Evolution: What is it? (long article)

Information Central ^ | Craig McClarren

[Virginia-American]

Why have none of the so-called intermediate forms survived?

Because we killed them.

[Junior]

The basic problems of evolutionism include a short list of things sufficient to demolish any normal theory, i.e. any theory which was not being held for irrational reasons.

Just had to grab this quote because,

The basic problems of Saturnism include a short list of things sufficient to demolish any normal theory, i.e. any theory which was not being held for irrational reasons. Such things include the current, nearly circular orbits of the planets, the improbability of rocky planetary formation in any system where a gas giant is as close to the Sun as the proposed proto-Saturn, the fact that the proposed proto-Saturn would exist outside the habitable zone of the Sun and would be (and still is) a major radiation source, thus rendering a nascent Earth an irradiated snowball.

Ted, your pet theory has far more holes in it than anything coming out of the halls of academe.

[Heartlander]

Could you please recite the Nicene Creed for VadeRetro...

[Virginia-American]

Gore has it the worst...

He can't admit anything to the Satan-worshipping-materialist-atheist-communist foe....

That's why I've started needling his conscience, or whatever's left of it. Deep down, they know they're lying.

[teeman8r]

not saying god is a parlor trickster when it comes to "evolution", but let us say that the finches of note in the article, all "adapted" rather than evolved, because after all this time, they are still finches....

now as far as darwin's evolution, his theory has proved the galapagos were an excellent laboratory for adaption of species, but not a cross species evolutionary model.

this evolution from adaptation takes a great leap of "faith", pun intended.

[kinsman redeemer]

Son, ??

So much anger... and you are considerably younger than me.

I said nothing about your need to "worry" and being a "devout Roman Catholic" impresses me very little. Although we have not met, I will accept your claim of devoutness to the Roman Catholic Church.

Is transubstantiation a kind of punctuated speciation?

[medved]

One huge difference which you neglect to mention: Nobody is jumping up and down demanding that Saturnism be taught as a fact in public schools at public expense. Like, we know the difference between theories and demonstrable facts. Duh...

[Junior]

Well, Vade and I have completely different posting styles...

[Junior]

Vade's agnostic. And, while I earnestly believe God "created the Heaven and the Earth and all that is seen and unseen" this does not mean I believe He did it in one particularly hectic week 6,000 years ago. I picture the Almighty as the Master Programmer who set everything in motion 15 billion years ago, and hasn't had to tinker with it since then*.

*Miracles notwithstanding, as these are there only to remind folks of God's existence. Miracles, by their nature, are supernatural and cannot be addressed by Science. Speaking of miracles, it should be noted that the Catholic Church is replete with miracles even today, and it is the one Church which has publicly stated that evolution does not contradict Scripture.

[Junior]

Just remind him, "Thou shalt not bear false witness." Lying for God is still lying, and the Almighty don't cotton to it.

[Junior]

and you are considerably younger than me.

Maybe. I'll be 37 next month. And, I'm not angry.

[Junior]

Is transubstantiation a kind of punctuated speciation?

Not unless the consecrated host can pass on its "Jesusness" to its offspring. Consider it to be more of a "miracle" or an article of faith.

[Junior]

And, since we've shown you, demonstrably, that evolution describes the process that brought about new species on this planet far better than anything else put forth, it stands to reason that evolution will be the accepted theory UNTIL SOMETHING BETTER COMES ALONG. When you have something which explains the situation better, you publish it. Until then all your ranting and raving from your basement laBORatory is nothing more than that.

[medved]

Every single one of the dating methods is based upon certain kinds of assumptions, which all involve the notion of uniformity. Even one global catastrophe, of which antique literature records several, blows all such methods out the door. There is no real way to say how old the Earth is. We have one case of a fairly new planet in the system (Venus) and so we know that Earth and Mars, which do not look like that at all, are more than a few thousand years old, but that's about all we know.

As to the case of Mishipishu, the stegosaur, when we have accurate images of the creature painted on canyon walls in numerous sites and accurate descriptions of the creature using his "spiked tail" as a weapon, you're not dealing with myths anymore; that kind of stuff is real evidence.

Ancient literature describes a handfull of leftover large dinosaurs which were viewed as oddities at a time just prior to the flood. The real hayday of dinosaurs was probably a few tens of thousands of years back, but not 65 million.

[Heartlander]

Thank you for ‘actually’ reading the article.

[VadeRetro]

There are days when I'm not the same person, either.

Careful! This will be taken by some Luddite as an admission of something-or-other unFreepican.

[goldstategop]

True. We're basically a brainier, naked species of chimpanzee. If we still had the fur chimps have, no one would go around claiming we weren't related. Its factual evidence of the existence of evolution as a mechanism for species selection, adaptation, and survival in a given environment. Charles Darwin's genius was to develop natural selection as an empirically testable theory through bringing together unrelated strands of evidence into a coherent whole. His theory has been revised, most notably by Stephen J. Gould in his recent 1,500 page tome The Structure Of Evolutionary Theory, but the central Darwinian edifice still remains standing, because no one has found a better explanation for the diversity of life on earth and why organisms seem so suited for their particular niche in nature. It should be added here the importance of evolution lies not in its discussion of ultimate origins, on which it is silent, but rather in its acceptance of nature as it is and not as we human beings would like to think it is. The rest of creation is amoral and operates in ways that offend our sensibilities. We don't have to deny God created the universe, the world, and life in it, but when we look at life on earth since its emergence, we come to realize that it doesn't play favorites and there have been species that existed that for various reasons have vanished. The mechanism of evolution forces us puny humans to wake up to the fact that for all of our resourcefulness and cleverness, there is no guarantee we won't become extinct in the future. No wonder people feel threatened by Darwin's theory; its an uncomfortable reminder that we're guided by biologic forces as old as life itself as well as by the sum of our behaviorial choices. So whether we like it or not, the fact remains evolution is a fact and it has to be admitted that Charles Darwin remains the greatest biologist who ever lived.

[kinsman redeemer]

considerably.

Why would you say "Son?" Are you a priest?