Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 04:56:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
405 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Franks writes:
Some more thoughts:
> > 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.
Here's another "convenient" explanation. Life consists of the most successful
organisms as constrained by environment and history. Obviously some organisms
are very successful under a wide range of conditions: cycads, sharks and
cockroaches come to mind. Those that are less successful are likely to die out,
or if they're really lucky evolve into something more successful. If you're not
the best, change or die. One way of solving this is to become better at the same
thing as your competitors (the Toyota solution). Another way is to become better
at a totally new thing (the Nintendo solution). So if there's a pathway to
optimising or innovating, it will be found quickly, which is why eyes and wings
are a lot more popular than light sensitive nerves and gliding membranes.
(This is a version of Todd's n-space explanation, applied to the sum(product?)
of the gene and environment spaces: Toyota=top of the hill, Nintendo=new hill)
> > 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.
Except of course for the vital evidence of DNA similarity, which shows for
example that humans are essentially chimps with arrested development.
> > 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.
See my argument here: http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=9028
> 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.
I'd also be peeved with upstarts who refused to admire my creation in all its
glory, <blatant troll> preferring to idolise a Jew with some good ideas <blatant
troll>.
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Darwin's theory
|
| Hi, (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 31-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
|
|
|
|
