Posted by Spamboy on September 19, 1999 at 20:26:35:
In Reply to: psychologizing posted by Tom on September 17, 1999 at 16:33:59:
: : : : 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.
: : ...that no amount of evidence, references, etc., will satisfy him and convince him that macroevolution is and has happened. I don't believe that he desires to change his view concerning his religious doctrine. Many of these believers possess faith so weak that if any small part of their precious belief system is called into question, they worry that they may then have to abandon ALL of their religion, should they give in to this one doubt.
: What you're saying is certainly plausible. Anything can be doubted. One can suppose that even if one could,say, induce
: the evolution of wings in lab rats, some people would deny it as fraud. But nothing that dramatic has
: been put forward by evolutionary science. Jumbling the genes of Drosophyila and getting legs or wings to
: spring from the head doesn't particularly impress me. From my non-technical standpoint in understanding science,
: that seems like a case of getting something different but not really NEW in the sense which Darwin's
: theory of speciation predicts. However, I am quite willing to concede that modern science has given serious challenge the doctrine of
: the fixity of species. I simply don't wish to conlude that that means that the creative devlopment of these living things is purely
: explicable in naturlistic terms. You seem to surmize that siding with an interpretation of the facts which comports with one's religious
: beliefs is necessarily a bad choice. I don't. So far as I can assess the evidnece, the argument that God entered history in
: Jesus Christ is as logically and historically compelling as any good scientific theory. I certainly find it more heuristic that Darwin's
: theory.
R)
Hi Tom.
In your response, and reaction to evolution, I see a common fallacy. You are in the 'either/or' mindset.
For reasons unknown to me, certain aspects of mankinds scientific endeavors are a threat to some religious dogmas. Evolution particularly so.
Tom, save your type and time. Evolution is not the enemy of mythology. You may perceive it to be, but this is in-house deception and propaganda on the part your particular faith I suspect.
Evolution is fact-based. The evidence is overwhelming that we evolved. Certain mechanisms and variations are still being debated. This is NORMAL science.
A constant study, re-study and refuting to get to a more accurate view on how it happened.
This is vastly different from refuting or denying it with an intent in mind. Creationists have an intent, or a pre-conclusion in mind. 'god did it'
This is NOT science. Its theology/mythology disguised as science, who's only ammunition is to deny the real science study of our origins. This is done due to NO evidence of their own.
Tom, there has never been a true debate re: creationism as a viable option for how things happened. True debates require evidence from both sides.
An analogy of the creationist/evolution debate:
On the question of 'What mass is the moon'?
One side comes to the table with charts, graphs scientific data, meaurements and comparative research.
The other side comes to the table saying: 'We think the moon is pretty, and we like the taste of cheese'
Get back to me:
SpamBoy