Tales from the quote mine: Leading Darwinists believe, with or without evidence – and why it matters

_{News
November 9, 2011

Culture, Darwinism, News

2}_{Categories
Culture
Darwinism
News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Churning through the quote mine, we note that Richard Dawkins wrote,

Instead of examining the evidence for and against rival theories, I shall adopt a more armchair approach. My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories – p. 287, Blind Watchmaker

The structure of the current punditocracy prevents anyone from coming to a logical conclusion about what this means, while remaining a favourite of hair model TV. But in In the Beginning, Granville Sewell reminds us (p. 104) that it is hardly an unusual stance:

Olan Hyndman, in The Origin of Life and the Evolution of Living Things , [Hyndman 1952], calls Darwinism “the most irrational and illogical explanation of natural phenomena extant.” Yet he says “I have one strong faith, that scientific phenomena are invariable… any exception is as unthinkable as to maintain that thunderbolts are tossed at us by a man-like god named Zeus,” and he goes on to develop an alternative – and even more illogical – theory (Lamarckian, basically) of the causes of evolution. Jean Rostand [Rostand 1956], quoted in previous chapters, says “However obscure the causes of evolution appear to me to be, I do not doubt for a moment that they are entirely natural.” Hans Gaffron [Gaffron 1960], in a paper presented at the 1959 University of Chicago Centennial Congress Evolution After Darwin, presents a theory on the origin of life, but admits, “no shred of evidence, no single fact whatever, forces us to believe in it. What exists is only the scientists’ wish not to admit a discontinuity in nature and not to assume a creative act forever beyond comprehension.”

We’ve said it before: Darwinism is not a theory in science, it is a mood, in both elite and popular culture.

Elite culture know it is true without evidence, and popular culture feels it is true without evidence – which is why so much beyond-parody evolutionary psychology rolls through the pop science press unchallenged.

Comments

Joseph
GB: "Please give YOUR explanation for the canid genetic data." Well according to baraminology all extant canids evolved from the original population of candids.
Which point on this chart represents the original population of canids then? Phylogeny of canid species.
GB: "Please tell us if the evolution of the treehopper T1 wing segment into the helmet was micro-evolution or macro-evolution, and how you made the determination." First one would have to ascertain that such a thing is possible.
Already been done. The detailed scientific analysis is in treehopper the paper ScottAndrews2 refused to read. I bet you didn't read it either.
GB; "Please describe the barrier that makes it impossible (not just time consuming) for micro-e changes to accumulate into macro-e ones." What allows it? The changes just are not the same. On one hand we have a ton of loss-of-function mutations (micro-e) yet macro-e requires gains of functions, new functions, new body plans and new body parts.
Already been demonstrated too. 'Function' is totally dependent on the environment. A leg evolving into a fin is a loss of terrestrial locomotion function but a gain of aquatic mobility function. Even Behe admits there are gain-of-function mutations. So describe the magic evolution-stopping barrier for us, and be specific.GinoB_{November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

GinoB:
Please give YOUR explanation for the canid genetic data.
Well according to baraminology all extant canids evolved from the original population of candids.
Please tell us if the evolution of the treehopper T1 wing segment into the helmet was micro-evolution or macro-evolution, and how you made the determination.
First one would have to ascertain that such a thing is possible. They should be able to go into a lab and manupulate insect eggs to see if this was something that could happen. So get rid of the question-begging first.
Please describe the barrier that makes it impossible (not just time consuming) for micro-e changes to accumulate into macro-e ones.
What allows it? The changes just are not the same. On one hand we have a ton of loss-of-function mutations (micro-e) yet macro-e requires gains of functions, new functions, new body plans and new body parts. It is as if you think you can lose money on each sale (micro-e) yet make it up by selling more.Joseph_{November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

