Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -
Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.
On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)
2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)
My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?
On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!
That hasn't been in evidence here. I've counted three posters (including me), who think you're not a real scientist because you don't appear to know what a theory is, what facts are for, and that no matter how you combine them, you never get "proof." At least in science.
If you were to attempt an argument that this is outmoded thinking, or try to demonstrate how we're misconstruing what we're saying, that would be one thing, but thus far all you've offered is argument from authority ("I'm a REAL scientist, and I say it's bunk"), which is a logical fallacy.
One would think a real scientist, and a pretty good one at that, would recognize the problem.
No.
Wrong. The earliest life wouldn't even have qualified as "single-celled", and furthermore "Darwin's theory" doesn't even make any statement about the earliest form(s) of life or their origin. For that you have to look to other fields of biology.
which evolved into multicelled life forms,
Some did, some didn't.
which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection,
Wrong, there are more processes at work than just natural selection.
without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture.
Darwin's theory makes no statement whatsoever about whether there was or was not any "guidance or assistance".
Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.
Wrong again. First, see above, Darwin's theory makes no statement on whether the evolution of life proceeded "purely" by natural processes. Second, "purely by accident" is a really inaccurate and misleading way to describe evolutionary processes. Third, even if biological evolution was solely responsible for the rise of intelligent life, things like "the works of Shakespeare" came about via a different kind of process, as do most other works of man.
Coulter really needs to try to educate herself on this subject before she attempts to "teach" anyone else about it.
On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)
Not *just* the random mutation of desirable attributes, that's extremely misleading as written. Furthermore, "desirable" is a misleading word in this context, especially since the fitness of traits is highly dependent upon conditions. And the fact that Coulter finds herself amazed by the notion doesn't change the fact that there is vast and overwhelming evidence that such mutations have occurred and do occur.
2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)
Natural selection is hardly the only process shaping the genepool, although people who don't know a damned thing about evolutionary biology (like Coulter) often presume it is. And it's in no way a "tautology", pointless or otherwise. That's a common creationist canard, but it's nonsense.
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)
Yes, #1 and #2, together with other processes, can produce new species (but are also responsible for changes *within* a species). As for "no evidence after 150 years of looking", that's quite simply a bald-faced lie.
My question – is she correct in her statements?
No, she isn't. She grossly misrepresents evolutionary biology throughout her chapters on evolution, and tells an astounding number of outright falsehoods. I'm working up a (LONG) post documenting all the ways she outright misleads her readers in those chapters -- anyone who wants to be pinged to it when I finish it can FreepMail me to be added to the ping list.
Is that Darwin’s theory?
No, it isn't. It's a cartoonish distortion of it.
Good experiment. Make it 500,000 years and see what you get.
Or, check the histories of various extant and extinct species and see what actually happened to them through time.
Post 170 has the Pascal's Wager fallacy also.
"Funny, one would expect a scientist to know that no scientific theory addresses the supernatural."
the whole theory of evolution is based upon the supernatural.
I ask for proof and you show an article clip that shows how a new flower was produced. That's Evolution? Producing a new flower or species of flower? Your right I don't understand evolution? I thought evolution was (see post #179)
Wow, are *you* confused...
Sorry, no. Natural selection is no more "a clearly metaphysical phenomenon" than is the fact that small particles of sediment take longer to settle to the bottom of a body of water than do larger particles. Both are simply an inevitable result of the interactions between objects and the surroundings they are involved with.
By your bizarre assertion, it would be "a clearly metaphysical phenomenon" when the slow zebra gets eaten by lions while the swift zebra escapes them. Is that really the goofy position you want to cling to?
You got that from years of study?
Well grounded opinions about evolution flow from years of study.
No doubt years of study, and observations went into the TOE, but to suggest that the matter is not political? ..Well, you might want to reconsider that notion.
Well, you thought wrong. What are you going to do about it?
See, you just never know what's gonna' happen in "evolution" ~ kind of like the will of the gods stuff the Classical Greeks were into ~ the gods were fickle and demanding, and mysterious!
Nonsense. While it's true that the theory of evolution, like all fields of science, studies and describes natural processes (i.e., how things behave when they're not being screwed with), it in no way makes any statement about whether those processes could be, or have been, supernaturally screwed with.
