« Let nominees bail us out | Main | Re-imagining a better KC »

February 07, 2009

Questioning evolution

Liz Craig (1/26, Letters, “Science backs evolutionary theory”) agrees evolution is a theory, then declares “it’s science” and a “well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.” That oft-repeated dogma has served to evolve this theory into foregone conclusion, and while to question is an integral part of science, questioning this science is not tolerated.

As for “well tested”, no test reveals how something comes from nothing or how some simple inorganic cells can suddenly change into immensely complex DNA. Genuine science cannot answer these or the many other dilemmas swirling around of the origins of life no matter how confident we are in any theory.

Ms. Craig said evolution is so fundamental to science that in 2009, the Year of Science no less, the “nation” is celebrating the anniversaries of Darwin and his theory. If celebration yields substantiation, then generations taking part in the annual Christmas celebration do wonders for Santa’s credibility.

Brian Merrell
Lee’s Summit

Comments

JUNGLE JACK

Pub - my point was that it can be said that evolutionists are the ones who are "pounding towards a pre-determined conclusion at all costs."
tomw links to a site that claims "Archaeopteryx is a classic transitional form between dinosaurs and birds."
... how is this? Simply because it was a bird with teeth? It had fully developed wings and feathers - but we're told it "probably didn't yet have the power of flight". Why? Because it doesn't fit the evolution model?

secondly - why are you bringing creationism and the Bible into this? One doesn't have to believe in creationism to find faults with evolution.

Dan Beyer

Like I said, a good judge looks at and weighs everything before casting judgement.
I'll let you two get back to your probing UFO's and spontaneous generating DNA.

whispering_to_kc

Evolution is secular foolishness. It's so-called "science" meant only to advance the desires of Satan worshippers and blasphemers.

Adam and Eve kept pet dinosaurs in The Garden of Eden, sort of like the Flintstones also did in Bedrock.

"The Earth is round" nonsense is also secularist insanity.

The Earth is flat of course, a disk with a ring of ice around the edge. The Sun and Moon are also flat. The Bible makes this clear.

Santa looks friendly enough but he is, in fact, a tool of Satan. The devil only created Santa Claus to corrupt the true meaning of Christmas which is, of course, meant to celebrate the summer birth of Jesus.

solomon

Typed in what you suggested and there was the standard argument. Belief.

Not evidence.

Dan Beyer

And after you go to that website go to your search engine and put in "Evidence for Creationism" and see for yourselves the other side of the debate.
Be a good judge and look at BOTH sides of the debate. You will learn a lot of interesting things I promise you!

bud 25

It always comes back to arguing the definition of a scientific theory, seems to me they are grabbing for straws.

Take a look at talkorigin.com, it does a very good job of explaining evolution.

Pub 17

Still don't get it.
Theories don't become laws, except in unusual cases. They're a rolling model of the observations, and are supposed to change as new evidence is observed.
Unless you insist that the world started 6,000 or 4,500 or however many years, ago, you, like the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church, like most Protestant denominations, like the Jews, like the Buddhists, shouldn't have any trouble with a multibillion-year-old universe. Why this insistence that the Creation story that only a small part of the Christian world believes is the literal truth has to be true, and that the world was created six thousand years ago by a silly God who wanted to confuse us?

JUNGLE JACK

Pub ... I think you made my point for me.

Pub 17

That's called a "model," or "theory," JJ. Those are useful if you're dealing with scientific inquiry, where you're not pounding towards a pre-determined conclusion at all costs.

JUNGLE JACK

tomw - the examples you give to argue for transitional forms require that a person be predisposed to believe in evolution to begin with.
I'm sure there are many examples of extinct creatures in the fossil record (as the creation model would predict) but it's a leap of faith to cram them into an arbitrary "tree of life" to prop up Darwin's theory.

Dan Beyer

As far as MACRO evolution is concerned their would have to be millions of transitional forms. Their is a difference between MACRO evolution(Darwinian evolution) which has never been seen and MICRO evolution which we see all the time. I hope we all know the difference.

bud 25

It's a shame that the religious have to shove their religion on to every one. The creation story belongs in sunday school, not a science a class.

tomw

"No discovery of missing links in all the years of searching through the fossil evidence AT ALL." (emphasis added)

So we have gone from "there are none" to "where are the millions?"

