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
You could always start with the pre-Cambrian rabbit. The opportunities for falsifiability are legion, and the world will beat a path to your door if you are able to do so.
There’s no amount of grammatical gymnastics that I can perform to make “evolution is a religion” into a coherent “point”. It’s a statement, a collection of words. But it is certainly not an argument.
I’d have to read exactly what Professor Jones’ theory was but it sounds logically flawed to me. Surely even if his contention about changing reproductive patterns is correct, that would only reduce the rate of Human evolution, not eliminate it?
I'm a bit taken aback that you actually considered that a credible reply. Haldane's answer was more of an arbitrary “I can quit whenever I want to” than a legitimate object of inquiry.
You’re hung up on “evolution is a religion?”
Oh for pity sake.
What else would you call a belief system actively resists critical analysis?
Actually, no. It is an appeal to the law of identity. A = A.
That's precisely my take on it as well. Could evolution be a mechanism within the sphere of existence? Sure. Does it explain or prove the origin of life itself? No. Do I know the answer to this ultimate question? No.
I've taken an interest in the subject after recently being hassled about it by my liberal/confused mother. She asked do I "believe" in evolution." I said science is not about belief--it's about facts. And then explained my view on it, as I just did in the above paragraph.
Nope, sorry, there is not, not a bit of it. As a Theory, Evolution has no legs.
We REALLY do NOT ‘believe’ in evolution or we would NOT be trying so hard to avoid it!
Who gets to say that birth defects are ‘defects’?
Who gets to say that the things we die from now are bad? t’s merely the survival of the fittest.
I think Darwin would reject Darwin if confronted with the current evidence.
There is no way that a speck of cosmic dust (which would make cosmic dust that which is eternal?) can become you or me.
It just wouldn’t happen.
How obvious the answer is contained in that simple illustration: dust to you is what we’re talking about.
It wouldn’t happen.
With further research...
Calvinosaurus
Hare Krishnas too.
That's what one would think. There's still genetic drift and natural selection at play even if all mutations ceased.
That's what one would think. There's still genetic drift and natural selection at play even if all mutations ceased.
Darwin presented his view of species through change as like breeding. He expounded upon the argument with the variation in finches as a natural selection. It’s a slow process, but we have had a great amount of time for it to work. The argument is consistent with other sciences of geology and biology. Older fossiles are found in older earth stratas and DNA varies among species as the evolutionary tree has developed.
You also have to have the formation of the Earth and atmosphere first too. But they have nothing to do with evolution.
What an artful ruse you've concocted for yourself. Not only have you saved yourself the trouble of doing any real work and actually finding the pre-cambrian rabbit first, you've insulated yourself from any of the other multiple falsifications that would disprove evolution. If I had said show me that selection and/or environmental variables don't favor the reproductive success of better adapted specimens, you'd just say, "A specimen better adapted from non-environmental variables would be incorporated into evolutionary thought even easier than the lack of transitionals."
Creationism's survival as a modern day cargo cult/multi-level marketing scheme owes itself to this kind of ingenuity. Who would've thought that repackaging George McCready Price for modern consumption would be so successful in the modern evangelical community? Even the Catholic Church gave up 60 years ago, but here you are in the 21st century regurgitating flood geology talking points.
You earn no points for scientific understanding, but score big for tenacity and creativity.
Wow... I’m seeing “non-falsifiable” all over this argument.
AGW anyone?
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.