Posted on 05/30/2002 7:40:53 AM PDT by Gladwin
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Okay, I retract my, to you triple entendre, and restate it--- I was being facetious.
Partial, intra-species evolution, yes, of course. Finches growing longer beaks, dogs specializing, horses getting larger, sure. General evolution, no. It just doesn't make scientific sense.
The three great secular theorists of modernism--Darwin, Marx, and Freud--are simply falling apart under scientific scrutiny. Darwin is evidently the last to go in the popular imagination, but go he will. It's inevitable. You will find the most committed Darwinists among the committed atheists at the New York Times, not among genuine scientists.
This "distinction" is simply an attempt to evade the evidence by filing it in a different drawer, like the Clintontista distinction between "serious charges if proven true" and "not rising to the level of impeachment". Anything that is established beyond reasonable denial is filed in the lower category, even if it had previously been in the higher (e.g. Eophippus --> Equus was once denied outright and then redefined as "mircoevolution"; BillyJeff's BJs and perjurous coverups thereof were once denied outright and then redefined as "not rising to the level of impeachment".)
This doesn't make sense. What you've said (even if you didn't mean it) is that even if there is a Designer, science has to act as if there isn't -- which is not even remotely scientific.
There's some legitimacy to the idea that science cannot demonstrate the existence of a designer -- but even then, I think that's not necessarily a scientifically valid statement.
The real issue here is one of assumptions: "science" as you've used the term tacitly assumes an atheistic universe -- one where there is no God. This assumption has an ideological, rather than scientific basis -- which is one implication of your statement that the designer is outside the purview of science.
He had written one of the most cogent analyses I've seen in a long time. That guy had a brain. I guess that threatens the religious crowd here -- no wonder they purged him.
Oh, honestly. Of course, if I take your statement at face value, I must conclude that you have not been purged because you pose no threat to us religious types.....
First, let me say that micro and macro evolution are indeed two different things. The former being defined as slight genetic change over a few generations in a population. The latter being defined as gradual changes from generation to generation over millions of years where past species evolve into new ones. This model of long term change is usually referred to as phyletic gradualism.
Now, if you are arguing that some evolution opponents have attempted to recategorize macro changes as micro in order to bolster their case, I would consider that charge to be entirely different that the charge than the distinction between macro and micro evolution is fabricated.
Incidently, beginning in the early 1970's, the macro-evolution model was challenged by Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, and other leading paleontologists . They asserted that there is sufficient fossil evidence now to show that some species remained essentially the same for millions of years and then underwent short periods of very rapid change. Gould suggests that a more accurate model in such species lines would be punctuated equilibrium. This is one of the new theories I had mentioned in a prior post.
Oh, religion = no brain? Nice ego-trip you've got going there.
One is simply the other over longer time scales -- not a different mechanism.
Premises of science:
1) Observed events have a natural explanation.
2) Scientific principles don't change as time passes.
By its' definition, science can't include supernatural explanations. A poster who cannot be named pointed out that including supernatural explanations is even dangerous. If you go to a doctor and he brings out his magic bone to cure you, wouldn't you question his abilities? In the same way, if a scientist brings out God to explain why bacteria become penicillin resistant, wouldn't you question his abilities?
Besides, I don't want to get banned.
Why? Is there some magic "off" button that keeps micro-evolutionary changes from accumulating into a macro-evolutionary change? If so, what is the nature of this feature? How does it know when to stop? You obviously have a theory regarding this, so please post the details.
What is the Placebo effect?
It makes it soooo hard to make conservative arguments about taxes, the 2nd amendment and military issues when other conservatives insist on bringing up stupid things like ID.
Sorry, I don't do dialectic.
In the interests of strict accuracy, I have complained about one robo-poster who amused himself by repeatedly posting his personal racist rendition of an old R&B tune. The posts were duly pulled.
My motivation, however, had to do with the racist nature of the posts and nothing else.
I would argue that generational changes can occur within a species that aren't necessarily the road to a new species a million years down the road. In that case, micro, at the very least, can be different from macro. As I posted previously, I don't have access to my notes at work but my recollection is that different causes have been proposed for both micro and macro changes. In the latter case, two I recall are adaptive radiation and successive speciation. It is my understanding that while successive speciation might be an example of micro evolution at the macro level (as you suggest), adaptive radiation is a different mechanism. Again, this is all without notes (or a net) so my recollection may be incorrect.
|
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.