Is Evolution The Same as Scientology???

[orogenicman]

 

[Hollie]

Sorry you were unable to understand the issue.....really, it's quite simple: the evidence that is needed to support Darwin's theory, in reverence to the Cambrian Explosion is AWOL.

There is no denying that, other than outright lying.

Therefore, the question remains.....is there some other explanation?


Get it?

Being as clueless as you are to even the most basic precepts of the many sciences that support evolutionary biology makes you a poor candidate for any critique.

You are capable only of cutting and pasting from extremist websites. Why would you think that your cutting and pasting of phony, edited and parsed "quotes" would be taken seriously?

So.....were are the requite fossils of trilobites and brachiopods?

If you limit your science education to cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you're always going to be ignorant of the relevant sciences.

The Cambrian Period

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hey, now.....just watch it!

If you keep this up, I may lose my fav piñata , Hollie.




Your post was brilliant!

Obviously you are one of the few that understands the issue.

Thanks. Florence Nightingale did not believe in Germ Theory. But she believed in cleanliness. I found it fascinating to learn that. Scientists across the ages have been persecuted and killed over their research. So, I'm just flabbergasted how quickly and easily modern day people will go from 'maybe it was this way' to 'it was likely this way' to 'it WAS this way' on nothing but somebody's say so. If the scientific community has become complacent and lazy we are as much to blame as they are for not challenging them as we should be. Right now, the theories I find most fascinating are the Ancient Alien theories, and the theory that the Knights Templar made it to America and brought the bloodline of the Holy Grail, where the secret is guarded by modern day Freemasons. But, though fascinating, they both have holes in them. The Ancient Alien theorists do not allow for the possibility of there being a previous advanced civilization and the Templar theory does not allow for the fact that one does not have to be a Christian to be a Freemason, so other religions would not be much interested in the Holy Grail. A theory is a theory is a theory until it is proven fact. And neither Darwinism NOR Scientology have been proven.

I think it more important to understand the terms we use. "Darwiinism" is not a theory. "Darwinism" is a term typically used on religious extremist websites as a term, let's say, "less than endearing" toward science.
On the other hand, Charles Darwin proposed a theory for common descent with modification.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather what he did was to take all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time who were by and large creationists) and attempted to explain them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural agents).

In this particular case it was well known to geologists & paleontologists (again almost all of them creationists) long before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record the more different the animals represented were from those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.

Neither the pattern of the fossil record or the existence of intermediate fossil forms was considered controversial amongst the scientists of the time; they simply worked these facts into their creationist framework (mostly through forms of old earth progressive creationism). Darwin came up with an alternative explanation for these facts that did not rely on the supernatural. So the question is not what do intermediate forms in the fossil record (or the pattern of the fossil record) "prove", but rather how do we explain the existence of intermediate forms in the fossil record (and the pattern of fossil record)

The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.

If you're going to suggest that evolution as a theory and an observed fact is "just a theory", you're going to have to explain that to the relevant science community which disagrees with you.

1. "Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air"

Now, isn't that exactly what I said....here:

"Now, before you come to conclude that the above by Darwin was sheer genius.....be aware of the fact that he was inspired by what farmers and breeders had done for time immemorial, known as 'artificial selection,' or 'selective breeding,' in which breeders would alter the features of domestic animals by only allowing animals with certain traits to breed.

So...Darwin was basing his theory on the intelligent selection by human breeders. Darwin's theory imbued nature with the mechanism that involved intelligence....but he, and his acolytes, simply denied that there was any intelligence behind what nature did."


I knew you'd learn something from my posts!




2. " ...attempted to explain them in what today we would consider a scientific manner..."
Too bad he couldn't come up with proof, huh?

Sounds a lot theology.
But, then, 'evolution' is your religion, isn't it?


3. "Neither the pattern of the fossil record or the existence of intermediate fossil forms was considered controversial amongst the scientists of the time;"

That's a fib.

Have you read Louis Agassiz? Murchison? Sedgewick?

Didn't think so.

a. "Darwin did not win over most of his contemporaries. His theory was accepted by only a handful of scientists for a good three-quarters of a century, and then only after Mendelian genetics had provided a clear understanding of heredity. The majority of Darwin's contemporaries came to agree that some form of evolution or development had occurred, but they championed other mechanisms and causes to explain the process. Generally they insisted either that God was directing the process or that it was propelled forward by some internal directing force." (From one of Pearcey's books)

4. "Darwin came up with an alternative explanation for these facts that did not rely on the supernatural."
I believe you've just given me an idea for an OP.



