Some Species Evolve Side by Side [palms & fish]

Discovery.com (not Discovery Institute) ^ | 14 February 2006 | Larry O'Hanlon

[PatrickHenry]

"But it's still a palm, it's still a fish! When a fish gives birth to a palm, get back to me."
</creationism mode>

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 350 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[cchandler]

Glad to see more pro-evolution freepers. Add me to the list please.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

But palm fish are still palm fish!

Heehee...

[muawiyah]

I don't think the writer meant to confuse us by suggesting that palms become fish and vice versa, but some are confused.

On the other hand, for both the palm and the fish the writer says this all happened a long time ago and nobody was around to see it, but, we are to accept that it did.

It's a "by faith alone" sort of thing.

I started thinking of fresh, steamed fish served wrapped in a banana leaf. Definitely time for lunch.

[MineralMan]

""But it's still a palm, it's still a fish! When a fish gives birth to a palm, get back to me.""

Dang right. Their still makin' babies "after they're kind." When them palm trees start dropping fish, then come see me.
/idiocy

[hawkaw]

Great article and keep up the great work. It's people like you who are making a difference on this db in explaining the process of science.

[Elpasser]

Evolution will morph into whatever it needs to be to accommodate visible phenomena. I always thought that real science made hypothesis and tested them in a way that would prove or disprove them.

[My2Cents]

nobody was around to see it, but, we are to accept that it did.

Another example where conclusions about observations are colored by the observer's assumptions and speculations. Does this even qualify as "science"?

[Potowmack]

I always thought that real science made hypothesis and tested them in a way that would prove or disprove them.

Then you would be incorrect. Science does not deal with proof.

[tallhappy]

Glad to see more pro-evolution freepers

What do you mean "pro-evolution"?

[VadeRetro]

Call me when a palm fish becomes a palm pilot.

[Incorrigible]

So if the attractive women who work in the ad agency 2 floors below mine wont accept my request for a date, is it because I'm more evolved or because they are more evolved?

:-)

[LIConFem]

I didn't even know fish had hands...

[labowski]

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.

[Elpasser]

"Then you would be incorrect. Science does not deal with proof."

LUCKY THING FOR THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!!

[KeepUSfree]

No, it is NOT by faith alone. It is due to the fossil record and genetic testing.

You just like to think of it as "faith" so that you can continue in your belief that your completely faith-based world view is equally valid.... IE. that science and religion are on equal standing and are equally factual.

I had a great Jesuit college religion professor who used to stress. "Religion contains TRUTHS .... not facts". If your looking for moral direction, personal clarity or purpose...go with religion. If you want facts - go with science. Religion provides the framework structure, science provides the bricks.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

LOL!

That would be cool!

[cchandler]

"What do you mean 'pro-evolution'?"

By pro-evolution, I mean people who do not reflexively mock evolution because they think it is nihilist. I don't think that being religious means being against science, and I don't think it's right to mock people and their beliefs because they don't fit with your own. If people want to put full faith in creationism or ID, then that's fine by me. But I've never been treated worse by freepers than when I claimed that evolution makes perfect sense and that I thought people who disavowed it didn't fully understand the theory.