On Darwinian Evolution
Carole Lyle DeMort
I have always had a big problem with those who condemn Darwin's "Theory
of Evolution", without ever having read "On the Origin of Species."
This is ignorance in the first degree. NO where in his book, does
Darwin even use the word, evolution; instead he refers to descent with
modification; with the mechanism that explains how populations are able
to change through geological time being natural selection. Much of what
we associate with our modern day Theory of Evolution comes from
post-Darwin concepts, including all of our current appreciation for and
understanding of Mendelian and molecular genetics. The rich fossil
record only serves to reiinforce Darwin's views of "descent with
modification."
Gary S. Turk
In <32F6D4...@fair.net> Carole Lyle DeMort <cde...@fair.net>
writes:
Much like in the Bible, the word homsexual is never used, yet it is
referred to. We have a new term every day in this world. Politically
Correct never existed a couple of years ago, but now that phrase is all
the rage. The terms we use in this day and age may not match the terms
Darwin used, but you can't deny the theory is still the same. You
speak of ignorance in the first degree. Ignorance is not a negative
thing, it simply means you don't know about something. Try to not
attack a person if you are only concerned with disagreement with the
person's position or postulation, that way you can have a conversation
without hurting each other as an exclamation point.
Check out this quote! " To suppose that the eye could have been
formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the
highest degree." This is considering that the human eye has 40,000,000
nerve endings, the focusing muscles move over 100,000 times per day,
and a single retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells. You
must agree that the possibility of this just happening by chance, as
evolution would suggest, is ridiculous. Oh, the quotation is from
Charles Darwin.
I am a believer in creation. To look at a building and say that
nobody created it is nonsense. To look at a mountain, or a sunset, or
a whole planet and say that it is just here by chance is beyond
nonsense.
Now, come on back and discuss that without attacking me as a
person. You may take any shot you want at my belief, or my
postulation, but try to leave me out of it personally. That is the
essence of a scientific argument. To attack me personally would not
serve to convince me that you have a believable argument to support
your theory.
See you later. Gary
Rebecca Steele
I have thought alot about your reply. I just can't agree with the
concept of creationism. I am firm believer in people having their own
beliefs, that is why I will not attack you as a person, but attack the
idea of creation.
Prove to me that a "supreme being" created that mountain. I can prove
to you that dinosaurs were here, I can also prove to you that by simple
erosion that mountains can be made.
The thought of these new terms just makes me furious. I have a big
problem with lack of education. Do you really think that humans should
be living in the past, refusing to educate themselves? I can't imagine
not knowing about breast cancer, coronary artery disease, or the
problems that arise from smoking. We are essentially killing ourselves
if we do not continue to learn. I hope that you will address my
questions.
Rebecca
Rebecca
Eric Cabot
Oh [insert mythical deity of choice here]!
Now they've discovered *this* newsgroup! Well at least they seem
to have abandoned b.molbio.evol for the time being.
Gary S. Turk
Who are they? What is the purpose of a newsgroup if not to argue
about views and theories? Do you really think that in this world you
will ever say anything and everyone around you will just say' "Oh
yeah!". You are as much of a they as anyone else. By the way, don't
you ever go to other newsgroups with an opposing view just to see what
they are saying? When you get there and see something that you don't
believe in or agree with, do you just say, "Oh yeah"? If so, why
bother getting into a newsgroup at all?
This is my opinion, if you agree with it, just say, "Oh yeah", and
have a good day. If not, then your view is welcome. Just try not to
attack a person, but the position.
J Jackson
Gary S. Turk (dadd...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Check out this quote! " To suppose that the eye could have been
: formed by natural selection, seems I freely confess, absurd in the
: highest degree." This is considering that the human eye has 40,000,000
: nerve endings, the focusing muscles move over 100,000 times per day,
: and a single retina contains 137,000,000 light sensitive cells. You
: must agree that the possibility of this just happening by chance, as
: evolution would suggest, is ridiculous. Oh, the quotation is from
: Charles Darwin.
check this out then.
What's the chances of throwing 12 die (dice) and getting all sixes?
How many times on average would you have to throw those die (dice)
to get all sixes? A very great deal - you wouldn't live long enough.
This is analogous to getting a human eye by chance.
How throw the 12 die (dice) - leave those that are 6 and simply throw the
ones that aren't as six. Repeat. How long before you have all sixes?
A DARN SIGHT quicker, you might be able to do it in several minutes as
opposed to several life times.
This is analogous to getting a human eye by natural selection.
The former is pretty near impossible - the latter is possible.
I hope you now understand a little more.
