Posted on 06/05/2002 6:55:45 PM PDT by Gladwin
Evolution is the process of non-random Natural Selection of random genetic mutations on the basis of what helps a creature to adapt to its environment best.
So randomness enters the theory where genetic mutations occur. But the way in which these mutations are sorted: Natural Selection, is absolutely non-random. Those creatures who best survive in the environment in which they are born do not survive at random. They survive because they have certain genetic features that make them better equipped to survive. So a creature with a mini-eye that could distinguish a tiny shadow would survive better than a creature without it.
By this definition, evolution isn't science either. It may be possible to disprove a specific idea of how evolution occurred, but that just leads evolutionists to revise the theory. So evolution as an overall theory can never be disproved. Punctuated equilibrium, Steven Jay Gould's theory, was developed in response to the fact that the fossil record doesn't show gradual changes as has always been considered a key element of evolutionary theory. Hence, punctuated equilibrium!
What's taught in the schools is not the more technical aspects of how evolution theoretically occurs - such as at the molecular level, i.e. the falsifiable part - obviously far too advanced for public school curricula. They just teach the general idea of evolution, and assert that species A evolved into species B, which is probably not falsifiable either, even if it never happened that way.
Not surprizing. Still, the way evolution is defended makes me think they have something to fear in acknowleging that there's something bigger than they are. That's why I called them high priests in a post above. It's like some wierd ultra-sacrosanct religion, where all questions are answered by the magic word "evolution" and objectors are sent to the stocks.
you're playing with the punch cards---old tricks--illusions!
99-1...you're hallucinating!
Wrong. Evolution can be falsified surprisingly easily. If even one fossil was found in the wrong place, we would know that evolution could not have taken place. Why do you think so many Creationists try to put fake fossils in these places except because they want to falsify the theory?
Still, the way evolution is defended makes me think they have something to fear in acknowleging that there's something bigger than they are.
Evolution does not exclude "something bigger". What it excludes is a literal interpretation of both of the two Creation stories in Genesis I-III.
Creationism/Intelligent Design is the NEW kid on the block!?! I suggest you fire your fact-checker...
They are. But Natural Selection is non-random, which is why those who claim that the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a belief in random chance are wrong.
If evolution were a random process, it would be something like the Theory of Evolution by random selection, which would mean creatures just dying and living for no reason at all. Obviously it would be impossible for complex life to evolve at random, which is why no one believes this.
F.Christian, please write in full sentences if you want a reply. I have difficulty working out what you mean.
Very so. Even old earth creationism flies in the face of solely-evolutionistic explanations of life.
Okay, I'll bite. What is your definition of scientific (or "The Scientific Process"), and are there any active research scientists using it?
I didn't write that.
I wrote this:
"Not surprizing. Still, the way evolution is defended makes me think they have something to fear in acknowleging that there's something bigger than they are. That's why I called them high priests in a post above. It's like some wierd ultra-sacrosanct religion, where all questions are answered by the magic word "evolution" and objectors are sent to the stocks."
Indeed it is. It is ludicrously biased toward extinction. Somehow that didn't happen.
By the way, "evolutionism" is not a word. The word is "evolution" and a scientist who studies evolution is an "evolutionist". But an evolutionist no more studies evolutionism than a biologist studies biologism.
Extinction? All that is necessary for evolution to take place is that parents have more offspring than can survive or that offspring can vary in their capacity to produce offspring of their own. All that is necessary for evolution to happen is that some creatures die young and that the survivors are the ones better suited genetically to their environment.
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.