Thus, hereditary change amongst fruit flies doesn't prove that a new species could evolve from these changes.
The problem with this statement is that the flies did evolve into new species. Two populations of flies were separated. "X" number of generations passed. When the two populations were reintroduced to each other, there was no cross breeding between them.
The tailoring of a species to a specific environment over generations actually to me proves that generational change isn't random but is somehow activated when it is needed. That argues for some sort of intelligence in the process that is explained by neither creationism or evolutionism.
Argument from incredulity - textbook example. Also known as the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.
The problem is, this gap was filled in years ago. You will see that evolution and speciation occur the most rapidly when there are large niches to fill. Say, after a major extinction event or a drastic change in an environment. Again, this is purely a function of natural selection.
Evolution is probably true, bit it's not above criticism - nothing is.
Sure. But valid criticism in the scientific community involves quite a bit more than simply sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "goddidit, goddidit, goddidit"! They either have to 1) Put forth peer-reviewed research that falsifies the key tenants of evolutionary theory, or 2) Publish their own theory - again subject to peer-review. And this publication needs to have a considerable more meat to it than a picture of a mousetrap as evidence of "irreducible complexity".
I've never understood why religious folk have such a hard time with evolution. I mean, can't they just say "okay, fine, evolution is the process, and God is the architect". Far as I can see, that kind of solves it.
It generally comes down to this. Young-earthers are, probably without exception, biblical literalists. They base their entire belief system on one "truth" - that the bible is the inerrant, indisputable, and irreplaceable "word of god". For them, evolution strikes at the very heart of their beliefs. Their argument, while ludicrous, actually follows a fairly logical progression.
According to Genesis, the world was "good" until Adam and Eve ate the magic fruit at the behest of a talking snake. This introduced "Sin" into god's perfect creation. And you see, god hates sin. It doesn't matter if your sin is mass murder, child molestation, theft, or gawking at a lingerie ad, he'll gladly send you to Hell for all eternity (merciful and all-loving god he is) if you have the scent of "sin" on you after you die.
Now, Jesus, rebellious offspring that he was, thought that this kind of sucked, and allowed himself to be executed as a political dissident so that he could go to hell, kick Lucifer in the nads, and pay off all of our sin debt to the old man. So now, we can continue with the murder, molestation, theft, and lingerie gawking, we just need to make sure that we "accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior" afterwords. And Christians worldwide have thought this was a pretty good deal for the past 2000 years.
So here's the problem. If you accept Genesis as an "allegory", and not a literal truth, there is no event that causes sin to be introduced into the world. Without sin, there's no reason or need for Christ to "die for us". And without the need for Christ, there's really no compelling need for Christianity. And if you don't need Christianity, you turn into a godless, heathen atheist like me.
If so, wouldn't there be some level of life low enough to observe this phenomenon in its raw random nature with mutations occuring, even in mitosis.
It's been observed in laboratory fruit flies. Is that "low enough" for you?
There is a real lack of evidence for random evolution in my opinion which makes me feel that there is intelligence behind it somewhere, not necessarily 'God, the Creator' waving his hands, but some force other than random physics and chemistry.
This is the classic creationist strawman. Not saying you are a creationist, but it is the argument they dig up daily. Now, please, repeat the following after me.
"Random mutations are only half of the evolutionary story."
It is the process of Natural Selection that determines the fitness of a given mutation. This is driven purely by environmental factors and is anything but random.
Another example, two nights ago playing Warcraft III on battle.net might have been a real drag compared to last night, etc.
No, last night was amateur night. Idiots putting seven workers on a gold mine, squatting on 3300 gold, dropping after the first skirmish. Game after game. Last night was probably the worst WC3 night I can remember...
People will argue that there are, and they know someone whose been bitten, but loxosceles reclusa has only been found a handful of times in California in the last 50 years,
I'm one of "those people". A coworker of mine was bitten by one in a hotel in San Diego. He required plastic surgery to patch in the chunk of flesh that rotted away.
The classic Christian tradition has always valued rationality and does not hold that faith involves the abandonment of reason or the absence of evidence.
Yes, because we all know how rational it is to believe in a 10,000 year old earth, a magic fruit tree, and a talking snake...
If you read the friggin book, you'd see for yourself. Hell, just browse the Table of Contents. Chapter 4: "Why there almost certainly is no God. While he cannot produce proof, he does cite strong evidence. And what he can disprove, he does. Fallacies like "god is the origin of all morality, and god's morality is absolute", the Watchmaker fallacy, and the 747 built in a tornado fallacy are all easily proven false.
Mod parent down for lying. Dawkins said no such thing!! Dawkins is very clear in TGD that Science can never entirely dis-prove the existence of a god. That is at the core of why Intelligent Design can never be accepted as a scientific theory: god is not falsifiable.
If it was some other Atheist who doesn't have a track record of bashing religion and religious people, I think they would not object to him or her speaking about Evolution.