Jim
Massimo Pigliucci
OK,
first of all Gary's idea of the evolution of the human eye is simply
wrong. Darwinian Evolution _is not_ a random process. It is made of two
parts: the creation of variability by mutation and recombination (this
_is_ random), and the selection of the most fit variants by natural
selection (this _is by no means_ random).
Please, I don't want to bring personal attacks, but at least try to
understand what a theory actually says before criticizing it. The burden
of educating themselves is on whomever challenges an accepted view...
> > Now they've discovered *this* newsgroup! Well at least they seem
> >to have abandoned b.molbio.evol for the time being.
>
> Who are they? What is the purpose of a newsgroup if not to argue
> about views and theories?
The purpose of a newsgroup is to discuss. BUT, to discuss the topic that
that newsgroup has set as its realm of interest. In this case,
population biology, NOT creation vs. evolution. There are plenty of
other newgroups devoted to this topic, starting with talk.origins and
sci.evolution.
Thanks,
Massimo Pigliucci
(Assistant Professor)
--
*************************************
Massimo Pigliucci
Dept. of Botany, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-1100
phone 423-974-6221 fax 0978
LAB PAGE http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/pgl/mphome.html
SCIENCE & SOCIETY http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/pgl/s&s/s&s.html
'To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.'
Woody Allen, from "Stardust memories"
Mike Pearson
At 12:28 PM 2/6/97 +0000, JJackson wrote:
>Now throw the 12 die (dice) - leave those that are 6 and simply throw the
>ones that aren't as six. Repeat. How long before you have all sixes?
>A DARN SIGHT quicker...
>This is analogous to getting a human eye by natural selection.
>Jim
I like that description...very good start.
Many who oppose evolution have seen it misapplied to human
affairs, where people were tossed out like dice.
In Humanist magazine, around January 1996, a writer made the
point that the process looks intelligent only because we don't see
the waste and the tedious prolonged cruelty. A team of today's
genetic engineers wouldn't waste *120 million years* on big,
lumbering saw-toothed lizards chowing down on
walnut-brained herbivores. etc. etc. etc. etc.(examples abound)
However, are? human beings are knowledgeable enough to make
wholesale judgements which traits humanity should have in future,
except by choosing our own mates? Yet humans _are_ choosing
and will in a few generations have completed the fastest, most
complete job of re-landscaping (and repopulation) the planet has
ever experienced as far as we know...with planning taking second priority.
Does anyone here deny this future is likely?
Any suggestions what to do, from a biological standpoint?
What part does the loyal, ignorant opposition play in that?
What are some better questions?
Mike
http://www.ellensburg.com/~digress/
John Robinson
Rebecca Steele wrote:
>
> Prove to me that a "supreme being" created that mountain. I can prove
> to you that dinosaurs were here, I can also prove to you that by > simple erosion that mountains can be made.
I think you're experiencing a difference in language here: how can you
'prove' that dinosaurs were here? I actually agree with you, but the
fact that fossilized bones can be found doesn't 'prove' anything beyond
that the fossils exist. It is my belief that they are the relics of
animals that lived and died more than 65 mill. yrs. ago, based on
current scientific knowledge. On the other hand, there is no way that I
know of to 'prove' that they were not created in place 2 or 3 thousand
years ago (or whatever time period has been calculated for the creation
of the world)(or even a couple hours ago, for that matter). Presumably
an omnipotent God would be able to do that. As for mountains (and this
is just a quibble) erosion reduces them, but I'm not aware of any way in
which erosion could create one (although of course I am no geologist).
The core here is that, in my opinion, he is just as able to 'prove' his
point as you are. Depending on your assumptions about the world, the
same facts may support quite different conclusions. Arguments based on
logic, therefore, are rather a waste of time and effort.
In other words, keep cool; don't get so worked up about it, since you're
not likely to change anyone's mind about religion by appealing to
reason.
Soothingly Yours,
JR
Greg Harrington
> However, are? human beings are knowledgeable enough to make
> wholesale judgements which traits humanity should have in future,
> except by choosing our own mates? Yet humans _are_ choosing
> and will in a few generations have completed the fastest, most
> complete job of re-landscaping (and repopulation) the planet has
> ever experienced as far as we know...with planning taking second priority.
Faster reshapings have presumably happened before (collisions with
other bodies).
> Does anyone here deny this future is likely?
Extremely likely
> Any suggestions what to do, from a biological standpoint?
> What part does the loyal, ignorant opposition play in that?
Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
> What are some better questions?
?
One thing many people seem to forget in discussion about
evolution/environmental changes is that we humans are a part of the
theory. We are just another creature in the big picture of planet earth.
