PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
1. Many who are not fully cognizant of the subject mistake the term 'evolution' for anything from anything from the cyclical change within a gene pool, i.e., the moth population in England darkened, and then lightened due to pollution of the Industrial Revolution,...
... to the creation of entirely new genetic information, and structure, due to natural selection influencing random mutations.
a. "Natural selection influencing random mutations" sure sounds like what you learned in high school.....but, it is a compete misunderstanding of the concept....if one tries to call, say, the sudden growth of an eye where there was none before, "evolution."
Yup....just the way many use the term 'evolution'... wrong.
The point is, small-scale, or "micro-evolutionary" change, cannot be extrapolated to explain large-scale, or "maco-revolutionary" innovation.
So, changes in color or shape, simply use or express existing genetic information.
That would be Darwinian evolution.
Or the shape of a beak in Darwin's finches (also known as the Galápagos finches).
b. Macro, e.g., new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information.
2. Yet the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....
a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."
b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of indoctrination that critics of the Left have been railing about.
3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."
a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.
Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!
Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.
5. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.
A small change....lots of organisms incorporating the change...which, if adaptive,....is passed on to progeny.
If the change is not adaptive, increasing viability, well...guess what: the changed organisms die out.
6. Now, before you come to conclude that the above idea 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 a mechanism that involved intelligence....but he, and his acolytes, simply denied that there was any intelligence behind what nature did.
If Darwin had concluded, as was by scientists before him, that nature had relied on some source of intelligence to perform 'evoluiton,' it would be called.....
....wait for it....
....Intelligent Design.
... to the creation of entirely new genetic information, and structure, due to natural selection influencing random mutations.
a. "Natural selection influencing random mutations" sure sounds like what you learned in high school.....but, it is a compete misunderstanding of the concept....if one tries to call, say, the sudden growth of an eye where there was none before, "evolution."
Yup....just the way many use the term 'evolution'... wrong.
The point is, small-scale, or "micro-evolutionary" change, cannot be extrapolated to explain large-scale, or "maco-revolutionary" innovation.
So, changes in color or shape, simply use or express existing genetic information.
That would be Darwinian evolution.
Or the shape of a beak in Darwin's finches (also known as the Galápagos finches).
b. Macro, e.g., new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information.
2. Yet the science establishment continues to stone-wall the public, "There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution." This was the testimony of Eugenie Scott to the Texas State Board of Education in January when the Board was debating new state science curriculum standards. Dr. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), ..." Stutz, T. Texas education board debates teaching of evolution. Dallas Morning News, January 21, 2009....
a. Dr. Stephen C. Meyer produced a binder of one hundred peer-reviewed scientific articles in which biologists described significant problems with the theory.
Meyer, "Darwin's Doubt."
b. The attempt to prevent students from hearing of the problems with evolutionary theory is exactly the kind of indoctrination that critics of the Left have been railing about.
3. And that brings me to the problem of explaining Darwinian evolution.
Since new organs, or whole new body plans, requires the creation of entirely new information, Darwin himself was stymied by the explosion of all kinds of new organisms known as the "Cambrian Explosion."
a. " The Cambrian explosion... was the relatively rapid appearance, around 542 million years ago, of most major animal phyla, as demonstrated in the fossil record. This was accompanied by major diversification of other organisms. Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years, the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude and the diversity of life began to resemble that of today."
Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. It was not just the multitude of phyla, or a sea change in complexity.....it was the missing evidence of progressive changes leading to this complexity.
It was the missing ancestors in the Precambrian fossil record.
Get it? There is no record of successive, often unsuccessful attempts leading to the "Cambrian Explosion"!!!
Darwin got the point. Clear as a bell. The flaw that causes his theory to fail is the missing fossils.
5. Darwin's theory is based on two ideas, the twin pillars of his theory:
a. universal common ancestry of all living things, all had a single common ancestor way back in the distant past..."all the organic beings that have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form" (Darwin, "On The Origin of Species," p.484.)
and
b. natural selection, the process that acted on random variations of the traits or features of organism and their offspring.
A small change....lots of organisms incorporating the change...which, if adaptive,....is passed on to progeny.
If the change is not adaptive, increasing viability, well...guess what: the changed organisms die out.
6. Now, before you come to conclude that the above idea 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 a mechanism that involved intelligence....but he, and his acolytes, simply denied that there was any intelligence behind what nature did.
If Darwin had concluded, as was by scientists before him, that nature had relied on some source of intelligence to perform 'evoluiton,' it would be called.....
....wait for it....
....Intelligent Design.