Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Jul 2002 21:04:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5722 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > > The Ceolacanth currently existing doesn't disprove evolution in any way.
> > > Why would you say that?
> >
> > 'cause the very word 'evolution' infers change. Things don't change, which
> > is contrary to the very concept of evolution. If we were to take the base
> > principles of evolution, that things must change, or adapt, as the world
> > changes--but wait--here's a fish that was supposedly extinct for millions of
> > years swimming around. 'But', the evolutionists say, 'mayhaps some fishes
> > stayed the same and others underwnent the change'. Well, that contradicts
> > the evolutionary process, 'cause if change happens because it *has* to
> > happen, and one thing didn't change, then none of the others would have had
> > to change, either.
>
> False. Evolution describes the changes to fit the environment (simplifying
> greatly). If the Ceolacanth evolved to the point *where it succeeded in its'
> environment*, it doesn't necessarily have to change any more to fit Evolutionary
> Theory. Just because its' environment MAY have shrunk over time to a very small
> area, so that they are only found in small geographic pockets, does not mean it MUST
> further change or cease to exist.
In fact, the coelecanth *has* undergone further change. Genus
Latimera is unknown in the fossil record; it is *a* coelecanth,
but there are many, many types. A few of the changes that have
happened to the coelecanth since the end of the Cretaceous:
-Cartilagization of major skeletal elements
-redevelopment of the "lung" apparatus into a fat reservoir (it
can't "breathe," for example)
-Change in cranial arrangement for new encephalic structures
(balance organ for the amazing coelecanth headstand, IIRC--
something that is unique to them)
But Tom's essentially right. Cockroaches and sharks haven't
changed fundamentally in hundreds of millions of years because
they've mastered their environments. There is no other animal
able to challenge them in their niche, and they are ideally
adapted and have radiated far and wide. Now, in theory, if
a massive catastrophe occurred that could change--but given
what we know about roaches and sharks and their varieties, it's
not likely (and it hasn't been for hundreds of millions of years).
The coelecanth became ideally adapted for its environment with
minor changes--a triumph of adaptation. Don't mistake the
persistence of certain recognizable features with arrested
development (and certainly not as a "disproof of evolution").
If you think it somehow runs counter to evolution, you really
don't understand how science works. Evolutionary theory stems
from all examples; the examples are not expected to stem from
the theory.
> The Ceolacanth existing today does not prove or disprove Evolutionary Theory. IF
> its' environment had been absolutely and completely wiped out and it still existed,
> it would be a dent in ET, but since we don't know WHAT its' original environment is
> like, we can't state with finality that it IS or IS NOT in its' evolutionary
> environment.
And, of course, while a creature occupies that niche, no less-well-
adapted organism can really challenge it and force adaptation. That's
why apes are not constantly evolving into sapient species; once humans
are gone (or if humans are radically restricted in their range in some
future date) such a development can happen again.
> > > Opinions are fine, just don't make the mistake of calling them science.
> >
> > And don't make the mistake of saying that evolution is science. Science is
> > based on what can be shown today--evolution happened a long time ago.
>
> You make it sound like it happened and then just stopped. You obviously have no true
> understanding of Evolutionary Theory if you think this.
David's repeating a common fallacy: Evolution is not science
because it's not repeatable in the laboratory. That requires
some fancy footwork with the definitions. Check this out:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
That should point out the flaw in David's reasoning.
> > > > Just because something cannot be measured, quantified, and placed
> > > > in a proper place in the periodic table, does that negate the importance of it?
> > >
> > > No, just don't confuse it with science. Don't try to teach it as science.
> >
> >
> > And don't try to teach evolution as science.
>
> I still think you have no concept of what science is, but I'll let others try to
> explain it (yet again and AGAIN) more clearly.
Succinct but agreed.
> > It is my opinion, true. Just as it is my opinion that evolution has less to
> > do with science as it does in forcing a theory of why God doesn't exist on
> > the public masses.
>
> Yet again proving you don't seem to grasp the idea of science.
Or evolution. Evolution says nothing about Gods or souls. It's the
religious who seem to be hell-bent (no pun intended) on inserting
that intention; not even the Catholic or mainstream-Protestant
churches deny the fact of evolution. (Yes, *fact*.)
> Evolutionary Theory can still fit within religion. It simply describes the
> adaptation of species. What, exactly, in that, denies religion or God?
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html , which is pretty
well-written.
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) False. Evolution describes the changes to fit the environment (simplifying greatly). If the Ceolacanth evolved to the point *where it succeeded in its' environment*, it doesn't necessarily have to change any more to fit Evolutionary Theory. (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