GinoB, As a student of science, I remind you that a hypothesis is yours to test and validate. You have offered nothing of substance and failed to answer any refutation. In fact, you have yet to string together two sentences of your own to reason on anything. Only the weak-minded will be distracted from that by your endless stream of irrelevant questions, which I will not answer. And only they will care when you crow about it. If there were an "ignore" feature I would certainly activate it in your case. My only embarrassment is that I continue to engage you at all.ScottAndrews2_{November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews
I’m no English teacher
You're no student of science either. I do wish you'd stop making excuses and please answer the questions about your claims though. Please give YOUR explanation for the canid genetic data. Please tell us if the evolution of the treehopper T1 wing segment into the helmet was micro-evolution or macro-evolution, and how you made the determination. Please describe the barrier that makes it impossible (not just time consuming) for micro-e changes to accumulate into macro-e ones. If you have no answers, just admit you can't answer and I'll stop asking you these questions that are causing you so much embarrassment.GinoB_{November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

GinoB, I'm no English teacher, but you don't put double quotes around words you attribute to someone else unless they are direct quotation. Like this:
Mustering every iota of his wit, GinoB replied, "Waaaaah! Waaaah! The fish didn’t evolve into a giraffe like I demanded! Waaaah!"
That's how double quotes work. You speak for the cornerstone of biology, and I haven't received your explanation yet. 'Something varied, something was selected, repeat' is not an explanation. (See, single quotes.)ScottAndrews2_{November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

Scott, you avoided giving us YOUR explanation for the data. Again. Mindlessly regurgitating "evolution didn't do it!!" gets the discussion nowhere. We already know you don't accept the scientific view held by 99.8% of the scientists who actually study and work with the evidence on a daily basis. Please give us YOUR explanation for the correlating and corroborating patterns of the genetic and fossil data.GinoB_{November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT}

GinoB, Apparently it's your intent to follow me about after every post and spam me with questions I've already answered. After I type several carefully considered paragraphs explaining why your "evidence" does not demonstrate what you want it to, you'll ignore everything I've said and accuse me of disregarding the evidence. I'm doing all the work. Your end of this is pretty easy. Why should I or anyone else respond to you at all. I'm patient - others might rightly call it stupid - because I continue to respond. Enough with the free ride. The price of this exchange is that you do some reasoning and thinking of your own. As it is you're more like a fly or a mosquito - tiny and ineffectual, and yet we stop what we're doing to swing our arms around and swat at you.ScottAndrews2_{November 13, 2011
November
11
Nov
13
13
2011
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

But a nested hierarchy nor a tree isn’t required as we see neither amongst prokaryotes.
As I explained, it is a necessary result when changes/mutations are passed strictly from parent to offspring – which is not the case with prokaryotes.
No, a nested hierarchy is not a necessary result when changes/ mutations are passed strictly from parent to offspring. Nested hierarchy is a necessary result when you have immutable and additive defining characteristics and we know evolution isn't like that.Joseph_{November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

1.3.2.2.11 GinoB, That is again a bad example, like the one with Marco Polo. The point is that in the natural sciences, such level of detail is in principle available. Not so with the theory of evolution. It exploits the power of generalisation without providing any rigorous grounds for such generalisations. First, show us that such grand scale generalisations are in principle valid and then we will believe you.Eugene S_{November 12, 2011
November
11
Nov
12
12
2011
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

