Since this is a thread about evolution, and I had spelled out the term "Theory of Evolution" earlier, I thought it would be evident which of the 27 terms abbreviated by "ToE" (according to Acronym Finder I meant.
WHAT various elements of ToE?
The principle that evolution is a process of genetic change over time, and that those changes occur at a relatively steady rate. I use that principle when making comparisons of genes across species. For example, if I am interested in comparing an enzyme form and function between chickens, humans, mice, dolphins, turtles, and trout, and the only enzyme sequence I have on hand is mouse, my knowledge of the ToE tells me how I need to alter my search strategy for each species in order to have the best chance of success. To find the human gene, I may be able to use my knowledge of the mouse gene directly. But to find the trout gene, I'll have to make extensive comparisons of genes from other species in order to identify the parts of the enzyme that do not tolerate much variation, and then use that knowledge to design my search. How and to what extent genes differ between one species and another is predictable within the context of the ToE. "Creation science" has no such predictive properties (and, as such, is not a theory).
This Wiki article gives a pretty good description of how the ToE ties together various life sciences.
I just think Darwin's totally STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN: It classifies man as nothing other than a "clever animal" with "adaptive skill..."
Darwin's contribution to the ToE (which predates him) is the principle of natural selection--that (random) mutations conferring a survival/reproductive advantage tend to increase throughout a population. Other ToEs had proposed that organisms somehow change themselves to fit their environment, which is not the case. Giraffes did not elongate their necks so as to eat leaves from tall trees; giraffes with longer necks had the advantage of being able to eat leaves in tall trees and therefore they did not have to compete with the animals eating the lower leaves.
Begging the question, but how do we know there were tall trees?
And what was the selection pressure which led to the trees getting taller?
For that matter, what were the list of genetic changes all of which would have to occur in tandem in order for the neck to get longer successfully? (Size of vertebrae, together with proper structure to support the neck; changes in ligaments and musculature; changes in the blood vessels and hormones to signal to the blood vessels in the neck to keep blood pressure to the brain correct despite the increased hydrostatic pressure; etc. etc. ad infinitum).
Some things scale continuously; some have abrupt changes in behaviour beyond a certain threshhold.
Has anyone *done* a bioengineering study on the giraffe to see if there are any discontinuous physical characteristics which would require elemental changes to aspects of the physiology, once the neck got beyond a certain length? And the genetic changes necessary for the individual proteins coded for, the macroscopic structures, and the inbred ('instinctive') behaviours to accomodate these things?
Can you actually demonstrate this, or is it nothing more than hand-waving to be accompanied by personal attacks on the questioner?
Cheers!
Yes. We all know that doctrine is sacrosanct. It must not be doubted, let alone questioned.
The only problem is, the paleontological record does not lend a whole lot of support to the macroevolutionary aspects of Darwin's theory.
Even Richard Dawkins is aware of the problem of "missing" intermediate fossil forms.
...[T]he Cambrian strata of rocks ... are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertibrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. [Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1987.]If Darwin's theory is correct — that evolution is a process of gradualism, or as you say, a process of transformations occurring at "a relatively steady rate" — then where are the "missing fossils" in the run-up to the Cambrian Explosion, c. 500,000 B.C.?
I do not argue for Lamarck's theory either.
Thanks so much for writing, exDemMom, and for the valuable link!