Posted on 08/31/2011 8:16:15 PM PDT by RonDog
LIBERALS' VIEW OF DARWIN UNABLE TO EVOLVE
August 31, 2011Amid the hoots at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry for saying there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, the strongest evidence for Darwinism presented by these soi-disant rationalists was a 9-year-old boy quoted in The New York Times.
After his mother had pushed him in front of Perry on the campaign trail and made him ask if Perry believed in evolution, the trained seal beamed at his Wicked Witch of the West mother, saying, "Evolution, I think, is correct!"
That's the most extended discussion of Darwin's theory to appear in the mainstream media in a quarter-century. More people know the precepts of kabala than know the basic elements of Darwinism.
There's a reason the Darwin cult prefers catcalls to argument, even with a 9-year-old at the helm of their debate team.
Darwin's theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the "fittest" to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.
The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.
Otherwise, the mutations aren't random, they are deliberate -- and then you get into all the hocus-pocus about "intelligent design" and will probably start speaking in tongues and going to NASCAR races.
We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record -- for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)
But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets.") Read More
I am most definitely a critic.
I used “equalibria” in the generic sense: not as shorthand for Punc Eq.
That’s a bit disingenuous.
Are we playing “lawyer” now?
Sounds kinky, but regardless of what Cinemax might be saying, the mechanisms of evolution are not attempting to show how life began on this planet.
You really must be 'new' to the fairy tale of evolution. Talk about compartmentalization.
Indeed, teleology permeates common language and thinking. Just heard the other day at lunch that cattle “were not designed” to eat corn. But this is all a matter of rhetoric, as is the invocation, “by definition”. By definition, a creature is a created being. End of story. Case closed. Evolution, take a walk.
Your misconception is common in this line of thinking. You're confusing evolution with concepts like abiogenesis or panspermia. To put it another way, the Miller-Urey experiments were not testing evolutionary hypotheses.
The “mechanisms of evolution” are pretty preposterous by modern standards.
Can you show fault with the analogy of copying a blueprint enough times that an new room “emerges?”
I have no misconception as to what the TOE claims. The methodology of selling the theory has evolved over my life time. See now to seduce as many Christians as will the 'origins' of a hot steamy pot of primordial soup got compartmentalized off to a dead end labeled abiogenesis. My guess is because this steamy pot could never be produced, let alone tested, the claim of its ever having existed got sent off to another world.
The most all this 'testing' can a test is the commonality of substances used by the Creator.
That's one way to put it. At least you seem bright enough to not use the "evolution is just a theory" excuse.
Carbon, or clay.
Let me guess. Clay, right?
In part, minus Prime Cause.
There's no reason why observed evolutionary process has to be one-size-fits-all, especially when it doesn't. Sometimes it's observed, a lot of times it's not, and it doesn't work as an explain-it-all theory. And that's a fact.
I guess this is suppose to be a joke? Is there 'carbon' found in 'clay', or are you suggesting 'clay' is a pure substance?
I regard it as a religion. Any pretense of critical analysis was abandoned long ago where Evolutionary Theory is concerned. It is a dogma wholey upheld by analogy and anecdote.
You can regard it however you want. That doesn't really change anything.
There are entire libraries of critical analysis on the subject; we've even been discussing two specific instances of it tonight.
In the spirit of Haldane, there's very specific findings you could submit to disprove evolution.
You guys would get a lot more credibility with people of goodwill if you didn't constantly "go for the trope (sic)."
Since you've already arrived at the conclusion and worked backwards, no amount of credibility would ever convince you otherwise.
IF it were not so sinister it is almost amusing to observed creators and dreamers of the TOE throw fits against the Creator and what He said He did and why.
Do tell!
The only critical analysis I've been privy to has always concerned itself with "how" something evolved as opposed to how else it may have evolved: not "if" it evolved.
Can you share with me those alternatives to evolution you refer to?
He doubted his own theories at the time. In fact he very helpfully included a list of possible objections to his theory in one of the later chapters of “Origin of species”.
Presuming is so much easier than actually trying to invalidate my points, isn’t it?
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.