Evolution was, and is, a great notion

The Boston Globe ^ | 6/17/2003 | Chet Raymo

[Radix]

What was the greatest scientific idea of all time? The answer, I think, is clear: Evolution by natural selection, conceived more or less simultaneously by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in the mid-19th century. It was their genius to imagine a way diverse organisms could arise from simple ancestors by purely natural process.

[Burkeman1]

I have no alternative explanation to explain our existence. I am certainly no creationist. But I think evilution as is currently explained is lacking as a coherent theory. I think the battle with rigid creationists over the years has caused a kind of rigidity all it's own in the defenders of traditional evolution that has reacted to all questions to it's legitimacy with hysterics as if all critics were bible belters.

[longshadow]

participatory placemarker

[Aric2000]

Well, let's see, 90% of detractor are bible thumpers and the other 10% are clueless, because they have done NO studying on their own and expect us to answer their questions whenever they ask them.

So I would say that 100% either don't want to know, or are too lazy to go out and find out on thier own.

[Burkeman1]

OK- at least that is an answer. You have zero doubts about how evolution is currently explained?

[Vercingetorix]

"Good thing God didn't make a woman first, it would have ended there. And yes the rib bone marrow contains all of the neccessary genetic material to make a woman including the XX." -- bondserv

If this particular god needed DNA to make Eve, where did he get the DNA to make Adam? Might I suggest that because virtually all of the DNA in humans is identical to the DNA in Chimpanzees, this god might well have obtained his original sample from a Chimp with 48 chromosomes (and then he fused two of the Chimp chromosomes to make our 46). Yes, it all makes sense now.

[Stultis]

I think the battle with rigid creationists over the years has caused a kind of rigidity all it's own in the defenders of traditional evolution that has reacted to all questions to it's legitimacy with hysterics as if all critics were bible belters.

You apparently don't realize that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists, and those scientists working in other fields impinging on evolution, have nothing at all to do with the "battle with rigid creationists." The number that do trouble themselves with responding to creationist claims are, as a percentage, extremely small.

Your suggestion that the character of mainstream science is significantly effected by the activities of creationists, much less that working evolutionary scientists are driven to "hysterics" by creationism, is like unto an explanation of why the sky is green and the grass pink.

[Burkeman1]

Good point.

[Doctor Stochastic]

There are 1,000,000+ different types of beetles alone,..

Can we assume that Noah took these in steerage?

[Aric2000]

I never said I had ZERO doubts about the total theory, BUT, it is the BEST scientific Theory to explain the available evidence at this time, the questions that it does not answer are more of a, we don't know yet, but we have a pretty good idea.

[Burkeman1]

I pretty much agree. But I take exception to the vicseral reactions of some whom object to generally accepted evolutionary claims. These reactions are hardly scientific but more emotional, in my view.

[bondserv]

Can you explain this in English? And please don't try to if you have any doubts about what it means.

I had a CPA throw a bunch of financial vocabulary at me one time and I asked him to translate what he said into something I could understand. And sure enough he gave me a great layman’s term explanation of what he said.

From that day forward I have never trusted specialists in one field or another, unless they could competently explain their information to a layperson. I am not saying limit what they say to an 8th grade vocabulary, just explain the specialized language to those who don't traffic in those arenas.

People who can't stop using their own specialized vocabulary prove to be full of hot air.

This stuff is written like some kind of math formula. How can anyone whose not a geneticists comment on it?

[f.Christian]

"Defending our democracy demands more than successful military campaigns," he told an audience at New York University. "It also requires an understanding of the ideals, ideas and institutions that have shaped our country."



You don't have a clue !

[bondserv]

Why do all that, when he has a clean copy right there.

Of course He could have created Eve from scratch as He did with Adam. But if He had we wouldn't be amazed at consistancy with science the Holy Spirit choose to reveal in the Bible.

[paulsy]

"Evolution DOES NOT try to disprove the existence of god, or do you just hate science in general?"

God and science are compatible; evolution is not science.

[paulsy]

"Darwin turned the world on its head and started a scientific revolution that continues at breakneck pace 144 years later. I'll bet he had misgivings."

Tell me more about this "science" of evolution?

"What Darwin knew about nature is a mere drop in the ocean of knowledge acquired since he published his theory"

What is in this ocean of knowledge? Does it tend to prove, or discredit, evolution? And how? Please explain.

[bondserv]

My plants didn't die while it was dark last night.

And yes God can keep the earth’s atmosphere that He just created warm for a night.

I personally disagree with the "not a 24 hour day" idea. Not that someone can't be a believer and say otherwise.

I refer those who question my judgment to:
Exo 20:8-11 and
Matthew 19:4

Moses correlates the six-day creation week with the Hebrew six-day workweek. Moses is the author of both Genesis and Exodus so he would know his YOM.

Notice Jesus affirms that Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day in Genesis 1 and also affirms the reference from Genesis 2 being the same Adam and Eve of Genesis 1.

It is funny how some seminaries are willing to twist around Jesus' commentary on the Old Testament.

[Aric2000]

Evolution IS science, sorry to hurt your worldview.

No matter how many times you say it isn't science, does not change the fact that IT IS SCIENCE...

[Aric2000]

It's called the constitution, that is what this country is SUPPOSED to be based on, or are you clueless about what IT ACTUALLY says?

[bondserv]

You apparently don't realize that the vast majority of evolutionary biologists, and those scientists working in other fields impinging on evolution, have nothing at all to do with the "battle with rigid creationists."

Well they need to begin considering the groundswell of rejection that is coming against their theory.

Grants are hard to come by when you can no longer bamboozle the general populous.

[goodseedhomeschool]

II Peter Chapter 3