Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -
Darwin’s theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.
On page 202, she states The “theory” of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)
2. Natural selection weeding out the “less fit” animals (pointless tautology)
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)
My question – is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwin’s theory?
On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!
And what is magic but advanced science introduced into a primitive society.
And 600 scientists just named "Steve" signed a statement stating they support Evolution.
There are a heck of a lot of Scientists in the world.
You could very easily find 600 scientists in the world that support Communism, or man-boy love, or whatever.
Also you'll note when you see such lists of evolution doubters, they're devoid of paleontologists or geologists (with degrees from real universities.)
Probably because they're the people surrounded by clear evidence of evolution all the time.
I met a guy who bragged about his prowess with women. In one conversation, he talked about getting a girl drunk, and taking her virginity, against a bathhouse wall in a campground (he was much more graphic, but I will keep it pg). That is evolution!?
No, that is the depravity and baseness of man. It/He is at enmity with God, and cannot do good. If evolution (chance happenings) is based properly, he is just propagating the species, and can't do anything about it!
I forgot to mention, he ws 19 at the time, and the girl was 13!
The issue of natural selection and survival of the fittest refers to selection processes that act on the reproductive success of the organism, and not on how strong it is, how pretty it is, etc. That is, reproductive success is all that counts. Second, evloution does not mean that there is no God (as Ann points out). Third, all the data that bioscience has amassed since The Origin of Species was published has provided mechanisms and corroboration for his basic insights. For example, comparative anatomy, embryology, genetics, proteomics, etc. The evolutionary model fits best with the facts as we know them: when a better theory or model comes along (that is, it explains the facts better than evolution) science will eventually embrace the new. Untill then...
"Eh, sort of shooting yourself in the foot there...the point of those traits if designed by a deity is what, exactly, then?"
You need more work on your understanding of Christian doctrine.
No, those weren't designed in by a deity. Ever heard of the Fall of Man? Lots of stuff on earth wasn't designed in, it came about as a result of man's rebellion.
People are obviously terrified by the idea that there's anything that happens that doesn't happen for a specific reason..or, at least, a reason that has something to do with humanity.
Creationists also abuse the term "random" - the idea that any process that isn't directed by some sort of intelligence is "random" is absolutely false.
People need to keep in mind that randomness is absolutely embedded in the fabric of the universe through quantum mechanics - and that's been experimentally proven.
That is something else she discusses in her evolution chapter. She is not talking about gradual evolutions, such as when introducing more protein in the diet, a race of people become bigger and stronger. She is talking about whole new species. And she continually brings up the human eye. She also says, where are the fossils of the evolutionary misfits, the ones that were not fit to survive?
LOL.... yep there sure are. So if half believe and half don't it just means that the Darwin Theory is still just a theory.
Almost forgot, read that on Drudge so it must be true. /sarc
Doesn't matter. I'm not arguing for ID. I'm arguing that "survival of the fittest" makes no logical sense when considering many traits. It makes great sense when looking at other traits. Thus, it is quite scientific to look for other reasons that animals evolve. My personal opinion is that much evolution occurs simply because certain traits are subject to progressive change, much like our climate. Thus, I would argue that it is just as likely that the Giraffe's neck has a progressive mutation that makes it grow longer independent of any advantage it might give. Survival of the fittest certainly exists in my theory, but as a limit to allowable mutation, not as its driver. This makes a lot more sense to me, than arguing that infinitesimally small changes from generation to generation actually bestowed competitive advantage.
I would also say that this isn't necessarily opposed to Darwin's theory, but according to every Darwinist I've ever come across, it makes me a screaming heretic. I've taken my own conclusions from that.
There have been articles posted on FR in which a professor of paleontology has stated that he rejects Evolutuion. And the response from the TOE advocates has been -- "Him? No one respects him! He's old! He's wrong! He's not a real scientist!"
She does not state that. She states the science developed after The Origin of the Species refutes his theory, it does not back it up. Are you reading the same book?
I think you've won the non sequitur post of the millenium award...
I suggest looking up what the words theory and hypothesis mean to a scientist.
I have !
Hey!!!
The "date rape" theory of molecular transformation?
And flight is just a theory and relativity is just a theory and gravity is just a theory and so forth and so on.
Yep you are right there but they are backed by fact.
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.