The changes we bring to the planet are just evolution at work. Who knows
perhaps in our efforts to change the world we'll kill ourselves off and
some other species will have a go at champion status.
David Pollock
Greg Harrington wrote:
" One thing many people seem to forget in discussion about
evolution/environmental changes is that we humans are a part of the
theory. We are just another creature in the big picture of planet
earth.
The changes we bring to the planet are just evolution at work. Who
knows
perhaps in our efforts to change the world we'll kill ourselves off and
some other species will have a go at champion status. "
This makes about as much sense as claiming that mountain climbers shouldn't
worry about falling off of cliffs because it's all part of the theory of
gravity.
Darwinian evolutionary theory and social planning have never been a
particularly comfortable mix.
--
David D. Pollock
Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
National Institute for Medical Research
The Ridgeway, Mill Hill, London, NW7 1AA U.K.
d-po...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk
http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/~mathbio/d-polloc/
0181-959-3666 ext. 2396 (+44-181-959-3666)
Fax: 0181-913-8545
Massimo Pigliucci
I'd like to make a couple of remarks on the exchange between John and
Rebecca (although I also have to point out once more that this isn't
exactly the appropriate group for creation-evolution debates...)
> Rebecca Steele wrote:
> >
> > Prove to me that a "supreme being" created that mountain. I can prove
> > to you that dinosaurs were here, I can also prove to you that by > simple erosion that mountains can be made.
>there is no way that I
> know of to 'prove' that they were not created in place 2 or 3 thousand
> years ago (or whatever time period has been calculated for the creation
> of the world)(or even a couple hours ago, for that matter).
Actually, the belief that the dinosaurs were created in place a few
thousands here ago can easily be disproven by several independent pieces
of evidence (geologic stratigraphy and radio-dating, for example). True,
technically nobody can "prove" anything. But we can disprove things
(Popper called it "falsification").
>Presumably
> an omnipotent God would be able to do that.
Yes, but would anybody - including Christians - really be satisfied with
a God that created the whole world just to poke fun at us? If that's
heaven, I'd rather look the other way...
>As for mountains (and this
> is just a quibble) erosion reduces them, but I'm not aware of any way in
> which erosion could create one (although of course I am no geologist).
No, erosion cannot create mountains. Tectonic movements can and do,
however. And again, the evidence in favor is overwhelming.
>Arguments based on
> logic, therefore, are rather a waste of time and effort.
That is correct as far as zealots go. But a lot more people than you
think are actually reasonable, doubts can be instilled in their minds.
Most often, people simply haven't thought about things, and a reasoned
and calm help can do... miracles!
cheers,
Massimo
--
*******************************************************
Massimo Pigliucci, phone 423-974-6221 fax 0978
Dept. of Botany, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996-1100
Lab page http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/pgl/mphome.html
Science & Society http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/pgl/s&s/s&s.html
Darwin Day http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/darwin/root.html
'To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.'
Woody Allen, from "Stardust memories"
*******************************************************
dadd...@gmail.com
> OK,
>
> first of all Gary's idea of the evolution of the human eye is simply
> wrong. Darwinian Evolution _is not_ a random process. It is made of two
> parts: the creation of variability by mutation and recombination (this
> _is_ random), and the selection of the most fit variants by natural
> selection (this _is by no means_ random).
>
> Please, I don't want to bring personal attacks, but at least try to
> understand what a theory actually says before criticizing it. The burden
> of educating themselves is on whomever challenges an accepted view...
>
> > > Now they've discovered *this* newsgroup! Well at least they seem
> > >to have abandoned b.molbio.evol for the time being.
> >
> > Who are they? What is the purpose of a newsgroup if not to argue
> > about views and theories?
>
> The purpose of a newsgroup is to discuss. BUT, to discuss the topic that
> that newsgroup has set as its realm of interest. In this case,
> population biology, NOT creation vs. evolution. There are plenty of
> other newgroups devoted to this topic, starting with talk.origins and
> sci.evolution.
>
> Thanks,
> Massimo Pigliucci
> (Assistant Professor)
>
> wrong." I wish I had noticed this before, because I would have liked o point out again for you Dr. M. that the quote was Darwin's and not mine, as I had said. So you began your argument under the assumption that I had said the whole human eye thing was my idea. So again, I want to point out, Charles Darwin was the originator of the argument, not me. See you again in 16 years Godwilling, or in some cases, by pure chance.
>
> --
> *************************************
> Massimo Pigliucci
>
> LAB PAGE http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/pgl/mphome.html
> SCIENCE & SOCIETY http://www.bio.utk.edu/botany/pgl/s&s/s&s.html
>