I am sure if someone tried they could make one.
I'm sure they could to. But as I explained, if 10 people attempted such a thing we'd end up with 10 completely different results. This is because (as the people attempting this feat would quickly notice) there is no natural way to organize books into a nested hierarchy. Any result would be arbitrary and subjective - which is not the case when organizing animals however, as Linnaeus discovered.
But a nested hierarchy nor a tree isn’t required as we see neither amongst prokaryotes.
As I explained, it is a necessary result when changes/mutations are passed strictly from parent to offspring - which is not the case with prokaryotes. This is the case, however, with Berlinski's scenario (or at least that's how it appears to me). And since we see no nested hierarchy in books, the scenario Berlinski gives can be discounted.
You are missing the selection part of the process.
I don't see any selection process in Berlinski's scenario.goodusername_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
Always rhetoric, never a meaningful thought.
Look who's talking. Every time I ask you a meaningful question you avoid it. I've asked you at least four times to please give YOUR explanation for the canid genetic data. You refuse to answer. I've asked you at least three times if the evolution of the treehopper T1 wing segment into the helmet was micro-evolution or macro-evolution. You refuse to answer. I've asked you at least three times to describe the barrier that makes it impossible (not just time consuming) for micro-e changes to accumulate into macro-e ones. You refuse to answer. I'm sure it makes you feel good to blindly repeat "there's no evidence for evolution!" as the stock non-answer to every question, but it advances the discussion not one iota. Try having an original thought for once, and try to honestly answer the questions asked.
One day we’ll toss darwinism on the same scrap-heap as eugenics and talk about it in the past tense.
LOL! The imminent demise of evolution - the longest running failed Creationist prediction in the history of science! The imminent demise of evolution. GinoB_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

goodusername:
–There is no nested hierarchy, or “evolutionary tree” of books.
I am sure if someone tried they could make one. But a nested hierarchy nor a tree isn't required as we see neither amongst prokaryotes.
Books aren’t created by making random changes to other books – and it shows.
You are missing the selection part of the process. But anyway there isn't any evidence that making random changes to an organism can create new body plans with new body parts....Joseph_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

Natural selection IS differential reproduction due to heritable random variation. IOW it IS all included. Chas D:
Selection is the discriminatory part of the process, not the whole process.
Except there isn't any selection going on. Not only that natural selection is defined EXACTLY as I said. So TRY to stay focused as natural selection was the topic.
There is still differential reproduction of variants, and one will ultimately become fixed.
Not necessarily.Joseph_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

F/N: The pivot to this is that the NS part is a culler of some variation, not a creator of information. It is the chance variations that have to do the info creation work. And there is where the big problems begin.kairosfocus_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

GinoB, You are flailing. I quote a statement saying "We used to think..." and you cleverly retort that it's not modern thinking. Wow. It's okay to lash out at everything I say, but you don't always have to go with your first draft.
We used to think that space travel and organ transplants were impossible too. Funny how science continues to make discoveries and increase our understanding, while some people are content to never learn.
Always rhetoric, never a meaningful thought. I've shared some interesting posts back and forth with some folks who like to reason on things and challenge me with it. Haven't you ever wanted to do that? (Okay, it didn't go so well with the treehoppers. But you could try harder!) One day we'll toss darwinism on the same scrap-heap as eugenics and talk about it in the past tense. And we'll tell really funny stories about how people tried to rationalize it. (Real-life sea monkeys, it evolved independently at least seven times, look, the fishes are changing color, etc.)ScottAndrews2_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

goodusername,
And the reason it’s obvious is because there is not a taxonomic tree, or nested hierarchy, of western books. If anything, it’s a giant “mesh”.
I guarantee you, if the ideological leaning was that books must have descended from each other, they would find a way to arrange them in trees, probably by subject matter and changes in language.ScottAndrews2_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

Chas D, That's something I can agree with.ScottAndrews2_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

Natural selection IS differential reproduction due to heritable random variation. IOW it IS all included.
Selection is the discriminatory part of the process, not the whole process. Where the differential between alleles in terms of reproductive success is zero (Neutral), selection is not in effect. So it isn't all included. For neutral alleles, allele frequency change is all attributable to genetic drift, which is akin to sample error. There is still differential reproduction of variants, and one will ultimately become fixed. Its 'success' is not causally linked to its effects, ie it is not subject to NS. As one turns up the success differential slightly (Nearly Neutral), one gets a slightly diminished role for Drift, and an increased role for selection. Turning the heat up further, drift becomes the weaker force and selection the stronger.Chas D_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

