| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
This blog has been looking into Ann Coulter's rejection of Darwinism. Currently a Google search for "Ann Coulter Darwin" shows this site as the second link. Articles here on the subject have been eliciting great comments from a number of readers.
In previous posts, I was seeking a response to Coulter from the scientific community. There has now been some. And its been marked by some very unscientific behavior.
Several articles have used the very unscientific method of name-calling to respond to Coulter. From P.Z. Myers:
Ann Coulter's awful, ghastly, ignorant book ... shameless fraud ...
From the York Daily Record, via The Panda's Thumb, a leading Darwinist blog:
...the vitriol, idiocy, slander, vileness, ignorance, stupidity and simply breathtaking inanity that passes for the contribution to the public discourse of an alleged carbon-based life-form that goes by the name of Ann Coulter.
Of course, you've heard about this vile life-support system for a mane of blonde hair. She's been all over the media, spreading her poison, the vaguely human counterpart of a Gila monster, except with colder blood.
These insults are unjustified in light of the fact that 600 scientists around the world have expressed their own doubts about Darwinian evolution:
"I signed the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement, because I am absolutely convinced of the lack of true scientific evidence in favour of Darwinian dogma," said Raul Leguizamon, M. D., Pathologist, and a professor of medicine at the Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico.
"Nobody in the biological sciences, medicine included, needs Darwinism at all," added Leguizamon. "Darwinism is certainly needed, however, in order to pose as a philosopher, since it is primarily a worldview. And an awful one, as Bernard Shaw used to say. The hold it has in academic circles is not at all due to the empirical evidence that allegedly supports it, but to its philosophical presuppositions and implications, the political correctness of the Darwinian paradigm and the intellectual inertia of academia in general. "
...Prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health"s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.
Does Mr. Myers wish to explain to these 600 scientists that they are also "awful, ghastly, ignorant" ?
There is no place for insults in a scientific debate. What does it mean, when insults are used as part of such arguments?
The answer is rather shocking to someone such as myself who believed, all my life, that Darwin as a mechanism for the origin of species was an established fact. In short, Darwin as a means of the origin of species has not been proven at this time, and all leading Darwinists know it and tacitly admit it. This may explain the use of insults when that fact is pointed out to some of them. They can't prove their position and they know it.
One of the most powerful arguments against Darwin as a means of speciation (that is, as a means of the origin of new species), is that one would expect to see a massive amount of fossils of transitional species, and while there are a number of possible candidates for transitional species, the expected massive amount of such fossils does not appear in the fossil record.
Here's how the American Museum of Natural History tacitly admits that while there is evidence in favor of Darwin as a means of speciation, there is not yet proof:
Evolution Today: How Do New Species Evolve?
Separate groups of organisms belonging to the same species may adapt in different ways to better exploit diverse environments or resources. They also may evolve varied characteristics for attracting mates. That is, different groups evolve in different directions. Over time, these groups or populations may become so different that they can no longer breed together-separate species are formed.
Note the repeated use of the word, "may." The Museum doesn't say this is how species do evolve. It says this is how species may evolve.
Here's how the Natural History Museum in London tacitly admits the absence of the expected fossils in the fossil record:
There are countless species that live in environments such as jungles and mountaintops, where the bodies of dead animals are more likely to be eaten or broken up than preserved. Therefore, palaeontologists are faced with a daunting challenge: to construct the history of life on our planet with knowledge of only a tiny fraction of the creatures that once lived here.
In fact, the Natural History Museum in London has a whole wing devoted to evidence of Darwin - yet, absent from the wing, is evidence of Darwin as a means of speciation. From Dr. Gerald Schroeder's 1997 book, The Science of God, page 31:
The magnificent Natural History Museum in London devotes an entire wing to demonstrating the fact of evolution. They show how pink daisies can evolve into blue daisies, how gray moths change into black moths, how over a mere few thousand years, a wide variety of cichlid fish species evolved in Lake Victoria. It is all impressive.
Impressive, until you walk out and reflect upon that which they were able to document. Daisies remained daisies, moths remained moths, and cichlid fish remained cichlid fish. These changes are referred to as micro-evolution. In this exhibit, the museum's staff did not demonstrate a single unequivocal case in which life underwent a major gradual morphological change.
Per Wikipedia, "Dr. Gerald Schroeder is a former professor of nuclear physics at MIT and former member of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. He holds doctorates both in Earth Science and Nuclear Physics."
