Posted by Robert on September 17, 1999 at 09:23:10:
In Reply to: Macroevolution posted by Tom on September 17, 1999 at 08:46:16:
: Hello, I respect what you're saying about the practical difficulties
: of inducing macroevolution in a lab. Nevertheless, my argument still stand that
: the most rigorous standards of scientific method do not or perhaps could not
: demonstrate evolution of this kind. I agree that the fossil
: record provides at least circumstantial evidence for macroevolution. I'm not contending that living things came
: into existence instantaneously. But evidence of progressive development of
: living things over time does not prove that the Neo-Darwinian paradigm is correct.
: In fact the fossil record seems to show a number of anomalies that contradict
: the macroevolutionary view. While one can imagine an evolutionary
: sequence running from the Austrolapithecine hominds to Homo Sapien Sapiens, (something I
: don't have a problem with), the fossil record seems to suggest rather sudden "punctuations" in
: this sequence. Daniel Dennett, incidentally, accuses Gould of being a creationist of sorts
: for even proposing such a heresy. Nevertheless, the fossil record seems to support
: what Gould (who is certainly an orthodox evolutionist) claims.
: To go back to the original point about lab-induced macroevolution, I realize that this
: may be impossible. Still it would be nice if the scientic elites could be a bit more
: forthright in acknowledging the limitations of scientific method to demonstrate such claims.
: This might appease many of us who are critics of the evolutionary priesthood. I have not problem with
: my children being taught about Darwin's theory. In fact I've encouraged discussion
: at home whenever the subject came up. But I get the impression that it is sacred dogma
: for many of you folks, and not subject to the same kind of scrutiny as other
: scientific subjects.
: Many of my scientific colleagues here at the University of Georgia share my skepticism. They also
: find that they are silenced by what they affectionately call the
: Darwin Gestapo.
: Tom Lessl
: : : The only evidences of macroevolution that I'm familiar with
: : : are based on speculative interpretations.
: : Speculative? Did you read and look at the evidence provided in the link? There is little to speculate about. A speculative theory is one that posits species being created out of thin air when such events have never been witnessed.
: : : Even where the fossil records
: : : seems to suggest such changes, (and these instances are rare), there is NO evidence
: : : that natural selection plus mutation is capable of producing them.
: : I see you don't bother to look very hard. If I offered you a dozen or so books on the subject, would you read them?
: : Virtually every ancient fossil ever found (and this is not a number that can be considered 'rare') is evidence of macroevolution. You'll be hard pressed to find fossils older than a few million years ago that closely resemble species still alive today.
: : : A lab-induced organism that has a complex
: : : organ that it previously lacked.
: : Wouldn't that be nice. Unfortunately, evolutionary theory does not predict real-time macro-evolution.
: : : Tropical birds losing the capacity to
: : : fly don't impress me.
: : And apparently the observed instances of speciation that have been referred to on this board don't either.
: : Tell me what would impress you that wouldn't violate the constraints (namely time) of current evolutionary theory.
R)There is little to no evidence for the existence of literal Adam and Eve, Genesis, Noah's flood, the resurrection of Jesus, the miracles of Jesus, etc., yet you accept those, I'm sure. Why do you not possess the same scrutiny for the wild assertions of your religion that you hold for science?
The limits of science are acknowledge when scientific theory is altered, modified, discarded or even further clarified as new evidence is discovered. Science corrects itself as new evidence and data is found. It is falsifiable. Theism does like to alter its doctrine based on new findings (however, eventually they do, or otherwise they would look totally ridiculous - see flat eart and geocentric beliefs of early bible scholars) Theism is NOT allowed to be falsifiable. I have no issue what so ever with scientists uncovering new information which may question existing theory. I do have a problem with theists who call themselves scientists and distort physical evidence to help prop up their religious beliefs. Enough of the creationists attacks on Darwin and macroevolution. A contrary theory is not given credance through attacks against alternate theories. If creationists want to accomplish something, they should do actual research and see if they can find evidential support for their own pet "theories". To attack macroevolution does not lead to the conclusion that therefore literal creation is right. When's the last time the theory of evolution rested its acceptance on attacks on literal Genesis as a religious idea?