Evolution: A Series on PBS tonight

PBS ^ | Sept. 24, 2001 | PBS

[ThinkPlease]

Tonight is the beginning of the Evolution Series on PBS. I thought I'd open up some threads of discussion here prior, during and after the telecast of the episodes.

Here's PBS's homepage for the telecast:

PBS Homepage

And Here's something from the Discovery Institute, who is evidently irritated about turning down free publicity on the telecast. (They were offered time on the final night of the telecast, and turned down PBS.)

Discovery Institute

[NonZeroSum]

I think it's obvious - anyone who believes in evolution has been duped by the Liberals into taking a step away from God.

Well, it's not at all obvious, but thank you for your opinion. It will be given all the consideration that it's due.

[RadioAstronomer]

did you get my freep mail?

[BMCDA]

Once again: sandcastles are no self-replicators and therefore evolution does not apply to them. Self-replication is a necessary condition.

...just where are all the intermediatry links between ANY 2 species, much less humans and apes.

You seem to have a problem understanding this. Therefore I try to explain it with an analogy of the visible continuous spectrum. Imagine you have two wavelengths, e.g. 543 nm (most people call that 'green') and 438 nm (often referred to as 'blue'). The change from 543nm to 438 nm is continuous (of course). But now tell me where does green end and blue start. Any distinction would be arbitrary. And the same is the case with the term 'species': you cannot say species 'A' ends with this generation and the next is already species 'B'.
Of course the fossil record is not complete (and surely never will be) but we have enough to see the underlying pattern.

[AndrewC]

But now tell me where does green end and blue start.

490.5nm

[jennyp]

Other than that, there's nothing that the 2LoT says about evolution or creation.

Are you implying that, given energy, evolution or creation are free of any consequence of the second law of thermodynamics?

Of course not, and you're intelligent enough that you should know that, Andrew.

Evolution violates the 2LoT in the same way that a person who stands up "violates" the Law of Gravity. Or the same way that a rock that fails to flatten into a pancake "violates" the Law of Gravity. Or the same way that a tectonic upthrust turning into a mountain "violates" the Law of Gravity.

[BMCDA]

Because...

[js1138]

Funny, I'v had similar experiences with "religious" people. But I no longer confuse words withs deeds, intentions with results, or piety with heart.

[GLDNGUN]

Thanks Jenny but all I found was a lot of psuedo-science babble about why there aren't transitional fossils. Oh, they say there are but offer no specifics because any "example" they produced could easily be discredited. Just take a look around; if evolution were true there should be all kinds of transitional species between humans and apes or where ever we supposedly came from. There are none. That is just ONE example. Of course there should be all kinds of transitional species all over the place. The earth should be crawling with them. In fact, there should be no species, just zillions of transitional creatures. I am so thankful for intelligent design. Why do some people hang on so fiercely to a theory that is an absolute joke? The more you think about it, the more absurd and and laughable evolution gets.

[AndrewC]

Because...

Anything that is truly arbitrary can be determined by convention with no consequence other than establishing the standard. Thus the speed of light in vacuum is 299 792 458 m s-1 exactly and a meter is defined as "the distance light travels in a vacuum in 1/299 792 458 second".

[IncPen]

Funny, I'v had similar experiences with "religious" people. But I no longer confuse words withs deeds, intentions with results, or piety with heart.

This is the answer the liberals love! Post modern equivocation!

Words vs. deeds? Intentions vs. results? Piety with heart?

How about... Bill Clinton. Janet Reno. Johnnie Cochran.

Is that the company you stand in? (I think not!)

[AndrewC]

Evolution violates the 2LoT in the same way that a person who stands up "violates" the Law of Gravity. Or the same way that a rock that fails to flatten into a pancake "violates" the Law of Gravity. Or the same way that a tectonic upthrust turning into a mountain "violates" the Law of Gravity.

So given time we should expect a chimp to give birth to a human or vice versa?

[Junior]

The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [7th Revision]

[jennyp]

So given time we should expect a chimp to give birth to a human or vice versa?

I thought you were smarter than that... :-(

[VadeRetro]

I thought you were smarter than that . . . [Proposing--As a consequence of evolution? The second law?--that a chimp should give birth to a human or vice versa.]

Once you start compromising in favor of your favorite ideas it's evidently a slippery slope.

[NonZeroSum]

Once you start compromising in favor of your favorite ideas it's evidently a slippery slope.

Yes, and vertical...

[Matchett-PI]

#93: "Did you read this? — Why I Am (Still) a Christian. We could be twins!"

Just got home, logged onto the thread, and went to your link and read what you wrote. It's great!

Of course we won't see any religious macro-evolutionary fanatics/zealots being able to *legitimately* refute what you wrote, point by point.

Are they even AWARE that they must first *believe* something, before they can even *know* anything?

They believe that they (and other people) have *minds*, and yet can't *scientifically* prove it.

Genuine atheists do not exist. Everyone is *religious*. Everyone has a "worldview". Everyone has *an object of ultimate concern*, even if it is only the person himself. Whatever that _ultimate concern_ is for each of us (at any given time in our lives), is our god.

[VadeRetro]

So you're under no pressure to employ reason because all these alleged "thinkers" are really just "believers" and not a jot ahead of you in real knowledge anyway . . .

[AndrewC]

I thought you were smarter than that... :-(

I am. That is why I don't expect that event. What is it about your viewpoint that would prevent that from occurring? After all, there is only a 2% difference in the DNA which came about in 5 million years, therefore, randomly, one should expect 1/5,000,000th chance of that in 1 year. Those are lottery odds. (actually the odds are much worse, but you figure them out, and be careful, random things have no direction)

[BMCDA]

Exactly my point. And therefore 481.28nm or 491.1nm are just as good as 490.5nm to represent the border between green and blue. And the same applies to two successive species. But because we do these kind of categorizations people expect that it is done because there is a sudden and visible change (leap) but there is no such thing. (IMO it would be less confusing if we deal with probabilities in such cases)

So given time we should expect a chimp to give birth to a human or vice versa?

Just what I was trying to say.
(Though I'm convinced you don't hold that opinion)

[NonZeroSum]

What is it about your viewpoint that would prevent that from occurring? After all, there is only a 2% difference in the DNA which came about in 5 million years, therefore, randomly, one should expect 1/5,000,000th chance of that in 1 year.

No, one shouldn't, unless one is totally ignorant of statistics and the nature of genetic mutations.