Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 03:35:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
275 times
|
| |
|
|
Hi,
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> If cats really evolved from dogs (my example - feel
> free to adjust it to fit the theoretical "tree of life") slowly and gradually
> over millions of years, then there should be more "transition" fossils than
> the species fossils themselves, right? Where are they?
If you think of the number of animals that have existed over the previous X
million years, and the small fraction of these whose remains have survived to
exist as fossils, and the smaller fraction of these which actually have been
found and then identified; then it's not suprising that there are gaps in any
"tree of life".
Studies into Artificial Life have shown that Darwinian evolution can work by
having relatively large periods of inactivity, with small periods of genetic
recombination.
Which (admittedly convieniently) explains why there aren't many transition
fossils; but then you can set up an ALife experiment on your computer which
demonstrates Darwinian Evolution in action.
Even if you accept the premise that a computer experiment can tell you
something about the real world, that Darwinian Evolution can (at least) affect
a species, albeit in a slight way; then that still doesn't mean that a creator
isn't directing it :-)
> If I say "The fossil record does not support evolution" and you say
> "Yes it does." - that isn't a refutation. I'm expecting you to attempt
> to provide evidence to show how a fossil of a cat and a fossil of a dog
> someone "prove" that one evolved into the other.
It's like asking a Christian to prove whether Jesus was white or black, there
is no way to "prove" it either way. We are forced to use what evidence and
logic we have at our disposal to come up with the most probable answer.
On the other hand - the statement "the fossil record does not disprove
evolution", is compatible with the belief that "the fossil record does not
prove evolution".
> I've seen/read plenty of theory - I've yet to see any solid evidence.
I don't think we'll find "solid evidence", it's a matter of faith :-)
I've seen Darwin's theories applied to a computer simulation, and satisfied
myself that they can create evolution on a computer. I *believe* the theory is
sound and can be applied to any form of interaction which involves
reproduction/survival, be it animals, self-rewriting computer programs, .com's,
or ideas (memes - Dawkins).
I can dig up some references which show Darwin Evolution working in a computer
simulation, if you are interested?
> Sure - I never said I could prove creationism. I said I expect
> (collective) you to admit that Darwinism is no more scientific or
> proven than is Creationism.
I can apply Darwin theory at its most basic level "survival of the fittest",
and it produces results, in simulation, which resemble physical models which we
have observed on Earth. And on the macro-level, evolution.
> I challenge you to show me ANY scientific evidence supporting the
> current theory of evolution of species.
I don't think we can do this 'in the real world' - the vital evidence has
crumbled to dust.
> I invite you to start with "my"
> first point against Darwinism that none of its supporters has yet been
> able to successfully refute - The fossil record does not support evolution.
We honestly don't know enough (IMHO) to make that statement. But I will happily
agree that it doesn't prove evolution.
I don't understand the Darwin/Creationism conflict. The more I study evolution,
the more in awe I am of it. It's a beautifily simple, yet immensely powerful
force. If I were a diety, I would be incredibly proud of it.
If someone where to tell me that "God created evolution as Darwin later
described", then I wouldn't have a problem with that - evolution is the most
fascinating field of study that I have found.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) I just do not see it that way, except to the level of having faith in the basic evidence of one's senses, in the chain of verifiabillty (I am reasonably certain that Brazil exists based on verifiability), and in the prowess of logic. No theory (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) And the improvements often come in big jumps -- or lots of little jumps. It happens when a gene successfully strays away from the local maxima that it's been stuck on and climbs to a new local maxima. In n-dimensional space, there are very few (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Franks writes: Some more thoughts: (...) Here's another "convenient" explanation. Life consists of the most successful organisms as constrained by environment and history. Obviously some organisms are very (...) (23 years ago, 31-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| (...) Ad infinitum? No I won't. The only links I've heard of have been faked. The recent reptile/bird fake that made the cover? of National Geographic being a great example. If cats really evolved from dogs (my example - feel free to adjust it to (...) (23 years ago, 30-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
95 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