That’s unless you define evolution more loosely as “descent with modification"
Pretty much how Darwin defined it. It is typically given as "change in allele frequency in populations" these days, though I am not so keen on that - particularly in forums like this, where people simply see that as a statement that frequencies rattle about like balls in a lottery apparatus, never really going anywhere. This is not correct, but I can see why it is thought so. The pattern of descent is one thing, the mechanisms that cause the change another. Both are evolution. If one has a pattern of descent, one has a branch nodes at various points in history. At those points, the ancestor can't have been like all its descendants simultaneously. Something had to change, somewhere along the line, to give the separate characters of descendants. So it must be an evolutionary tree, even if the mechanism was genetic engineering.Chas D_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

“How does an evolutionary tree show evolution? Why even call it that? Evolution is process driven by specific mechanisms (i.e. natural selection) which could never be determined by such a tree, even if that tree were 100% complete and 100% accurate. That’s unless you define evolution more loosely as “descent with modification,” which concedes not knowing why the modifications happened as they did.” -- I didn’t really make an argument that the tree shows evolution (let alone natural selection) in that post, although I should have said “taxonomic tree” instead of “evolutionary tree”. I would say, however, that the taxonomic tree aka nested hierarchy is certainly consistent with life having a common ancestor via changes by small steps and thus I do believe it does show evolution. My argument was that IF the scenario that Berlinski drew up ACTUALLY occurred – namely that there was “Quixote”, and copiers made mistakes producing “offspring” so to speak, and so the changes (mutations) made passed strictly from parent book to child book, and copiers made mistakes copying those books, and so on, producing all the books of the western world - than I would expect that as someone began organizing the books, that he’d discover that they naturally organize into groups, and those groups into larger groups (i.e a nested hierarchy), and so on, back to a common source – namely Quixote. The person who makes this discovery, btw, may not even realize WHY the books naturally organize this way – his reaction might just be “huh, that’s odd”. But it’s obvious that this didn’t occur. Even putting aside all the difficulties of such a thing occurring: Even IF one were inclined to believe that such a thing COULD happen - that you could actually start with a novel, and via a series of copying errors actually create other novels - it’s obvious, in this case, that it DIDN’T happen. And the reason it’s obvious is because there is not a taxonomic tree, or nested hierarchy, of western books. If anything, it’s a giant “mesh”. Thus my post was a response to “To argue against that story is to argue against evolutionism”. A reason why it’s not believed that the books of the western world don’t share a common ancestor in the manner described by Berlinski is for precisely a reason that they are unlike life – and vice versa. With animals, we don’t have feathered monkeys, or mermaids, or griffons, etc. It’s not a taxonomic mesh. (Yes, there are places where it is “meshy”, particularly in the microbial world, but that’s because of the breakdown of changes being strictly mutations from parent to child.)goodusername_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT}

