Round Two: God vs. Darwin

Fishteacher73 · 02-24-2005

Tormod wanted to close the ID/Creationist thread because of its length and break up some of the finer points brought up in individual threads, so here goes...

One issue that was raised is the perhaps some of the evidence supporting evolutionary theory has been skewed to facilitate and support the theory. Such examples were the Miller-Urey experiments, correlations between embryonic development, natural selection in the peppered moth (Biston betularia), etc.

Has the evidence been streached to fit evolutionary theory, and if it has in what manner is it being done?

pmaust · 02-24-2005

I don't know if it has or not. But, this is a concern for me. I generally believe in the theory of evolution. But, enough of the conclusions seem a bit too contrived to be credible to me.

I look forward to reading the replies.

Thanks

Fishteacher73 · 02-24-2005

I can readily admit that there have been some hoaxes(Piltdown Man) and incorrect conclusions drawn (Darwin's or Hutton's concept of evolution is now not really considered an accurate picture, although the massive concept of natural selection remains fast) but that is to be expected in ANY field. Perhaps some of the evidence has been amplified because of the wider audience that this scientific theory has as opposed to many others (As well as opposing view points that vehemantly combat each other). You really don't have soccer moms picketing schools for teaching realativity... I would think that much of the mis-use or distortion of the evidence has been done in the layman's circles and not so much as the scientific circles. It is just contradictory to what science is about...

pmaust · 02-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fishteacher73

You really don't have soccer moms picketing schools for teaching realativity... I would think that much of the mis-use or distortion of the evidence has been done in the layman's circles and not so much as the scientific circles. It is just contradictory to what science is about...

Very well said!

maddog · 02-24-2005

I know of the Piltdown hoax. It is said what people will do for fame. I was not aware that Darwin's version
of Natural Selection was decprecated. I don't know who Hutton is. Jay Gould had a theory that evolution
can occur in spurts (like quantum leaps -- sorry for the pun). These transitions can be where branchings in
the tree occur. It seem plausible to me. I have yet to go thoroughly over his theory.

Maddog

Tormod · 02-24-2005

James Hutton: The man who discovered Earth's antiquity. In other words, that the earth had to be much, much older than the bible said. There's a good biography about him which I recommend warmly.

pmaust · 02-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tormod

James Hutton: The man who discovered Earth's antiquity. In other words, that the earth had to be much, much older than the bible said. There's a good biography about him which I recommend warmly.

What is the Title/Author of the biography?

Fishteacher73 · 02-25-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by maddog

I know of the Piltdown hoax. It is said what people will do for fame. I was not aware that Darwin's version
of Natural Selection was decprecated. I don't know who Hutton is. Jay Gould had a theory that evolution
can occur in spurts (like quantum leaps -- sorry for the pun). These transitions can be where branchings in
the tree occur. It seem plausible to me. I have yet to go thoroughly over his theory.

Maddog

The most widly accepted model for evolution is now currently Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium. You pretty much paraphrased it. The problem with Darwin is not so much the mechanics (natural selection) but it was thought of a gradual progression, and evolution is not always positive, there have been many regressive mutaions in species to make them more contemporarily viable.

While Gould usually is credited with terming the current evolutionary theory, it really was the unspoken model for the past 50 years.

Lolic · 02-25-2005

Punctuated Equilibrium seems like a lunge for answers.
First evolutionists want to take credit for having billions and billions of years of mutation and natural selection to do their work, then when it doesn't jive with the fossil recored they theorize PE...and in doing so take away much of the time they needed to have any chance of success.

Question for evolutionists, I have a heart and lungs and a circulatory system. How did these evolve?
- I currently need them to live,
- I couldn't live with half developed organs,
- half developed organs have no functional advantage,
- why and how do you think they evolved?

Does each mutation add another cell worth of length to a undeveloped circulatory system?

How many mutations would it take to develop one system?

What about the great number more of negative, harmful mutations, why didn't these kill my evolving self in years gone by?

When you think about evolution in basic, common sence terms, it has great problems.

Ah, but the moral freedom it gives the person who can convince himself that it is true! Have we come across a motive?