I'm always amused that Darwinist evolution stands alone on a self-fullfilling prophecy. Why does an animal have certain traits? Because the traits gave it competitive advantage in the survival of the fittest. What is the proof? The animal has certain traits. Its really quite circular.
Thus most Darwinists have no problem accepting that traits that should clearly be self-eliminating like diseases that occur before reproduction and homosexuality continue, while simultaneously insisting that a 1mm extension of a Giraffe's neck every 100 years gave clear competitive advantage. The proof? Well that's the way it is, and the only accepted mechanism is survival of the fittest.
I accept evolution, but question the "theory" that all changes are the result of competitive advantage. Interestingly, that small differentiation is always enough to bring the wrath of every Darwinist down on me. That gives me the impression that Darwinian Theory has become more of an orthodox doctrine than a scientific theory.
Eh, sort of shooting yourself in the foot there...the point of those traits if designed by a deity is what, exactly, then?
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?
I agree almost completly with Ann's expressed political views. She has a devastating pen and she's almost always right on target. But, she would do herself a favor, along with the rest of us conservatives, if she would steer clear of areas obviously outside her expertise--especially evolution. For the life of me, I can't see why it's on her agenda. It's not a political issue. Well grounded opinions about evolution flow from years of study. Ann's remarks betray her ignorance and make her look like a fool to folks like me who would otherwise be staunch admirers. Worst of all, they give conservatism a black eye amoung educated people of all political stripes.
I'd be amused too if that were the case, but it's not.
Why does an animal have certain traits? Because the traits gave it competitive advantage in the survival of the fittest. What is the proof? The animal has certain traits. Its really quite circular.
It would be if that's what the science was actually claiming, but it's not. Hey, I have an idea, why don't you go off and learn something about the topic before you attempt another goofy pronouncement about it?
Thus most Darwinists have no problem accepting that traits that should clearly be self-eliminating like diseases that occur before reproduction and homosexuality continue, while simultaneously insisting that a 1mm extension of a Giraffe's neck every 100 years gave clear competitive advantage.
Wow, are YOU confused. Where did you "learn" this cartoonish falsehood? Cite your sources. We'll wait.
For starters, there's a huge amount of literature investigating and documenting the exact mechanisms by which certain detrimental traits are not as "self-eliminating" as they might appear at first glance. But hey, you haven't bothered to learn this topic before spouting off, so of course you haven't a clue.
Additionally, there's also a huge amount of literature investigating and documenting the mathematics and practical processes which do indeed allow minor improvements to thrive and improve over time. Go educate yourself before you spout off any more ignorant nonsense.
The proof? Well that's the way it is, and the only accepted mechanism is survival of the fittest.
Congratulations, you're an idiot on this topic. First, you're "forgetting" the 150 years of research and evidence on these topics, which you imagine doesn't exist because, well, you're completely ignorant on this subject. As a result, you just fantasize that the only support for the tenets of evolutionary biology is a bunch of folks throwing up their hands and saying, "well that's the way it is". Look, if you're *this* ignorant on the subject, go find some other thread to annoy with your cluelessness.
Second, you ignorantly say, "only accepted mechanism is survival of the fittest" -- hell, son, not even Darwin said that. Are you really this misinformed?
"As my conclusions have lately been much misrepresented, and it has been stated that I attribute the modification of species exclusively to natural selection, I may be permitted to remark that in the first edition of this work, and subsequently, I placed in a most conspicuous position—namely at the close of the Introduction—the following words: "I am convinced that natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive means of modification." This has been of no avail. Great is the power of steady misrepresentation."Get thee to a library and come back when you're able to converse on the topic without saying one stupid and false thing after another about it.
-- Charles Darwin, 1872 edition of On the Origin of Species
I accept evolution,
Yeah, sure -- then why are you spewing the favorite falsehoods of the anti-evolutionists?
but question the "theory" that all changes are the result of competitive advantage.
Congratulations -- you're "questioning a theory" that no biologist actually holds. How proud you must be. Real biologists, unlike the cartoonish misrepresentations of them in the creationist pamphlets, are well aware that more processes are at work than just "competetive advantage". For example, genetic drift.
Interestingly, that small differentiation is always enough to bring the wrath of every Darwinist down on me.
Only because we get really tired of being grossly misrepresented like that. Try talking about the actual topic for a change, instead of waving around all of your favorite misrepresentations and straw man attacks. You'll get a better reception.
That gives me the impression that Darwinian Theory has become more of an orthodox doctrine than a scientific theory.
No, it means that your cartoonish misunderstandings of Darwinian Theory are annoying to the people who don't like to see the real thing misrepresented so badly.
The attempt to explain a purposeful function without overseeing intelligence in developement always ends up hollow and illusive.
Of course when you reveal the futility of their premise, they claim you don't don't understand evolution and they go on to reconfigure their position.
The nature of the evolutionist argument betray all the earmarks of self-deceit.