5. "If you're going to suggest that evolution as a theory and an observed fact is "just a theory", you're going to have to explain that to the relevant science community which disagrees with you."

It is so darn easy to whip you.....

a. the·o·ry
ˈTHēərēˈTHi(&#601rēSubmit
noun
1.a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"

Look at the example they give!! Is that funny or what?

You've got a bit of egg on your face.


b. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


c. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


Uh, oh!
Did I just give you the vapors???

 

[PoliticalChic]

Being as clueless as you are to even the most basic precepts of the many sciences that support evolutionary biology makes you a poor candidate for any critique.

You are capable only of cutting and pasting from extremist websites. Why would you think that your cutting and pasting of phony, edited and parsed "quotes" would be taken seriously?

So.....were are the requite fossils of trilobites and brachiopods?

If you limit your science education to cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you're always going to be ignorant of the relevant sciences.

The Cambrian Period

Did you know that the Cambrian is often called 'the age of the trilobites'?

No?

If you guide your views through hate, you'll always be ignorant.




Don't get your hopes up....you'll still always be ignorant.

 

[Hollie]

So.....were are the requite fossils of trilobites and brachiopods?

If you limit your science education to cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you're always going to be ignorant of the relevant sciences.

The Cambrian Period

Did you know that the Cambrian is often called 'the age of the trilobites'?

No?

If you guide your views through hate, you'll always be ignorant.




Don't get your hopes up....you'll still always be ignorant.

Did you know that your ignorance regarding the science of evolution has been demostrated in rather dramatic fashion?


Too bad a handy "quote" from Harun Yahya is not going to save you from your wilfull ignorance.


I'd suggest you take some elementary grade school courses in biology and earth sciences. If you're going to flail your pom poms in the promotion of fear and ignorance, you will continye to be the object of ridicule

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you limit your science education to cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya, you're always going to be ignorant of the relevant sciences.

The Cambrian Period

Did you know that the Cambrian is often called 'the age of the trilobites'?

No?

If you guide your views through hate, you'll always be ignorant.




Don't get your hopes up....you'll still always be ignorant.

Did you know that your ignorance regarding the science of evolution has been demostrated in rather dramatic fashion?


Too bad a handy "quote" from Harun Yahya is not going to save you from your wilfull ignorance.


I'd suggest you take some elementary grade school courses in biology and earth sciences. If you're going to flail your pom poms in the promotion of fear and ignorance, you will continye to be the object of ridicule

Simple query for your simple mind:

If you were telling the truth, you should be able to show the transitional fossils leading to the key organisms of the Cambrian....you know, the same two I've demanded a dozen times.


I say they don't exist.


You say the opposite.....


So? Why have you lied and bloviated and change the subject?
Cause you're a lying wind bag?

Just produce what you say you have.




Waiting.

 

[orogenicman]

Hey PC, did you ever find that Cambrian aged bunny rabbit?

I must say that your response #43 has to be the most idiotic response I've ever seen anyone post. Congratulations.

Dean H. Kenyon - is a friggin creationist. What the hell did you expect him to say? By the way, you guys lost both of those court cases, something you neglected to point out.

 

[Toro]

science > religion

 

[Hollie]

Thanks. Florence Nightingale did not believe in Germ Theory. But she believed in cleanliness. I found it fascinating to learn that. Scientists across the ages have been persecuted and killed over their research. So, I'm just flabbergasted how quickly and easily modern day people will go from 'maybe it was this way' to 'it was likely this way' to 'it WAS this way' on nothing but somebody's say so. If the scientific community has become complacent and lazy we are as much to blame as they are for not challenging them as we should be. Right now, the theories I find most fascinating are the Ancient Alien theories, and the theory that the Knights Templar made it to America and brought the bloodline of the Holy Grail, where the secret is guarded by modern day Freemasons. But, though fascinating, they both have holes in them. The Ancient Alien theorists do not allow for the possibility of there being a previous advanced civilization and the Templar theory does not allow for the fact that one does not have to be a Christian to be a Freemason, so other religions would not be much interested in the Holy Grail. A theory is a theory is a theory until it is proven fact. And neither Darwinism NOR Scientology have been proven.