Scott Andrews,
First, I reject the premise that observed variation must be assumed to extrapolate indefinitely unless someone defines a barrier. It’s obviously unreasonable to ask for a demonstration of evolution acting indefinitely. In fairness, there must be goalposts. No one seems to agree on them, but that should not be insurmountable.
It's not that variation extrapolates indefinitely, but that the processes that generate it never stop working. If all mutation suddenly ceased, a species would gradually 'freeze', genetically, and variation would inexorably diminish. Effectively the inbreeding coefficient would go up, even if there were no close mating, and eventually, the species would be a clone. But mutation does not stop, indeed it cannot. So I just don't see, given that the DNA system is universal, and by letter-by-letter change one can step from any combination to any other, how one can be so sure that every current genome cannot result from a long-term process of probing the shores of the assumed 'islands of functional organism' that discovers that the landscape is riddled with a network of viable 'land bridges' - indeed, that its structure is entirely reticulate, and these apparent islands are simply an illusion, because we see clear delineation at this moment in time, but cannot peer far into future or past. Given that mutation is essentially random and allele spread broadly stochastic also, I don't see what can stop indefinite change. Unless there is some kind of reflecting boundary.
Second, what evidence we have (Lenski, etc.) indicates that there is a barrier. It may not be perfectly defined, but it is demonstrated every bit as consistently as the processes that run up against it.
There is a huge, huge difference between what goes on in the Lenski apparatus and what goes on in the kinds of organisms that excite most of our rather metazoan-fixated interest, so I would be wary of extending too many conclusions out from it. Most notably, eukaryotes have sex (either currently or ancestrally), and that makes a tremendous difference to the dynamic of the evolutionary process. It's parallel processing, for IT fans; every member of the population is 'working on' the entire genome, and any adaptive function hit upon can spread quasi-independently via the sexual network and multiple solutions be recombined. It's a different world for the clonal replacement of whole asexual genomes. Bacteria spent 2 billion years doing nothing very spectacular. The problem of doing equivalent experiments with larger sexual organisms, however, is obviously their size (hence small population sizes), their generation time, and their susceptibility to mutational overload if you try and speed things up. The more convincing evolutionary experiments would take a few hundred thousand years, and there doesn't seem to be a way to speed that up.Chas D_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
How does an evolutionary tree show evolution? Why even call it that? Evolution is process driven by specific mechanisms (i.e. natural selection) which could never be determined by such a tree, even if that tree were 100% complete and 100% accurate. That’s unless you define evolution more loosely as “descent with modification,” which concedes not knowing why the modifications happened as they did.
Scott, the level of certainty you demand is impossible. Science can never be 100% sure of anything, even evolution. Science can never falsify the idea that a Designer did it because a Loki God Designer could always make things look like they occurred by naturally occurring evolutionary processes. What we have in the fossil and genetic records is tons of evidence - literally 150+ years' worth from hundreds of different science - that is consistent with known, empirically observed evolutionary mechanisms. We have zero evidence that any other supernatural or external intelligent forces are in play. That's why ToE is virtually universally accepted in the scientific community and ID is not. Once again, if you want science to reject evolutionary theory you need to come up with a way to explain the data, ALL the data, better than ToE does. I've been asking you since day 1 to provide your better explanation (i.e the canid genetic data) but all I ever get is silence.GinoB_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

goodusername, How does an evolutionary tree show evolution? Why even call it that? Evolution is process driven by specific mechanisms (i.e. natural selection) which could never be determined by such a tree, even if that tree were 100% complete and 100% accurate. That's unless you define evolution more loosely as "descent with modification," which concedes not knowing why the modifications happened as they did.ScottAndrews2_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

"And there you have it. To argue against that story is to argue against evolutionism. But therein lies the problem. To accept that story as even possibly valid demonstrates a lack of grasp on reality- but then again so does the acceptance of evolutionism." --There is no nested hierarchy, or “evolutionary tree” of books. I suppose people can try to construct such a thing, but it would be utterly arbitrary. Give 10 people the task of constructing such a taxonomic tree and you’ll get 10 completely different results. However, as Linnaeus found, there’s something “natural” about organizing life in this way. And this is why his system caught on so quickly around the world. (Incidentally, he tried this system on other things, such as rocks, but found that it only works for organizing life.) Books aren’t created by making random changes to other books - and it shows. I’m sure there are books out there that were strongly influenced by, say, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and Gene Roddenberry, and thus are basically a detective story in space. I don’t know of any such book, but because books are “intelligently designed” I would bet the ranch that such books exist. The equivalent of such a book in the animal world would be a feathered monkey – which I would also bet will never be found. So one can easily argue against the truth of the scenario given by Berlinkski by pointing how the taxonomy of books is nothing like the evolutionary tree.goodusername_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

A precise aerodynamic instrument capable of sustaining self powered flight, under precise feedback modulated control - and continue on with all that could be said about an insects wing - was turned into a lump!!!butifnot_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
Still the treehoppers. First, here’s my initial refutation which really says it all, and which you’ve never addressed.
Scott, what part of "That data needs an explanation Scott, just like the genetic data from the canid research needs an explanation. That does not mean just repeating your assertion that the data doesn’t support ToE. Please give us YOUR explanation for the data. don't you understand?
Second, what do you mean by a “completely different body part?”
You used the term and agreed that the treehopper's helmet was a different body part, not me.
And if your evolutionary explanations depend on recycling preexisting components then you’re out of gas before you start.
ALL of evolution, even the micro-evolution you accept, works by 'recycling existing components', by modifying what's already there. If you don't understand even that basic fact there's no hope.GinoB_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