I hope that's said plainly enough, because lots of people seem confused by the concept.
Evidence, not proof! Are you simply trolling that you keep using "proof" as your standard when you have been told that science does not deal in proof? (Try fine Scotch or mathematics instead.)
Evidence is used to create hypotheses, which are then tested. If they are supported over time, and make successful predictions, they become theories. No proof in here anywhere. Just good old fashioned science, which relies on the same basic methods for just about all fields.
the whole theory of evolution is based upon the supernatural.
In what way?
I ask for proof and you show an article clip that shows how a new flower was produced.
Oooh -- look at the goalposts move! You asked for a fact. I cut & pasted that request twice, both times when I was supplying the requested fact, so there would be no confusion. Unfortunately, you're still confused.
You're also confused about the nature of this dialogue -- your request is still printed here for anyone to check; it didn't vanish the way a spoken request would have, to exist only in memory. Go back and re-read your own post.
No one produced the new species, by the way; I chose that example because it happened naturally, without someone "intelligently designing" an experiment. But you don't know what the Theory of Evolution actually states, so you don't recognize what I posted.
Why am I not surprised?
That's Evolution?
Yes.
Producing a new flower or species of flower?
Right. Speciation. That's evolution. Remember, Darwin's book was titled, "On the Origin of Species."[Bolding mine.]
Your[sic] right I don't understand evolution? I thought evolution was (see post #179)
You don't understand evolution.
I must run along now. I'll be picking up Mrs. Gumlegs, and with any luck I'll be able to induce her to attempt a speciation event of our own later tonight.
In the meantime, you might want to ask Ichneumon for some facts about evolution. I've been given to understand he's got some that he trots out from time to time.
Wrong, it's a well-tested field of science, supported by an overwhelming amount of cross-confirming evidence along multiple independent lines. But I suppose it might look like "just an opinion" to someone who is ignorant of the huge amount of science and evidence which has been done in the field of evolutionary biology over the past 150 years.
It requires placing a whole lot more faith in man's science, than any Christian places in God's creation.
Not at all, because the science rests upon testable, confirmable principles, which are validated by comparing them directly against "God's creation" -- reality itself. If you're still unclear on the concept, read this: Do You Believe in Evolution?
I think the best analogy to the evolutionary process was illustrated by a friend (and teacher in a class on "Christian Ethics", which is TOO often an oxymoron).
...and apparently was in this case, too, given how dishonest this "demonstration" was:
He took a pocket watch, placed it into a cloth sack, then smashed it repeatedly with a hammer. He then stood shaking the bag, and talking. He explained that there was a better liklihood that he could shake the watch back into original condition, than to believe that all this we see around us is an accident of nature!
Why was your friend grossly misrepresenting evolutionary biology that way? Why was he lying to his students, pretending that evolution is like shaking broken things in a bag, when it's quite different? Why was he bearing false witness to his students?
The classroom was silent while he poured the parts into his desk, and a lot of parts spilled onto the floor!!!
Well of course. Biological systems, however, don't fall out of bags, and work by very different processes than the ones your "friend" was farting around with. Was he an idiot, or just dishonest?
He convinced me of the hutzpah, and folly of the human species!
Then you fell for his dishonesty. He should be ashamed for misleading you.
I am intelligent, educated, and reasonalby mature.
Not on this topic, you're not.
I do not need to hold to any schedule for creation. I have studied the Bible in its original languages, and nuanced the distinctions of translators. In the end, it all boils down to one thing. Do you believe in magic?
Apparently you do. But let's get back to the topic of biology, shall we? Try studying some biology texts for a change.
Promises, promises...
the most advanced species appear to have a host of less advanced ancestral species that are extinct.
Just as one would expect if things had evolved. Gosh.
At the same time, less advanced species appear to have few ancestral species that are extinct.
Say what? Where did you "learn" this bit of nonsense?
The implication is clear ~
Yes, it's clear you've been reading too many creationist tracts and not enough science journals.
the best adapted species are not necessarily the most advanced, nor are the most advanced species the best adapted.