I think it more important to understand the terms we use. "Darwiinism" is not a theory. "Darwinism" is a term typically used on religious extremist websites as a term, let's say, "less than endearing" toward science.
On the other hand, Charles Darwin proposed a theory for common descent with modification.

Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air which he later searched for ways of proving. That is not how it happened. Rather what he did was to take all the then known facts/observations (gathered by other scientists of the time who were by and large creationists) and attempted to explain them in what today we would consider a scientific manner (a manner that was testable, not appealing to supernatural agents).

In this particular case it was well known to geologists & paleontologists (again almost all of them creationists) long before Darwin wrote the Origin of Species that there was a pattern of change in the fossil record; the farther back one went in the record the more different the animals represented were from those alive today. It was also well known that there were fossils of animals that appeared to be intermediate in form between both various fossil groups and fossil and living groups.

Neither the pattern of the fossil record or the existence of intermediate fossil forms was considered controversial amongst the scientists of the time; they simply worked these facts into their creationist framework (mostly through forms of old earth progressive creationism). Darwin came up with an alternative explanation for these facts that did not rely on the supernatural. So the question is not what do intermediate forms in the fossil record (or the pattern of the fossil record) "prove", but rather how do we explain the existence of intermediate forms in the fossil record (and the pattern of fossil record)

The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile.

If you're going to suggest that evolution as a theory and an observed fact is "just a theory", you're going to have to explain that to the relevant science community which disagrees with you.

1. "Evolution (common descent with modification) was not some idea that Darwin came up with out of thin air"

Now, isn't that exactly what I said....here:

"Now, before you come to conclude that the above by Darwin was sheer genius.....be aware of the fact that he was inspired by what farmers and breeders had done for time immemorial, known as 'artificial selection,' or 'selective breeding,' in which breeders would alter the features of domestic animals by only allowing animals with certain traits to breed.

So...Darwin was basing his theory on the intelligent selection by human breeders. Darwin's theory imbued nature with the mechanism that involved intelligence....but he, and his acolytes, simply denied that there was any intelligence behind what nature did."


I knew you'd learn something from my posts!




2. " ...attempted to explain them in what today we would consider a scientific manner..."
Too bad he couldn't come up with proof, huh?

Sounds a lot theology.
But, then, 'evolution' is your religion, isn't it?


3. "Neither the pattern of the fossil record or the existence of intermediate fossil forms was considered controversial amongst the scientists of the time;"

That's a fib.

Have you read Louis Agassiz? Murchison? Sedgewick?

Didn't think so.

a. "Darwin did not win over most of his contemporaries. His theory was accepted by only a handful of scientists for a good three-quarters of a century, and then only after Mendelian genetics had provided a clear understanding of heredity. The majority of Darwin's contemporaries came to agree that some form of evolution or development had occurred, but they championed other mechanisms and causes to explain the process. Generally they insisted either that God was directing the process or that it was propelled forward by some internal directing force." (From one of Pearcey's books)

4. "Darwin came up with an alternative explanation for these facts that did not rely on the supernatural."
I believe you've just given me an idea for an OP.



5. "If you're going to suggest that evolution as a theory and an observed fact is "just a theory", you're going to have to explain that to the relevant science community which disagrees with you."

It is so darn easy to whip you.....

a. the·o·ry
ˈTHēərēˈTHi(&#601rēSubmit
noun
1.a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution"

Look at the example they give!! Is that funny or what?

You've got a bit of egg on your face.


b. "And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.


c. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210


Uh, oh!
Did I just give you the vapors???

1. Well let's be honest, you didn't "say" anything. Your comment was boilerplate creationist appeals to supernaturalism. Your attempts to re-write Darwin's theory by introducing your religious fundamentalist views is laughable. Darwin's theory of evolution makes appeals to gods.


I'm pleased that I had this opportunity to correct your nonsensical claims and help you understand your errors are of lack of knowledge.




