Posted on 07/31/2007 10:18:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
...His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so.
"There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites."...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
Only a creationist would think that one of the most influential scientists of all time was “ignorance personified.”
Not all churches are equal. I put the Church of Darwin right down there with the Church of Scientology.
Nice try. The Church of Scientolgy refers to itself as a Church. It’s not a pejorative. You are using the word to insult and provoke. You know it. Now, are you going to lie about your motives or fess up? Remember: God is watching.
You seem to forget that some of the most vociferous opponents of Darwin were his fellow evolutionists. And while most evolutionists don’t dare to criticize Darwin now, a minority of them still do (much to the chagrin of the Church of Darwin):
“I think we are here facing two alternative theories, mutually exclusive. It is, of course, possible to accept both the micromutation and macromutation theory, i.e., the comprehensive theory, but only the intellectually confused or dishonest can unite this standpoint with the claim of being a neo-Darwinian.”
*Soren Lovtrop, “Semantics, Logic and Vulgate Neo-Darwinianism, “ in Evolutionary Theory, July, 1979, p. 162.
I am not very religious, but I do believe there's a huge debt owed by Western Civilization to the Christian Religion.
Along those lines, something you said interests me:
the creation/evolution debate has profound political implications
Without getting into a nuts-and-bolts creation/evolution argument, let me ask you this:
Do you think that it's important to reject evolution regardless of its scientific value... reject it on political grounds alone?
I'm not asking this to bait you or anything like that. I just find it an interesting concept I hadn't thought of before.
I don’t find the word “church” pejorative. You do. The Church of Darwin tries to hide the fact that it is one of many rival religions. This needs to be exposed until a clear distinction is made between science and religious Darwinism.
Somehow from that quote you infer that Lovtrop thinks Darwin is “ignorance personified?” Only a creationist ...
==Do you think that it’s important to reject evolution regardless of its scientific value... reject it on political grounds alone?
No. Darwinism needs to be rejected because it has been falsified. On the political/religious front, Darwinism needs to be exposed for what it is...state-sanctioned religion. A clear violation of the First Amendment.
This seems to be your mantra every time you're confronted with information that makes you uncomfortable - in this case the (probably embarrassing) revelation that you totally misunderstood what this article is even saying (if you even read it). Everything discussed in this article strongly supports evolutionary theory and even sheds new light as to how it works in an environment where empty niches remain to be filled.
Just because you look at everything in the world you don't understand through the lens of fundamentalist superstition, doesn't mean everyone else does. You're projecting your own flaws on others.
Science relies on evidence and testing to learn about how things in the world came to be. If its (very well validated) conclusions upset you, that's really your own personal problem. Don't try to make it the Republican Party's problem - we have enough right now as it is.
Great article, by the way.
Wow! You just did it again! Unlike you, I never used the word "church" in a derogatory sense, and your only "argument" is to 1) lie about your intentions in using the words "church" and "religion", and 2) accuse me of that which you are guilty.
I don't find your use of the words "church" or "religion" to be insulting; just inaccurate. However, your denial of your motivation is most assuredly dishonest. Oh well. I suppose if you had an honest and effective argument, you would use it.
PS Perhaps you should read Lovtrup’s book: “Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth”
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
Darwin was speaking in generalitities, not specifics.
After certain periods of mass extinctions, such as the end of the Cretaceous period - the number and diversity of life was reduced.
That's one of the most ironic things about the creatards. If the god they profess to believe in is real then they're all going straight to HELL for constantly lying.
Then why did you use that phrase? Do you generally say things you don't "know about?"
just falsified
So what? Newton's theory of gravity has been falsified but it is valuable still. Darwin's influence on today's biology is nearly as great as Newton's on physics.
Lovtrop wouldn’t object to my characterization too much
That Darwin is "ignorance personified" (which you now "don't know about")? I can't say. Who is this Lovtrop person anyway? What foundational theory has he formulated?
I’m not lying. I don’t find the word “church” to be a pejoritive word. I really don’t. But the Darwinists do because they like to pretend that they are not a religion. Am I rubbing their faces in it, you betcha.
[A United Atheist Alliance meeting.]
UAA Leader: Fellow atheists: the time child has returned with information on our sworn enemies, the Allied Atheist Alliance. They have started digging for clams in sector J7. If we mount an all-out attack, we can wipe out their food supply!
UAA 2: But, those are civilian otters.
UAA Leader: We cannot tolerate the otters! Their Science is flawed! Their answer to the Great Question is different from ours.
UAA 3: Yes, but... sending out all our ships at the same time... it would leave our city exposed!
UAA Leader: ...That’s why we have to be super-duper sure that nobody finds out we’re doing it.
[Unified Atheist League headquarters. The UAL elders gather to discuss the situation]
UAL 1: [hanging upside down from a jet-powered platform] The United Atheist Alliance is about to send out all its defense ships to take down the Allied Atheist Allieance’s clam fields.
UAL 2: Praise Science. This is your chance, young Shvek, to avenge your father’s death.
UAL 3: Careful, son. Just because their Science leads them to a different answer to the Great Question doesn’t mean we have the right to kill them all.
Shvek: No! Our answer to the Great Question is the only logical one. Our Science is great. [walks away from the table and stands before a wall] Let us not forget the great Richard Dawkins who finally freed the world of religion long ago. [a painting is shown, with Dawkins in it] Dawkins knew that logic and reason were the way of the future. [More of the painting is shown: Mrs. Garrison appears] But it wasn’t until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn’t enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn’t think like you. [turns around] Prepare all the troops! We will level the United Atheist Alliance to the ground!
Ok. I thought you were saying something else. Something I might even find intriguing.
I’m not intrigued by your actual answer. Anyway, like I said, I do like your screen name.
Yep. That's why I posted the friendly reminder. I *suspected* that a lie was forthcoming, but I believe in giving folks the benefit of the doubt. CR/IDers, given a choice between lying and agreeing with/conceding to an "evilutionist" will take the lie. Every time.
Why should I read it? Why shouldn’t I expect it to be filled with creationist nonsense? Just the title is giveaway. Myths aren’t repeatedly confirmed by experience.
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.