Here are a few.
http://www.carnegiemnh.org/news/07-jan-mar/fossil/index.htm

"A classic example of a transitionary form links the arthropods to the lineage they split from in the Cambrian, namely, the nematode worms. These are the "velvet worms" or Onychophora."

"One of these is the living phylum Hemichordata (the acorn worms and filter-feeding pterobranchs). These are neither echinoderms nor chordates but share features with both."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726451.700-evolution-what-missing-link.html

"But in the 10 July 2008 issue of Nature, Matt Friedman, graduate student in the Committee on Evolutionary Biology at the University of Chicago and a member of the Department of Geology at the Field Museum, draws attention to several examples of such transitional forms that he uncovered in museum collections of underwater fossilized creatures from the Eocene epoch--about 50 million years ago."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-07/uocm-fff070508.php

"Stanley Miller used chemicals that scientists later agreed couldn't have been present in earth's early atmosphere"-Dan Beyer

Miller's experiment was in 1953. Around the time of the first computers. I guess we haven't tweaked computer technology in the last 50 or 60 years either.

"There is no explanation of how or why unicellular life changed to multicultural, or why or how non-vertebrate life changed to vertebrates. The scientific explanation given in the text book I have at hand is "In the next sediment layer the fossils changed"."

If it is the textbook I believe it to be, it's an invertabrate book. That would be why it doen't explore the issues yo discuss.


Pub 17

The Pope doesn't have any problem with evolution; who are all these ranting Prods trying to make trouble?

Dan Beyer

Stanley Miller used chemicals that scientists later agreed couldn't have been present in earth's early atmosphere
The result of his experiment by the way were amino acids, not life.
As far as the still missing MILLIONS of transitional forms there is still a debate about these examples you shared. The team who discovered Tiktaalik roseae agreed that their are still unresolved issues and that it is NOT a clear cut example of a transitional form. The problem is that fins are NOT finger digits.

tomw

"No discovery of missing links in all the years of searching through the fossil evidence at all."

"The team says the newly discovered fossils are a no-longer-missing link between early and later forms of Australopithecus and to a more primitive hominid known as Ardipithecus."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0413_060413_evolution.html
"Scientists have made one of the most important fossil finds in history: a missing link between fish and land animals, showing how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/apr/06/evolution.fossils

"The Stanley Miller Experiment turns out to be a fraud."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=primordial-soup-urey-miller-evolution-experiment-repeated

"There were misstatements in the letter - as Engineer attests, but none bigger than this one by VV:

"There hasn't been a meaningful challenge to the theory in over 100 years."

And that challenge was what?

Dan Beyer

No proof of primordial soups ever existing.
No discovery of missing links in all the years of searching through the fossil evidence at all.
No scientific procedure to show how computer code like DNA poofs into existence on it's own.
Discoveries of dinosaur ligaments and other soft tissues that shouldn't be still around if they've been in the ground for millions of years.
The Stanley Miller Experiment turns out to be a fraud.
The list goes on and on and on. But what's the point?
Their are some who believe there are super intelligent beings who build spacecraft of immense power and great sophistication to come here across the distant galactic reaches to probe us anally. And their are some who believe in an unproven, untested, never able to recreate dying theory thought up before the discovery of DNA.
So be it.

JUNGLE JACK

There were misstatements in the letter - as Engineer attests, but none bigger than this one by VV:

"There hasn't been a meaningful challenge to the theory in over 100 years."

Engineer

There were some obvious misstatements in the letter. However the fact remains that the Theory of Evolution is largely based on fossil evidence that change occurred. There is no explanation of how or why unicellular life changed to multicultural, or why or how non-vertebrate life changed to vertebrates. The scientific explanation given in the text book I have at hand is "In the next sediment layer the fossils changed".

Pub 17

bud 25--
Let's clear 'em up very quickly, or this'll go on all day.
A theory is a general model of how something works. You look for evidence to discredit your own model; you don't find it, you haven't PROVED your theory, you just haven't tended to discredit it.
In SOME of the sciences, if you find a process that works exactly the same way with no discreditory evidence (and you better have the math ready to show why it has to be that way) you may luck out and get a law out of it.
A law isn't the end product of all good theory, a law is a special case of a theory that works to explain what's going to happen every time, without exception.
Ignorant stump preachers with backwoods Bible college educations and no conscience screech that if you can't prove it, it's not a law, and just a theory. That does not tend to discredit the hypothesis that ignorant stump preachers are a greasy stain on the landscape. Not a law, though.
See how easy?

 
About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright