Evolution is a myth

[Rude]

When ya die, you all will have your answers.

[hyena426]

I have said several times that I dont think the theory of evolution has been proven. I dont think man decended from a common ancestor as the apes. I dont think the universe was created in a big bang. I dont think life evolved by coincidence out of some primordeal soup.

<~~very well put i have to say,,still to this day we havent been able to turn gas into solid rock,,,or make lifeless rock come to life,,, or anything lifeless come to life,,let alone evlove after it does come to life ,,lol

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."Sir Fredrick Hoyle,

[ra]

Gould: No. It shows that you need an expanded and enriched theory that is based on a hierarchical model of natural selection, a recognition of the power of internal factors, and catastrophism...

This kind of blather only makes the theory of evolution even less convincing.  If it could hold water scientifically there would be no need for such gyrations.

ra (not a creationist)

[myelo]

RA, focus on the "no".

[ra]

True, the 'No' made sense.  The rest is blather.

ra

[midnight Target]

OK, one time.

Evolution DOES stand up to scientific scrutiny.

How? You can't duplicate a process that occurrs over millenia!

But you can devise models of what would occur if that process did happen. This is just one test of the hypothesis, and it fits very nicely with the observable biosphere.

Not the ultimate answer, but a good place to start learning if you have a mind to.

OTOH, some people just want o place their heads firmly in the sand and breath deeply of the firmament.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by ra
True, the 'No' made sense.  The rest is blather.

ra

Problem is if you remove the blather, you dont have a whole lot to go on.

Question: So there is an essence to Darwinism, which you identify. What does your revision of that essence do to it? Does it change the essence?

Gould: No

[myelo]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Problem is if you remove the blather, you dont have a whole lot to go on.

Then lets recap, shall we? I’ve paraphrased the discussion in a step-by-step fashion using easy-to-understand terms, including numbers for your convenience.

1. You: “Gould and Eldredge’s theory of PE contradicts Darwin.”

2. Me: “No it doesn’t.”

3. You: “Gould seems to think it does.” (without supplying any actual evidence regarding what Gould thinks)

4. At this point I provide several quotes by Gould himself, including him responding to the question: “Does your theory change the essences of Darwin’s theory?”

Gould: “No.”

These days some may have trouble recognizing an unequivocal answer to a yes/no question, but that is in fact what this is.

[ra]

It shows that you need an expanded and enriched theory that is based on a hierarchical model of natural selection, a recognition of the power of internal factors, and catastrophism...

Unequivocal?

[Hortlund]

Maybe you should look a bit more closely at my reply to you earlier.

This is what I said:

He goes through great length to incorporate his theory under Darwins, but in the end it is not possible. The two theories are too different. This is something that is conveniently ignored.

As for the quoted part, my statement still stands. If you just keep the "no" part it doesnt make sence at all. In fact it becomes absurd because Goulds PE theory is in conflict with Darwins theory. Everyone knows this, but most people tend to ignore that part of the theory of evolution, because the two compliment eachother so well. the PE theory can explain the sudden apperance of new species in short periods of time, while Darwins theory is used to explain everything else as it is the entire backbone of the theory of evolution.

Darwin: Slow and steady over long long periods of time.

Gould: Sudden bursts in short periods of time.

Question to Gould: Isnt that in conflict with Darwins theory?

Gould: No.

If you think that is a satisfactory answer, I guess we just see things differently.

[myelo]

Originally posted by Hortlund
In fact it becomes absurd because Goulds PE theory is in conflict with Darwins theory. Everyone knows this...

Everyone? Not Darwin, Gould, or Eldredge. Darwin never claimed that evolution occurs at a constant rate (see my previous quote), so your characterization of his theory is rank oversimplification.

And Gould and Eldredge explicitly state that PE does not refute Darwin’s theory, (RA, this is the “no” part of his answer) rather it expands it by considering the effects of critical changes in the environment of a limited population within a small geographic region (the “blather” part).

By the way, the website you quoted earlier explains this pretty well: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html

It looks like we are repeating ourselves here so I agree we’ll just have to see this differently

[bounder]

If you believe that these these two different theories cannot coexist, I think you are right. However, they are still two approximate descriptions of the same process, evolution. I find it hard to imagine that Darwin and Gould would argue much over the theory that evolution happens. It might go something like this

Darwin: I believe that evolution is the process by which all living things have arisen.

Gould: Me too

Darwin: I believe that evolution is the process responsible for humankind.

Gould: Me too

Darwin: I believe it occurs at Rate A.

Gould: I believe it occurs at Rate B



One theory feeds from another, synthesis occurs at a granular level, we get a more accurate understanding of evolution, and our own biology at the same time.

[ra]

And Gould and Eldredge explicitly state that PE does not refute Darwin’s theory, (RA, this is the “no” part of his answer) rather it expands it by considering the effects of critical changes in the environment of a limited population within a small geographic region (the “blather” part).

You mean Darwin never considered this?  

They are just hammering Darwin's theory so it will fit the current fossil record.  It reminds me of Cinderella's stepsister who got her foot to fit into the glass slipper by cutting off her toes.


ra