2. As with many religious extremists, you have difficulty separating what you read on fundamentalist websites with documented science. You should familiarize yourself with the concept of "knowledge". While epistemology is a fascinating study, nevertheless, you should educate yourself regarding the concept of knowledge. That’s why I clearly delineate the distinction between knowledge and faith. Faith cannot be used as a tool to access knowledge. Faith-based assertions carry validity (sic) not because there is any criteria to support the assertions, but because a group of people deem it so, and by definition, faith asks that one does not question validity.

An impossible dilemma-- the extremist cannot make an appeal to knowledge,since knowledge depends on reason for its existence. The first thing we must understand is that faith is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no mechanisms to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith,there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the Hindu gods or the gods of Harun Yahya you quote-mine ruthlessly from.



3. Ever read Alfred Wallace? He pioneered much of what Darwin later compiled into Origin of Species. Your prayer leader at the Harun Yahya madrassah was likely not real rigorous with science history lessons.



4. What point is served by opening yet another thread of creationist nonsense?



5. Lacking a science vocabulary, I can understand your difficulty in defining a "theory" as it applies to scientific investigation.

One of the failures of religious extremists is their really ugly ignorance of even the most basic principles of science theory.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

"Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I supose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."


I'm afraid that the Dean Kenyon "quote" is one that the extremist, PC, has dumped into several threads.

Fortunately, Kenyon was drummed out of the courts as so many creationist hacks attempting to force their religion into the public schools.

Edwards v. Aguillard: Dean Kenyon's Affidavit



There is no requirement for faith in the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different.



Another of the failings of religious extremists is their willingness to "quote-mine" from fundie websites. As we see with regularity, the "quotes" are often outright fraudulent or heavily edited, parsed or out of context.

It is a shame that extremists feel a need to lie and deceive to press their religious agenda but absent lies, fundies have no other means to promote their fears and superstitions.

Knowledge certainly does not always entail “belief”. “Belief” suggests, but does not always require the acceptance of some supernatural entity or causation. We clearly have no knowledge of the supernatural. As the extremist would present it, belief and faith are interchangeable. I present that they are not. All beliefs are not equally valid. People may be equally free to embrace any belief they wish to, but doing so in no way lends any validity to some beliefs over other beliefs. There are valid beliefs which conform to the strictures of knowledge (empirical evidence, consistency,adherence to logic, repeatable results, falsifiable) and those that are assertions without benefit of any standards (i.e., theistic claims of all stripes, each devoid of any real evidence.)



Uh oh. Did my carma just run over your dogma?

 

[Kimura]

science > religion

Pretty much. The Cambrian "explosion" really doesn't pose a challenge to evolution. The fossil record is notoriously imperfect, so I don't understand why creationists froth-at-the-mouth over this. There's a whole cottage industry of scientific illiterates that have made a living out of misquoting Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, etc. I really hate having to comment on such a topic.

 

[Hollie]

Did you know that the Cambrian is often called 'the age of the trilobites'?

No?

If you guide your views through hate, you'll always be ignorant.




Don't get your hopes up....you'll still always be ignorant.

Did you know that your ignorance regarding the science of evolution has been demostrated in rather dramatic fashion?


Too bad a handy "quote" from Harun Yahya is not going to save you from your wilfull ignorance.


I'd suggest you take some elementary grade school courses in biology and earth sciences. If you're going to flail your pom poms in the promotion of fear and ignorance, you will continye to be the object of ridicule

Simple query for your simple mind:

If you were telling the truth, you should be able to show the transitional fossils leading to the key organisms of the Cambrian....you know, the same two I've demanded a dozen times.


I say they don't exist.


You say the opposite.....


So? Why have you lied and bloviated and change the subject?
Cause you're a lying wind bag?

Just produce what you say you have.




Waiting.

My, but you are the stereotypical "angry fundamentalist".



That you're unable to reconcile science, evolution and an ancient earth with your fundie beliefs is an issue you need to resolve.



If the data provided to you causes you such angst, learn to cope.



Review the data supplied to you and let me know what you're forever befuddled about.



Waiting patiently.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did you know that your ignorance regarding the science of evolution has been demostrated in rather dramatic fashion?


Too bad a handy "quote" from Harun Yahya is not going to save you from your wilfull ignorance.


I'd suggest you take some elementary grade school courses in biology and earth sciences. If you're going to flail your pom poms in the promotion of fear and ignorance, you will continye to be the object of ridicule

Simple query for your simple mind:

If you were telling the truth, you should be able to show the transitional fossils leading to the key organisms of the Cambrian....you know, the same two I've demanded a dozen times.


I say they don't exist.


You say the opposite.....


So? Why have you lied and bloviated and change the subject?
Cause you're a lying wind bag?

Just produce what you say you have.




Waiting.

My, but you are the stereotypical "angry fundamentalist".



That you're unable to reconcile science, evolution and an ancient earth with your fundie beliefs is an issue you need to resolve.



If the data provided to you causes you such angst, learn to cope.



Review the data supplied to you and let me know what you're forever befuddled about.



Waiting patiently.

Must be a reason why you change the subject every time I ask for proof....

...hmmmm...what could that be?

 

[PoliticalChic]

science > religion

Pretty much. The Cambrian "explosion" really doesn't pose a challenge to evolution. The fossil record is notoriously imperfect, so I don't understand why creationists froth-at-the-mouth over this. There's a whole cottage industry of scientific illiterates that have made a living out of misquoting Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, etc. I really hate having to comment on such a topic.

We have a winner in the category of 'Unintentional Humor'!!


Here it is:

"The Cambrian "explosion" really doesn't pose a challenge to evolution. The fossil record is notoriously imperfect,.."


In a thread loaded with comments by the clueless.....you may be the winner of the 'Honorable Mention' award.

Hollie is perennial 1st place winner.


But YOU!

The proof of Darwin's contention doesn't exist.....and you explain that that "really doesn't pose a challenge."


Please don't tell me that you wasted money on an education.

 

[rdean]

Traditional Religious "thought" is "don't think, memorize, repeat and believe".

 

[Kimura]

science > religion

Pretty much. The Cambrian "explosion" really doesn't pose a challenge to evolution. The fossil record is notoriously imperfect, so I don't understand why creationists froth-at-the-mouth over this. There's a whole cottage industry of scientific illiterates that have made a living out of misquoting Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, etc. I really hate having to comment on such a topic.

We have a winner in the category of 'Unintentional Humor'!!


Here it is:

"The Cambrian "explosion" really doesn't pose a challenge to evolution. The fossil record is notoriously imperfect,.."


In a thread loaded with comments by the clueless.....you may be the winner of the 'Honorable Mention' award.

Hollie is perennial 1st place winner.


But YOU!

The proof of Darwin's contention doesn't exist.....and you explain that that "really doesn't pose a challenge."


Please don't tell me that you wasted money on an education.

LOL.

The Cambrian explosion is what scientists call the first thirty million years of the Cambrian Period.

A good portion of plants and animals aren't found in the fossil record until after the Cambrian explosion. We're talking well over 400 million years for fish and land-based plants; mammals showed up around 250 million years ago. We had reptiles at around 340 million years ago, with various plants at around 200 million years ago. Team People (our ancestors) didn't show up until around 5 million years ago. There's no evidence to support instantaneously created species that popped up at the same exact time.

If you believe that this somehow demonstrates there is a god, he apparently had ADHD, since he repeatedly destroyed all of his creations and then created new ones which resembled those species he previously destroyed.

You could solve most of your logical fallacies with a library card and 50 bucks in late fees.

 

[Tuatara]

I'd like to know what [MENTION=44662]orogenicman[/MENTION] thinks about this.

He knows a lot about science.

Wow, have you misjudged him!

Yet you couldn't counter him on most of his arguments. Post #12 for example.

 

[Hollie]

c. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 21

The above "quote" is worth reviewing as it typifies the fraudulent, sleazy and dishonest tactics that represent the lies of religious extremists.

The "quote" was immediately familiar as one cut and pasted by creationist hacks.


Quote #2.7

Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes




[Re: Evolution is a faith not based on evidence]

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.

Representative quote miner: Treasures: Why Evolution!

First of all, the quote is from a "P.S." to a letter to G. Bentham, May 22, 1863 [Darwin, F., ed. 1905. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton & Co., p. 209-10].

As an aside, the main part of the letter is discussing, interestingly enough, the aspect of the fossil record that eventually lead to proposal of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria:

The objection . . . of certain forms remaining unaltered through long time and space, is no doubt formidable in appearance, and to a certain extent in reality according to my judgment. But does not the difficulty rest much on our silently assuming that we know more than we do? ... n judging the theory of Natural Selection, which implies that a form will remain unaltered unless some alteration be to its benefit, is it so very wonderful that some forms should change much slower and much less, and some few should have changed not at all under conditions which to us (who really know nothing what are the important conditions) seem very different.