Define "advanced" as you are using it in this sentence.
This, of course, is contrary to your Libertarian/Libertine ideology.
Now you're just babbling. Care to discuss evolutionary biology, or are you off on some political non sequitur now?
The question: if an observation in nature concerning the relative utility of evolution is not consistent with the social darwinist views of the Libertarian/Libertine class, is it true or false?
Could you rephrase that question in a manner that is actually coherent? What are you attempting to mumble about here?
I'd be amused too if that were the case, but it's not.
Why does an animal have certain traits? Because the traits gave it competitive advantage in the survival of the fittest. What is the proof? The animal has certain traits. Its really quite circular.
It would be if that's what the science was actually claiming, but it's not. Hey, I have an idea, why don't you go off and learn something about the topic before you attempt another goofy pronouncement about it?
Thus most Darwinists have no problem accepting that traits that should clearly be self-eliminating like diseases that occur before reproduction and homosexuality continue, while simultaneously insisting that a 1mm extension of a Giraffe's neck every 100 years gave clear competitive advantage.
Wow, are YOU confused. Where did you "learn" this cartoonish falsehood? Cite your sources. We'll wait.
For starters, there's a huge amount of literature investigating and documenting the exact mechanisms by which certain detrimental traits are not as "self-eliminating" as they might appear at first glance. But hey, you haven't bothered to learn this topic before spouting off, so of course you haven't a clue.
Additionally, there's also a huge amount of literature investigating and documenting the mathematics and practical processes which do indeed allow minor improvements to thrive and improve over time. Go educate yourself before you spout off any more ignorant nonsense.
The proof? Well that's the way it is, and the only accepted mechanism is survival of the fittest.
Congratulations, you're an idiot on this topic. First, you're "forgetting" the 150 years of research and evidence on these topics, which you imagine doesn't exist because, well, you're completely ignorant on this subject. As a result, you just fantasize that the only support for the tenets of evolutionary biology is a bunch of folks throwing up their hands and saying, "well that's the way it is". Look, if you're *this* ignorant on the subject, go find some other thread to annoy with your cluelessness.
Second, you ignorantly say, "only accepted mechanism is survival of the fittest" -- hell, son, not even Darwin said that. Are you really this misinformed?
"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."Get thee to a library and come back when you're able to converse on the topic without saying one stupid and false thing after another about it.
-- Charles Darwin, 1872 edition of On the Origin of Species
I accept evolution,
Yeah, sure -- then why are you spewing the favorite falsehoods of the anti-evolutionists?
but question the "theory" that all changes are the result of competitive advantage.
Congratulations -- you're "questioning a theory" that no biologist actually holds. How proud you must be. Real biologists, unlike the cartoonish misrepresentations of them in the creationist pamphlets, are well aware that more processes are at work than just "competetive advantage". For example, genetic drift.
Interestingly, that small differentiation is always enough to bring the wrath of every Darwinist down on me.
Only because we get really tired of being grossly misrepresented like that. Try talking about the actual topic for a change, instead of waving around all of your favorite misrepresentations and straw man attacks. You'll get a better reception.
That gives me the impression that Darwinian Theory has become more of an orthodox doctrine than a scientific theory.
No, it means that your cartoonish misunderstandings of Darwinian Theory are annoying to the people who don't like to see the real thing misrepresented so badly.
Or have I misunderstood the definitions again?
Each observation is a fact (or data point): each fossil, each segment of DNA, each date, each geologic layer, etc. These are all facts.
But facts alone lack meaning. It is theory that explains these facts. Facts can change over time through addition (more fossils) or refinement (better dating), etc. A theory has to account for these new facts as well, or it must either be modified or replaced.
The entire field of modern genetics was discovered after the theory of evolution was well along. It could have torpedoed the theory of evolution, if it was incorrect; instead it confirmed it strongly. The vast majority of hominid fossils were discovered after Darwin published in 1859; they could have torpedoed the theory, but they only helped fill in the details and strengthen the tentative linkages Darwin suggested.
A useful theory also makes predictions. One of the recent fossils (a fish I believe) was found based on predictions of where in the world, and in which layers, to look.
Hope this helps.
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.