Posted on 08/24/2006 8:37:24 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Look who's in a tizzy... I'm not the one who posted the exact same demand as someone else. If you want to be part of the thread, try reading it first.
You will never find a parent organism whose offspring was a totally different species - that wouldn't be evolution, that would be a miracle. (Please pardon me if I misinterpreted your statement.) Evolution is very slow change that has a net effect on populations over time periods so vast that the change from generation to generation is barely noticeable, if at all.
True. However, when we look back from our perch on millenia of history, we should be able to discern the change or at least a pattern. To my knowledge, we have theory but no direct proof of this occurring.
You did misunderstand me a little... I don't think that evolution occurs between generations. That's ok, though.
I don't have Ann's book at the office with me, so you will have to settle for my own argument in post #33. As to your snarky comment... I don't care to have an argument with a disagreeable ass. I'll stick to those who can communicate beyond grade school taunting.
What would convince you? Direct observation of a multi-step sequence of adaptive mutations? How about existing gradations of populations, such that all individuals can mate with their immediate neighbors, but that those at the extreme edges of the range will not mate with each other?
What kind of evidence would you find convincing?
I'm not a scientist and not the one who needs to read and interpret the evidence. Can you point me to a scientist or a study that says that we have found these links? To date I have not found one.
Do you have an example of a change to an entirely different species in a single generation?
for later
Yes, many forms of domesticates are produced this way. It's a common method of producing ornamental plants. Diploid versions are altered to produce tetraploids which can no longer breed with diploids. Off the top of my head, I could name daylilies, rhododendrons, spireas, durum wheat etc.
This occurs in the wild mostly with plants but has been known to occur in animals.
An interesting comment. Can you give some definitions (e.g. what is fundamentalism...at least, the fundamentals, so to speak) and some examples?
Thank you, I stand corrected. I was basically only thinking about animals, but you're right.
Thank you for the links... I'll have to review...
Cardinal Schonborn said it was important to realize that Darwin's theories continue to have an impact in economic as well as biological fields. For example, he cited a link between ideological Darwinism and some capitalist theories that consider high unemployment simply a byproduct of a necessary economic natural selection.
Obviously Schonborn isn't a fundamentalist. And I only use the term as they apply it to themselves.
I don't have any cites handy, I was just stating my impression. More so from the fundamentalist desire to regulate everyone elses behavior, less so from a direct anti-capitalistic attack. So I think their socialism is more along behavioral lines rather than strictly economic. But in the end, the results are similar.
But here's a countervailing tendency: a significant subset of conservative evangelicals and anabaptists who abstain from voting or from holding political office.
Even if "conservative evangelical" does not equal "fundamentalists," I would assume there's a significant overlap. And I remember back when the late Adrian Rogers was president of the Southern Baptist Convention, one of his frustrations was the substantial number of conservative Christians who (unlike himself) thought that Christians should abstain alogether from the expediency-driven, compromise-crafting arena of politics.
Conservatives often took this as their motto:
2 Corinthians 6:17
"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you."
So it would seem that the more --um, "fundamental" --- Christian fundamentalists actually resist attempts to "regulate everyone else's behavior." I know that many of them are noticeably family-and-church centered, and that would weigh against them being either socialists nor statists.
This is much closer to how Darwin saw his theories, as simply explaining the greater glory of God's creation.
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.