Posted on 12/09/2004 9:21:27 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
Is Darwin winning the battle, but losing the war?
As soon as one challenge to the teaching of evolution is beaten in the courts, another emerges to take its place.
The current contender is “intelligent design,” a theory that according to advocates at the Discovery Institute “makes no religious claims, but says that the best natural evidence for life’s origins points to design rather than a process of random mutation and natural selection.”
(Excerpt) Read more at firstamendmentcenter.org ...
This is a point that trips up most anti-evolutionists. The term species is an arbitrary term and not written in concrete. Its just a convenient way of classifying animals for taxonomy purposes.
By definition, evolution predicts that the concept of species will be muddy. Anti-evolutionists often state that for evolution to work, species A must give birth to species B. This is not how it works at all.
An isolated subpopulation of species "A" will evolve in different ways than other subpopulations of species "A". Eventually, the subpopulation will be different enough that it will be considered a different species from the original population.
If you're really curious about this topic, reading about "ring species" will be really informative.
For you, read what i wrote to Aquanisfan and check out this link:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/795_antibio.html
As a herpetologist I am well aware of ring species and incipient species formation. Salamander are notorious for this.
Isn't that the same point that that doofus, exmarine, never seemed to understand?
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Sorry, replied to the wrong person. My reply should have been to the anti-evolutionists that insist evolution is false since they've never observed an ape giving birth to a human.
DNA mutations are basically "random", and that is the assmption in many versions of Evolution theory as to how radical changes in the genome takes place. Most of these are detrimental, but on occasion the odds come out right to create a superior critter.
I put "random" in quotations because there actually is a significant study of randomness. Genuine "randomness" is a very hard thing to find. And it is sought for, because if you can generate genuinely random events or numbers, you can use them to build very strong encryption codes.
"Purposelessness" is something that I would think is a philosophical issue. Or human phycological issue. About whether God has a purpose for His Evolution creation, or for humans, science can say nothing, pro or con. I think He does, but science cannot tell me this.
Scientists who are religious believers should certainly speak out against this sort of thing. I have similar objections to scientists who claim the authority of science for a political position, be it support for John Kerry or some environmental initiative.
I think we are pretty much in agreement then.
Well this is exactly why there is so much confusion on this subject. If I asked "what is evolution" I would get several different responses. I would get your response, which is perfectly reasonable. Then I would get the Natural Selection answer saying that evolution occurs in response to catastrophic events, and only those species that adapt and survive are able to live. And then I would get the genetic drift answer saying that natural selection isn't necessary for a species to evolve.
The main reason there is so much argument on this subject is because everyone is arguing about something different! Personally my opinion on Darwinian evolution (as it's spelled out in his book) is that I'm skeptical. I'm not willing to say evolution doesn't happen because that's absurd. but at the same time I'm not willing to say that everything happened due to random chance because that, IMO, is equally absurd.
Can we get a unified theory of speciation? Is that too much to ask? :)
I used to have a mental picture of human DNA containing all the information needed to create a human being. I think this may overlook some interesting details.
Recent studies, I believe, concern themselves with "mitochondrial DNA". If I understand correctly, this is DNA which is passed from mother to child in the egg cell but outside the paired chromosomes. Such DNA has been used to draw conclusions about population migrations throughout the world.
Every living human gained intra-cellular material from their mother. (Is there also a contribution from the sperm cell outside the DNA? I don't know.) For those who understand this, is it thought that human DNA contains all the information to create the "machinery" of cell function? Or does cell function pass by cell division from one generation of cells to the next independent of the DNA? If so, then there would be no requirement that the DNA contain information regarding this "machinery", unless there was a survival benefit to recreating this machinery from its blueprints periodically. Such periodic re-creation might prevent problems with propagating damaged machinery.
ping for a read
Actually, we now believe that all of the mechanisms you mentioned may occur. Is it unreasonable that there are different mechanisms that may contribute to a complicated process?
Science has always been proven wrong by other scientists. It has been so down through the centuries. ID has not been disproven. Darwinism has been disproven. From Darwinism we went to neo-darwinism then to the latest "puntucated equilibrim" or the "hopeful monster" theory. I am not religious but I do not accept evolution because of the many holes in it. No transitional forms. Cambrian explosian and on and on. Until these questions have been answered I will continue to question todays scientists. Science is not perfect and has often been proven wrong. Explain to me how life started from nothing. Leave evolution out of it and tell me how it started, with proof, not conjecture or telling me that "suddenly there was life" as many evolutionists state. They also say things like, suddenly, like magic life was there! Ok, those are not quite the scientific facts I am looking for. Explain lifes start please with proof, not conjecture.
The Devil is in the details, The truth is in Christ Our Lord and Savior.
Ops4 God BLess America!
Evolution is not a theory of life's origin.
In a pig's eye they are! Joshi A, Wu WP, Mueller LD. 1998. Density-dependent natural selection in Drosophila: Adaptation to adult crowding. EVOLUTIONARY ECOLOGY 12 (3): 363-376.) This study showed that when these fruit flies are grown in conditions of high humidity the wing phenotype of offspring changes almost immediately to suit the conditions.
You can't tell me that's random chance. That's an environmental pressure that's being applied, and the result is a change in phenotype. It's anything but random.
This argument isn't new but here's the problem I've got with it. Sure, there seems to be a whole lot of scientific evidence that would point to evolution over a literal interpretation of Genesis. Know what? There's also a whole lot of evidence casting doubt on the concept of a virgin literally getting pregnant... And the improbability of literally turning water into wine... And of feeding a large crowd with five loaves and two fish... And of a dead man coming back to life after three days... And a man surviving inside the stomach of a whale.
If we ignore every part of the Bible that doesn't fit nicely with what the scientists tell us can happen, what do we really have left?
I don't know the answer. In some ways your argument is the only one that makes sense. But it feels... dangerous... if that makes sense.
I'd rather doubt it. My guess is that there are many methods of speciation. Both genetic drift and radical mutation are possible and I think probable.
Also valid I think are Evolutionary Sub-theories that deal with species equilibrium with punctuated radical changes brought about by large meteors, Human intervention, etc.
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.