Posted on 02/03/2002 9:07:58 AM PST by Sabertooth
|
|||
|
|||
Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it: |
|||
|
|||
Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause. |
|||
|
|||
Creationists say "God."
|
|||
|
|||
Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."
|
|||
Surely you have overspoken here, possibly only through careless syntactic construction: You don't really believe that "creation" (bringing into being out of nothing, or without immediate material causation) is the only answer for "unobserved process results"? Read straightforwardly you would be claiming that no result without humanly observed (or confirmed?) causation can be rationaly inferred or preferentially supposed to have a natural cause. (E.g. the only "rational answer" with regard to the circulation of blood, before the action of the heart as a pump was observed, was that it was being done extra-naturally by God.)
Yeeeess... And what is different is that there are now two species where before there was one. Thus acts of speciation have been observed (or near as dammit). Since evolution at the species level is macroevolution, then macroevolution has been observed.
How is his viewpoint much different from this?
PROBLEMS OF PYTHON CLASSIFICATION AND HYBRID PYTHONS.
With the exception of the Black-headed python and Woma (Genus Aspidites), all other Australian pythons have at various times been assigned to a number of different genera. Numerous schemes of classification for the remaining Australian species of python have been proposed. These include Hoser (1982), Mcdowell (1975), and Stull (1935). The schemes range from the placing of all species in the genus Python shared with other non Australian species, to placing the species in question in up to seven genera. Namely Bothrochilus, Chondropython, Liasis, Lisalia., Liasis, Morelia, and Python. The assignment of given species within a particular genus is also a matter of conflict. For example within the last ten years the Scrub python Morelia amethistina has been placed in the following genera, Liasis, then Python and now Morelia. In reality all Australian python species excluding Aspidites are fairly closely related, and should perhaps be placed in a single genus with further placement in sub-genera. The conflict here is one between "Lumpers" who would agree with the above statement, and "Splitters" who would fear that by placing the pythons in question into a single genus, the relationships between species may be obscured. HYBRIDS BETWEEN SPECIES In the late 1970's, the Royal Melbourne Zoo had a male Carpet python Morelia spilota successfully breed with a female Scrub python Morelia amethistina, and Water python Liasis fuscus. The offspring produced were intermediate in characteristics between the parent snakes, and themselves appear to be fertile, although at the time of writing had not successfully bred. The snakes had however, produced eggs which failed to hatch. The snakes in question were held for some years by the Royal Melbourne Zoo before being transferred to Renmark Reptile Park (South Australia). The proprietor of this park, Joe Bredl Senior, allowed this author to photograph specimens resulting from both hybridisations. The photos clearly show the intermediate appearances of the snakes and are reproduced here. That the Scrub python and Water python can cross breed in captivity with a Carpet python indicates that all three species must be closely related, and should in all probability be placed in a single genus. The above indicates potential problems for the 'Darwinian' classification of 'species'. Hybridisation and creation of 'new' species are two practices which conservationists generally condemn, for a number of reasons. However, the case cited above was probably of great benefit to Australian herpetology, and in the long term will probably assist in the conservation of Australian pythons. |
Nope, you are wrong. A number of ideas and partial theories have been proposed to explain the origin of life, and the investigation of some of them has lead to robust and substantial scientific results (in the normal serendipidous way of science) but they have not so far resulted in a complete, successful or consensus theory. In short we do not know how life originated, so (apart from researchers, experts, or interested amatuers arguing for or against one or another of the "proto-theories") few evolutionists will "insist" that it happened in any particular way.
Furthermore I am pretty certain that most or all evolutionists here would specifically reject "spontaneous generation" as among the least likely explanations, as this term is generally taken to refer to a relatively "sudden" process, or one that is a a mundane (ordinary, everyday) natural process. The general presumption is that life originated as the result of some more gradual, step-wise process of chemical evolution which would not be considered "spontaneous"; or that, even if the immediate origin of life was in some sense spontaneous, there was a precusor chemical system of some substantial complexity which itself had evolved. (I haven't looked into this in years, but last I knew some very interesting self replicating chemical systems had been created, and I think there was expectation that some of them might have industrial application.)
but of course they have no explanation of how the mechanism of life "evolved" in the first place.
Right. Like I just said. Therefore we don't "insist" as to how life originated. We leave that to creationists.
Then a creationist finally agrees that evolution is a theory and should be treated as such. A theory being pretty much the pinnacle of an idea in the natural sciences (gravitational theory, relativity theory, quantum theory), that's a good complement.
That's the one I was thinking of. Thanks.
That's a lot of hubris to think everything is targeted against your religion. Did you ever think they weren't even thinking of religion? Or maybe the opposite, that they could have been a bit scared because what they saw contradicted everything they believed. Remember, most people in that time and place were religious.
You're going Heisenberg on me again. :)
In that case, they just separated populations. Unless I read it wrong, there was no selective breeding to create new species.
Something is different -- the species. And that's what we're talking about.
Why does everyone have to bring nihilism into it whenever atheism is mentioned? atheism <> nihilsm
You're like the defense attorney who says "forget about my client's fingerprints on the murder weapon, the DNA evidence linking my client to the crime scene, the 10 witnesses, and the videotape - what do you really got?"
Utter nonsense.
That was before science existed. 95% of all scientists who ever lived are still alive today, science is that young. Science is nothing more than a methodology. It does not champion truth, only data and predictions made therefrom..
Such a presumption, were science to make it, certainly would taint. But science makes no such presumption.
Me too...Neuroscience-endocrinology-physiology
A side point.....Ever notice the EVOLUTION of God?
The cave man worshipped fire
The Greeks and Romans had gods of fire, war, etc.
Native Americans did their rain dance (god of weather?)
The Incas and Egyptians had gods of sun, stars, agriculture.
One-by-one ---- science uncovered the facts. One-by-one, all religions 'evolved' into an unprovable faith-based, invisible god [except the comet a few years back].
[the food for thought is that religion always keeps a step ahead of a science that chips away at religious assumptions]
Well...not to the point I was trying to make.
When I said science does not investigate questions it cannot answer that means science investigates only observable, measureable and quantifiable phenomena. All other phenomena are simply not within the realm of science. Science is a method, a way of gathering data, formulating hypotheses (e.g., predictions) suggested by these data and testing them. Science is not a dogmatic philosophy---simply a methodolgy of inquiry.
Therefore, if a question lies outside the realm of science (e.g, Does God exist?) there will be no scientific effort made to answer it. Should someone propose such an answer, science would not label the answer charlatansim, it would simply assert that science is unable to provide or deny confirmation.
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.