Posted on 04/09/2002 11:31:41 AM PDT by JediGirl
Natural selection and its popular counterpart "the survival of the fittest" are, however, at the core of the social-Darwinist gospel. I suspect the determinist ideas associated with social-Darwinism, including natural selection, will not be given up without a fight.
But little if anything in evolution theory has been proven and verified. The fact they have to keep modifying the theory proves that. Saying that they are modifying the theory in search of the truth doesn't overcome the fact that nothing's been proven in the first place. Nor does ridiculing those who take the Bible as fact.
Theories of physics or chemistry don't undergo these constant modifications. There have been lots of new theories in those disciplines over the years, but they don't contradict the ones that have already been accepted. Nor could they, since they had been proven by controlled experimentation. They simply add to them.
OK. Take two herds of horses. Keep one on the plains. Put the other one in an environment where the land rises one inch per centry. 1 foot in 1200 years, 1000 feet in 1.2 million years. Let's let it go on for say, 5 million years.
I'm sure the actual biologists here can do better, but I'd predict that the 'horses' on the higher, more mountainous area will resemble (at least in behavior, I don't know about appearence) present-day donkeys or burros more than the original horses. (eg, they'd be more sure-footed than their ancestors)
When you've invented time travel, let's conduct the experiment. Until then, we have to work with what's available, namely fossils and DNA.
Can some creationist/IDer give me pointers on how to set up an experiment where we can observe 'special creation'?
You read it, and you probably have a good idea of those who won't read it or who will try to diminish the assertions it contains. What do you think of the last line?
Indeed, it is possible that we will eventually see such information-processing capabilities as essential to life itself.
That is what you said.
The passage doesn't apply. It's not science. Has no place in an article about a scientist. The discussion was about Stephen J.Gould's knowledge in the field of evolutionary biology. You are labeling people because you don't agree with their views and trying to legitimize it by quoting from the scriptures. That is unfair.
Until then, I remain a skeptic and a heretic ( at least reading from the invective hurled by the dogmatic in the evolution camp ). And statements from people like that Fortey fellow continue to show that evolution is more of a religious creed to its proponents rather than something to be subjected to scientific inquiry.
I don't discount evolution, but I do have a problem with giving such a theory the status of a Natural Law.
Don't get me wrong -- creationism is pure bunk, and it betrays an uneasiness with religious faith if one has to contoct some scientific argument to support it.
No, seriously, I find the theory intriguing. I'm not surprised that such a discovery would be made in an age and society that is reforming its activities around information processing. Although I'm not a scientist, this theory of non-random genetic change through an information processing mechanism makes much more sense to me and fits much better with the evidence, which just doesn't support the theory of random genetic change and mutations occuring gradually over long periods of time.
As 'punk/eek' does to the theory of evolution by natural selection.
If the result was exactly as you predict, it would scarcely qualify as proof of evolution. Evolution is where species A turns into species B by the addition of some new characteristics or capabilities that were completely absent in A, such as a new organ or limb or wings or something. Increasing complexity. Everything is supposed to have evolved from a single cell organism. That's what transmutation of species is (Darwinian evolution). That's why mosquitoes becoming immune to a pesticide isn't evolution.
It always interests me what evolution supporters don't understand the theory of evolution. My minister recently said that people who think all life evolved from some muck being hit by lightning millions of years ago are overeducated for their intelligence. I have to agree.
and all without contradicting a single word that you've quoted.
Precisely. If you believe 'punk/eek', then you also believe everything that's been taught for decades on evolution is wrong. It's an admission that evolution hasn't been a proven fact all this time. Nor would punk/eek be either.
Nebullis is on record saying...
"wants(for the improvement of science--society) evolution taught intensively---starting in kindergarten"...a la joycelyn elders!
And fr-Patrick Henry..."total evolution--ONLY"...
devilcrat--nazis!
I'm not making this up!
Well, here is another citation.
The role of mutational and other biases in variation
In reality, mutation is not random in any sense other than in respect of being logically prior to selection (which is not a reason to call it "random"), and the idea of a bounteous Dobzhanskian "gene pool"-- the magic hat from which selection can pull any trick-- died years ago.
Although recent commentaries give the impression that the differences between classic neo-Darwinism and "evo-devo" are being resolved, we do not believe that this is the case. One cannot integrate these two contradictory views. Either propensities of variation exert an important shaping influence on evolution, or they do not. By implying the former, the "evo-devo" heterodoxy strikes at the root of the New Synthesis: its case for the supremacy of selection and its case against any possible internal causes of directionality. Far from being resolved, the controversy has not even been clearly recognized yet.
By RP...
I am offended that darwinists are so religious in their beliefs that they won't even allow a debate. One side will debate, one side won't. Hmmm.
Yeah...
Nebullis is on record saying...
"wants(for the improvement of science--society) evolution taught intensively---starting in kindergarten"...a la joycelyn elders!
And fr-Patrick Henry..."total evolution--ONLY"...
devilcrat--nazis!
I'm not making this up!
Well, are horses and donkeys different species or not? Clearly (to me) not, because they can't produce fertile offspring. Assuming (for the sake of argument) they are descended from a common ancestor, just what 'new characteristics... that were completely absent..' are involved here? IOW, you're trying to set up a strawman - evolution is generally defined as the change in gene (allele) frequencies over time - it says nothing about brand new stuff being required.
such as a new organ or limb or wings or something
That sounds more like metamorphosis, which is a part of some theistic systems but has never been observed in the natural world.
darwinian slip...
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.