In essence, Darwin is saying that the stasis in the morphology of species found in the fossil record is partly due to the imperfection of the record itself and, possibly, partly due to differential rates of change in species. While Darwin's default position was for gradualistic change in species, such concepts are relative. He saw that some change in species could take much longer than others and, of course, the Punctuated Equilibria theorists only claim that change tends to come "rapidly" in geologic terms but over very long times in human terms.

Now to the actual quote:

P.S. -- In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than another plant. . . . the fact that they have not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments.

Here Darwin is pointing that Natural Selection can be seen to operate and serves as a single coherent explanation for many diverse phenomena. Even if all the details of the individual phenomena are not known, the "consilience", in William Whewell's phrase, of his mechanism cogently explaining a wide range of events is, itself, support for its status as a "vera causa". [See Snyder, Laura J., "William Whewell", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).] Add to that the fact that the fossil record generally shows change in life over time and the clear analogy from animal breeding, and there is substantial support for his proposed mechanism.

As to the quote mined portion, Darwin is saying that, based on the fossil record (the only evidence available at the time, before genetics), there wasn't enough detail to say that a particular species was the descendant of a particular earlier species. By the same token, then, it would be impossible to show from the fossils that any particular species had changed into another. This is a "problem" with all fossil evidence, at least until and unless we can recover DNA or other genetic material. It constitutes some sort of refutation of evolution only to those who are determinedly hopeful of one and willfully ignorant.

The other point Darwin was making in the P.S. is that it is not necessarily possible to determine just what about a trait makes it advantageous, given the complexity of the interaction of the organism with the environment. In fact, Darwin is here warning against the "just so stories" that Stephen Jay Gould would inveigh against 120 years later. Once again, this is an excellent example of just how deeply and comprehensively Darwin understood his theory.

This quote mine is similar to Quote 82 but longer and without additional text (not from Darwin) that was included in Quote 82.

- John (catshark) Pieret

 

[PoliticalChic]

c. "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 21

The above "quote" is worth reviewing as it typifies the fraudulent, sleazy and dishonest tactics that represent the lies of religious extremists.

The "quote" was immediately familiar as one cut and pasted by creationist hacks.


Quote #2.7

Quote Mine Project: Darwin Quotes




[Re: Evolution is a faith not based on evidence]

"When we descend to details we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change" - Darwin, 1863.

Representative quote miner: Treasures: Why Evolution!

First of all, the quote is from a "P.S." to a letter to G. Bentham, May 22, 1863 [Darwin, F., ed. 1905. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton & Co., p. 209-10].

As an aside, the main part of the letter is discussing, interestingly enough, the aspect of the fossil record that eventually lead to proposal of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria:

The objection . . . of certain forms remaining unaltered through long time and space, is no doubt formidable in appearance, and to a certain extent in reality according to my judgment. But does not the difficulty rest much on our silently assuming that we know more than we do? ... n judging the theory of Natural Selection, which implies that a form will remain unaltered unless some alteration be to its benefit, is it so very wonderful that some forms should change much slower and much less, and some few should have changed not at all under conditions which to us (who really know nothing what are the important conditions) seem very different.

In essence, Darwin is saying that the stasis in the morphology of species found in the fossil record is partly due to the imperfection of the record itself and, possibly, partly due to differential rates of change in species. While Darwin's default position was for gradualistic change in species, such concepts are relative. He saw that some change in species could take much longer than others and, of course, the Punctuated Equilibria theorists only claim that change tends to come "rapidly" in geologic terms but over very long times in human terms.

Now to the actual quote:

P.S. -- In fact, the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. (1) On its being a vera causa, from the struggle for existence; and the certain geological fact that species do somehow change. (2) From the analogy of change under domestication by man's selection. (3) And chiefly from this view connecting under an intelligible point of view a host of facts. When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed [i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not. The latter case seems to me hardly more difficult to understand precisely and in detail than the former case of supposed change. Bronn may ask in vain, the old creationist school and the new school, why one mouse has longer ears than another mouse, and one plant more pointed leaves than another plant. . . . the fact that they have not been modified does not seem to me a difficulty of weight enough to shake a belief grounded on other arguments.