GinoB, Still the treehoppers. First, here's my initial refutation which really says it all, and which you've never addressed.
Yet you agree an insect’s wing can be co-opted and modified into a completely different body part.
Second, what do you mean by a "completely different body part?" Let's say your ancestor used to have a tail. Now, your repressed genes "escape" and your tail is expressed, this time as a hump fused against your back. You can give the hump a name and call it a completely new body part, but it really isn't. And if your evolutionary explanations depend on recycling preexisting components then you're out of gas before you start. And on top of all that, there is a guess, a guess at why these appendages may be beneficial and selected. That guess addresses the completed growth. There is no discussion of how the variation was initiated, what initial step was selected or why. Evolution is the why. Your example of evolution is missing the evolution. And on top of that, even the author admits that the entire hypothesis about where the helmets came from isn't all that certain. This is not a smoking gun. It shoots a little flag that says "Bang!" Now I've gone and explained it again. I'll bookmark this so next time I can show you that I've explained it twice.ScottAndrews2_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT}

Blind, undirected processes do not expect a nested hierarchy, never mind some "twin nested hierarchies"-OTOH common design can account for nested hierarchies.Joseph_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
Second, what evidence we have (Lenski, etc.) indicates that there is a barrier.
I'll point out here that the changes to E coli observed in the Lenski experiment were considered major, significant changes by everyone in the biological sciences community. Basically the organisms evolved an entirely new way to get nourishment from a different, previously incompatable food source. In humans this would be the equivalent of evolving the ability to drink gasoline instead of water. Evolutionary theory neither requires nor expects that a single-celled organism would suddenly evolve into a multi-celled one and sprout legs and wings as you keep suggesting we should see. A few questions for you, and I'd appreciate some answers: Is that change in treehoppers from wings to defensive/mimicry helmet a micro-evolutionary change or a macro-evolutionary one? How do you make the determination? Did flying squirrels and ground squirrels evolve from a common ancestor, or are they separate created kinds? If they evolved from a common ancestor, how did the flying squirrel develop the mental / spatial abilities and physical attributes to control its gliding flight?
If we observed a person throwing a ball in the air but closed our eyes when it began to drop, we could get the inaccurate impression that the ball could ascend forever. Note that the barrier of gravity was recognized before it was understood.
You gravity example is a particularly poor one for your argument. We now know that gravity is not a barrier and can indeed be overcome by the application of a relatively small force (no greater than that required to toss the football) over longer periods of time. We have spacecraft orbiting other planets that demonstrate this fact. Throwing a football and having it arc back down is the equivalent of one generation's worth of evolutionary change. But evolution has had over 600 millions years' worth of generations of accumulated changes to evolve multi-celled animals. For your ideas to work you need to identify that barrier that makes it impossible, not just time-consuming, for macro-evolutionary changes to occur.GinoB_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

ScottAndrews2
Second, what evidence we have (Lenski, etc.) indicates that there is a barrier. It may not be perfectly defined, but it is demonstrated every bit as consistently as the processes that run up against it.
Yet you agree an insect's wing can be co-opted and modified into a completely different body part. Is that change in treehoppers a micro-evolutionary change or a macro-evolutionary one? The Lenski experiment does not constitute all the evidence we have, not by a long shot. There's still the matter of the huge amounts of consilient data from the fossil and genetic records with the twin nested hierarchies they form which agree to well over 99.9%. That data needs an explanation Scott, just like the genetic data from the canid research needs an explanation. That does not mean just repeating your assertion that the data doesn't support ToE. Please give us your explanation for the data.GinoB_{November 11, 2011
November
11
Nov
11
11
2011
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply