharks also have a slow metabolic rate, and they don't have much pressure from predators either. Just a guess.
Yes.
Lizards are cool. Birds are cool. Lizard-birds can't run, and they can't fly.
Sure they can. Why do you presume they couldn't?
The one element (random mutation leading to natural selection based on improved survivability) that Darwinists must absolutely insist on seems to be the weakest point in the whole theory.
It might seem that way at first glance, but it's not. It's an extremely powerful, creative process. Also, "Darwinists" do not "absolutely insist on" it -- even Darwin himself recognized that there were other processes at work which contributed to evolutionary change.
Okay thanks. It will take some time to look at it all.
Okay thanks. It will take some time to look at it all.
Natural selection is testable in the lab among viral amd bacterial strains as well as other species.
It is speciation that is not testable.
You said:
"there may be enough genetic change"
This is the kind of assertion that is unsatisfactory to scientists such as myself. I would put such a statement in the same category of speculation as a so-called intelligent design claim.
The post you responded to referred to phenotypes. You don't know that there is any significant genetic change in the Coelcanth from the Devonian. But you posit that there could be because you believe in speciation, the nontestable part of evolution. That is circular reasoning.
Then you cut to natural selection which ***is*** testable under the same species. The Coelcanth and the Devonian may be phenoypically different internally or in some small exterior measure, and they may be genetically "shifted" although not in a statistically significant sense. There may be enough similarities to categorize them in the same species. In fact, the probability is that they are the same species.
So the original poster's question stands unanswered.
Here's a recasting of the question: if natural selection coupled with mutation is what drives evolutionary speciation, why has this 'fish' remained unchanged over millions of years. Why has it not crawled out of the water as a penguin or some other species by which to validate or perpetuate the evolution 'story'?
It is the inductive inference in evolution theory from natural selection to speciation that is the culprit of doubters. And don't think that scientists accept or even respect that inference because it is flawed, terribly so. And in not respecting it, it does not follow that one then must believe in so-called intelligent design.
Belief systems are collections of opinions amalgamated on weaving some core idea to explain observations. Astrology is one example as is intelligent design. And parts of evolution theory (e.g. speciation, common ancestral assumptions, etc.) properly belong in the realm of speculation in the same sense as intelligent design.
So my question is, in general, how does the Theory of Evolution account for differential evolution of species in a common environment? In particular, what is the Evolutionary explanation for the failure of coelacanths, crocodiles and cockroaches to evolve in environments that produced the wholesale destruction of other species?
I think you are confusing some basic concepts. You are correct that "changes in the species are driven by processes like mutation and natural selection," but then there is a problem. Why should different species (genera, orders) react the same way to a specific change in a given environment? Different species (genera, orders) have different genetics, with different ranges of variation. They may occupy very different niches, as do coelacanths, crocodiles and cockroaches.
To be more specific: You mention coelacanths, crocodiles and cockroaches. They do not occupy the same niches and they have vastly different genetic makeups! With different starting points and different micro- or macro-environments, why should they react the same way to any given environmental change? A warmer climate will be felt differently on dry land, in a swamp, and in the open ocean.
This leads back to your question of why some species became extinct while others changed little. Some adaptations are just better than others for the given conditions; when things are going well there is no need to change or adapt. When it hits the fan, its root, hog, or die!
YEC INTREP
And it does, although it's incorrect to say that some species "don't" evolve. Even the ones that stay looking relatively the same over very long periods of time have still evolved in significant details.
For example, the coelacanth has not survived "unchanged". Modern coelacanths are significantly changed from the 340-million-year-old ancestral version, to the point where they are assigned not only to different species, but even to a different genus altogether.
They're still recognizably in the same family, though, which is considerably less evolutionary change than, say, a modern pelican compared to its ancestral therapsid dinosaur over the same timespan, but the point remains that the coelacanth is not actually "unchanged", and its evolution did not somehow "stop" during the last 300+ million years.
And varying amounts of evolutionary change in different lineages is no challenge to "darwinism", as some like to claim, since Darwin himself predicted this effect in his "Origin of Species" book back in 1859.
This is incorrect. It is not only not the same species, it's changed enough that it is a diferent *genus*.
The judge overreached, there are sections of his holding that should disturb every conservative.
This one is a beauty:
"Whether a student accepts the Board’s invitation to explore Pandas, and reads a creationist text, or follows the Board’s other suggestion and discusses “Origins of Life” with family members, that objective student can reasonably infer that the District’s favored view is a religious one, and that the District is accordingly sponsoring a form of religion. Second, by directing students to their families to learn about the “Origins of Life,” the paragraph performs the exact same function as did the Freiler disclaimer: It “reminds school children that they can rightly maintain beliefs taught by their parents on the subject of the origin of life,” thereby stifling the critical thinking that the class’s study of evolutionary theory might otherwise prompt, to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat."
What the judge is saying here is that a state actor informing students of the free exercise clause is unconstituitonal in Dover, Pa because it might stifle critical thinking. Now if that doesn't disturb conservative constitutionalists, I don't know what will.
BTW, Jones expanded on Freiler and the appeals court in Freiler was pretty clear that disclaimers are not unconstitutional per se. Jones is an activist with a touch of messianic complex methinks.
placemarker
What the judge is saying here is that a state actor informing students of the free exercise clause is unconstituitonal in Dover, Pa because it might stifle critical thinking.
No, I'm sorry, that's a misreading of the judge's words. Read it again - he's saying that the disclaimer "stifl(es) the critical thinking" that the class might otherwise prompt, by undermining the scientific foundation with objections that are strictly religious in nature and have no basis in science.
The judge is saying exactly the opposite of what you are claiming. He states that the board, in order to protect their religious dogma, are stifling critical thinking. He's right, and he's also correct that such an act is flagrantly un-Constitutional (which the board well knew, or they wouldn't have lied to hide their motives).
The only messianic activists are the board members who thought that they could lie their way past the Constitution.
No he's not. I've had several attoneys who I have very high respect for read that part of the opinion. They agree that Judge Jones has severely overreached and that it may well come back to haunt him. That is, of course, mine and their opinion. We now wait to see what happens in the courts.
Ah, once again we see the appeal to a vague group of highly qualified nameless people who aren't here. Almost as valuable as an appeal to authority.
Sorry, my friend. That's the Urban Myth of Free Republic. I'm not interested in anecdotal evidence - it's not worth much. If a conservative lawyer should be interested in chipping in, that's one thing. If you want to express your opinion, that's another. I can respect either of those. But to invoke some phantom group? Worthless. I might as well say that I know a cadre of solidly conservative lawyers who think this decision is the bee's knees - it'd be worth just as much to this discussion. Less than zero.
Stick to people you can cite by name, or better yet your own opinions - they're worth infinitely more.
Check out this article about Intelligent Design!
Whatever.
You may not agree with Mr. Walsh, but his word is good.
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.