Here Darwin is pointing that Natural Selection can be seen to operate and serves as a single coherent explanation for many diverse phenomena. Even if all the details of the individual phenomena are not known, the "consilience", in William Whewell's phrase, of his mechanism cogently explaining a wide range of events is, itself, support for its status as a "vera causa". [See Snyder, Laura J., "William Whewell", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).] Add to that the fact that the fossil record generally shows change in life over time and the clear analogy from animal breeding, and there is substantial support for his proposed mechanism.

As to the quote mined portion, Darwin is saying that, based on the fossil record (the only evidence available at the time, before genetics), there wasn't enough detail to say that a particular species was the descendant of a particular earlier species. By the same token, then, it would be impossible to show from the fossils that any particular species had changed into another. This is a "problem" with all fossil evidence, at least until and unless we can recover DNA or other genetic material. It constitutes some sort of refutation of evolution only to those who are determinedly hopeful of one and willfully ignorant.

The other point Darwin was making in the P.S. is that it is not necessarily possible to determine just what about a trait makes it advantageous, given the complexity of the interaction of the organism with the environment. In fact, Darwin is here warning against the "just so stories" that Stephen Jay Gould would inveigh against 120 years later. Once again, this is an excellent example of just how deeply and comprehensively Darwin understood his theory.

This quote mine is similar to Quote 82 but longer and without additional text (not from Darwin) that was included in Quote 82.

- John (catshark) Pieret

How kind of you to verify exactly what I claimed Darwin admitted!


You added this to the quote that I provided:
"grounded entirely on general considerations"


Is your intellect so very stunted that you fail to see that "grounded entirely on general considerations" is the very antithesis of physical evidence?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'd like to know what [MENTION=44662]orogenicman[/MENTION] thinks about this.

He knows a lot about science.

Wow, have you misjudged him!

Yet you couldn't counter him on most of his arguments. Post #12 for example.

Not the case at all.

1. Look carefully at his answers, and you will find that he talks around the issues.

2. Read post #25 for my answer to him.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pretty much. The Cambrian "explosion" really doesn't pose a challenge to evolution. The fossil record is notoriously imperfect, so I don't understand why creationists froth-at-the-mouth over this. There's a whole cottage industry of scientific illiterates that have made a living out of misquoting Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, etc. I really hate having to comment on such a topic.

We have a winner in the category of 'Unintentional Humor'!!


Here it is:

"The Cambrian "explosion" really doesn't pose a challenge to evolution. The fossil record is notoriously imperfect,.."


In a thread loaded with comments by the clueless.....you may be the winner of the 'Honorable Mention' award.

Hollie is perennial 1st place winner.


But YOU!

The proof of Darwin's contention doesn't exist.....and you explain that that "really doesn't pose a challenge."


Please don't tell me that you wasted money on an education.

LOL.

The Cambrian explosion is what scientists call the first thirty million years of the Cambrian Period.

A good portion of plants and animals aren't found in the fossil record until after the Cambrian explosion. We're talking well over 400 million years for fish and land-based plants; mammals showed up around 250 million years ago. We had reptiles at around 340 million years ago, with various plants at around 200 million years ago. Team People (our ancestors) didn't show up until around 5 million years ago. There's no evidence to support instantaneously created species that popped up at the same exact time.

If you believe that this somehow demonstrates there is a god, he apparently had ADHD, since he repeatedly destroyed all of his creations and then created new ones which resembled those species he previously destroyed.

You could solve most of your logical fallacies with a library card and 50 bucks in late fees.

You would benefit from a careful study of Nancy Pearcey's "Saving Leonardo."

Here is a tidbit to help you fill in some of the lacunae in your background.

'Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science" most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading.

Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere. The fossil record, as we have seen, is so unhelpful that the important steps in evolution must be assumed to have occurred within its "gaps."

Darwinists believe that the mutation-selection mechanism accomplishes wonders of creativity not because the wonders can be demonstrated, but because they cannot think of a more plausible explanation for the existence of wonders that does not involve an unacceptable creator, i.e., a being or force outside the world of nature.'


One must, as you have, accept the conjecture of Darwinian evolution, on faith.