Good luck finding an Atheist - or even a non-Atheist for that matter who knows more about Darwinian Evolution than Richard Dawkins does.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, there are some xians who base their entire worldview around Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13.
Yeah! Once you get beyond the incest, mass murder, rape, infanticide, and misogyny, the bible is a great moral guideline for life!
The problem with this statement is that the flies did evolve into new species. Two populations of flies were separated. "X" number of generations passed. When the two populations were reintroduced to each other, there was no cross breeding between them.
Argument from incredulity - textbook example. Also known as the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.
The problem is, this gap was filled in years ago. You will see that evolution and speciation occur the most rapidly when there are large niches to fill. Say, after a major extinction event or a drastic change in an environment. Again, this is purely a function of natural selection.
Sure. But valid criticism in the scientific community involves quite a bit more than simply sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "goddidit, goddidit, goddidit"! They either have to 1) Put forth peer-reviewed research that falsifies the key tenants of evolutionary theory, or 2) Publish their own theory - again subject to peer-review. And this publication needs to have a considerable more meat to it than a picture of a mousetrap as evidence of "irreducible complexity".
It generally comes down to this. Young-earthers are, probably without exception, biblical literalists. They base their entire belief system on one "truth" - that the bible is the inerrant, indisputable, and irreplaceable "word of god". For them, evolution strikes at the very heart of their beliefs. Their argument, while ludicrous, actually follows a fairly logical progression.
According to Genesis, the world was "good" until Adam and Eve ate the magic fruit at the behest of a talking snake. This introduced "Sin" into god's perfect creation. And you see, god hates sin. It doesn't matter if your sin is mass murder, child molestation, theft, or gawking at a lingerie ad, he'll gladly send you to Hell for all eternity (merciful and all-loving god he is) if you have the scent of "sin" on you after you die.
Now, Jesus, rebellious offspring that he was, thought that this kind of sucked, and allowed himself to be executed as a political dissident so that he could go to hell, kick Lucifer in the nads, and pay off all of our sin debt to the old man. So now, we can continue with the murder, molestation, theft, and lingerie gawking, we just need to make sure that we "accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior" afterwords. And Christians worldwide have thought this was a pretty good deal for the past 2000 years.
So here's the problem. If you accept Genesis as an "allegory", and not a literal truth, there is no event that causes sin to be introduced into the world. Without sin, there's no reason or need for Christ to "die for us". And without the need for Christ, there's really no compelling need for Christianity. And if you don't need Christianity, you turn into a godless, heathen atheist like me.
A problem that is fixed by diligent peer review.
It's been observed in laboratory fruit flies. Is that "low enough" for you?
This is the classic creationist strawman. Not saying you are a creationist, but it is the argument they dig up daily. Now, please, repeat the following after me.
"Random mutations are only half of the evolutionary story."
It is the process of Natural Selection that determines the fitness of a given mutation. This is driven purely by environmental factors and is anything but random.
Comment on macro vs. micro evolution, "no observed speciation" and some bible-babble regarding "types" of animals in 5..4..3..
I bet a doctor with a pair of rubber gloves and a flashlight could answer that for you...
No we don't. Why replace classical bullshit with contemporary bullshit? Remove the bullshit from the equation entirely and you'll be fine.
We really need a "-1 Insipid Fuckwit" moderation...
No, last night was amateur night. Idiots putting seven workers on a gold mine, squatting on 3300 gold, dropping after the first skirmish. Game after game. Last night was probably the worst WC3 night I can remember...
Take a look overhead. Next question.
I'm one of "those people". A coworker of mine was bitten by one in a hotel in San Diego. He required plastic surgery to patch in the chunk of flesh that rotted away.
Then tell that to the millions of American Christians who accept this as a literal truth.
Yeah.. Let me know how that one works out, mmmkay?
The University of Oxford might disagree with you on that one...
Yes, because we all know how rational it is to believe in a 10,000 year old earth, a magic fruit tree, and a talking snake...
If you read the friggin book, you'd see for yourself. Hell, just browse the Table of Contents. Chapter 4: "Why there almost certainly is no God. While he cannot produce proof, he does cite strong evidence. And what he can disprove, he does. Fallacies like "god is the origin of all morality, and god's morality is absolute", the Watchmaker fallacy, and the 747 built in a tornado fallacy are all easily proven false.
Mod parent down for lying. Dawkins said no such thing!! Dawkins is very clear in TGD that Science can never entirely dis-prove the existence of a god. That is at the core of why Intelligent Design can never be accepted as a scientific theory: god is not falsifiable.
Good luck finding an Atheist - or even a non-Atheist for that matter who knows more about Darwinian Evolution than Richard Dawkins does.
Grr. Pod Six... Total "Suck" Pod.
If the Spirit and Opportunity rovers had middle fingers, they would be extended right now.
No, Colbert has done this kind of thing for years. He's gotten a hockey team mascot named after him, and nearly had a bridge in Hungary.
To be fair, his run was stopped by the writer's strike more so than the actions of the SC Democratic Party.