It may be that this museum has added to the wing since the publication of Schroeder's book. The absence of even any evidence, from such a prestigious museum, shows the absence of proof for Darwin as a means of speciation.
Perhaps we humans can't bear not yet knowing how we got to be here on Earth. Nature abhors a vacuum, so into the vacuum of our lack of information about this, we put the best available theory. Darwin is the best available theory at this time, but it isn't proven, and there is a powerful argument that while it may be part of the answer, it is very far from being the whole answer.
(Thanks to Olah Chadasha, of the Greetings from the French Hill weblog, for bringing Dr. Schroeder's book to my attention.)
#1
#2I'm not sure what's more amusing -- that it's apparently quite a revelation to you that the Theory of Evolution has not been established as absolute irrefutable fact (you could have saved a lot of time by simply looking up "theory" in the dictionary), or that you think insults are inappropriate in response to a book that refers to 9/11 widows as "witches" and "harpies."
#3600 scientist sign
yet 67 worldwide science assocation containing thousand's of signatures is neglected by the "no evolution" people.
as a result of the theory of evolution, many vacines have been produced plus ongoing evolution research on HIV and bird flu. Most of evolutionary biology has been important in saving lives. (USING EVOLUTION)
In my heart, the are two pig valves, aortic & mitral, that save my life. I am cerainly glad someone believes in evolution.
The "there's no proof" people have usually been show proof or shown where to get proof. However, these people are born with very large hands. That's so they can cover thier eyes and ears at the same tome when shown proof.
#4Jeez...I thought we went through all of this with the Pennsylvania "Intelligent Design" case and debate.
Darwinian theory is just that. Challenged constantly under the scientific method and revised as the facts become known.
Creationism and Intelligent Design are wonderful concepts, but it's not science, it is religion, accepted as a matter of faith regardless of challenge and contradictory evidence.
Believe it if you will, just don't try to make your belief public policy.
#5"One of the most powerful arguments against Darwin as a means of speciation (that is, as a means of the origin of new species), is that one would expect to see a massive amount of fossils of transitional species"
To continue to repeat this obvious falsehood one must be either impressively ignorant or dishonest. One would NOT expect to see any such thing.
As to speciation, this has very recently been recreated in the lab: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5080298.stm
#6To continue to repeat this obvious falsehood one must be either impressively ignorant or dishonest. One would NOT expect to see any such thing.
Again, it's very odd to see insults used in place of logic in an argument regarding science. If the facts are on your side, present the facts.
Your statement seems odd in light of the fact that the absence of fossils of transitional species is so well known as a criticism of Darwin, that paleontologists such as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould have made their names in part by attempting to account for it.
I invite you to post links to document your statement that a massive amount of fossils of transitional species would not be expected in the fossil record on the basis of Darwin.
Note that I do not say that Darwin has been disproved. I state only that Darwin has not been proven. Given the quote in the article from the web site of the American Museum of Natural History, as well of the signed statement of 600 scientists worldwide, I do not see how you can object to this.
#7Vic, check out "quote mining Gould" here
"www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html"
you probably won't check or at least you won't like it.
note that on NCSE they have a verifiable list of 720 scientist's named "Steve" that support evolution, currently list has 720 signatures. This was done to make fun of DI's 600 list (most of which are not real scientists). 68 world wide science organizations containing THOUSANDS of real scientist have signed on to support evolution
evolution has led to many life saving procedurrs and medicines to help mankind. The developement of the use of pig heart valves in humans saved my life. I have 2 pig valves in my heat (aortic & mitral). The 600 scientists you tout have developed nothing, it's a press release by the DI nothing more.
#8Vic, check out “quote mining Gould” here
“www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html”
I will read it.
note that on NCSE they have a verifiable list of 720 scientist’s named “Steve” that support evolution, currently list has 720 signatures. This was done to make fun of DI’s 600 list (most of which are not real scientists). 68 world wide science organizations containing THOUSANDS of real scientist have signed on to support evolution
This argument appears to imply that you can find 600 scientists who will sign anything. The argument would be far more compelling if there were 600 scientists opposed to any of the other scientists widely recognized for their great contributions, e.g. Newton, Einstein, or Mendeleev. There is no such opposition to the discoveries of those scientists.
Please provide a link to document your statement, "most of which are not real scientists."
evolution has led to many life saving procedurrs and medicines to help mankind. The developement of the use of pig heart valves in humans saved my life. I have 2 pig valves in my heat (aortic & mitral).
This is a great biological achievement, but it has little bearing on Darwin as the mechanism for speciation.
#9here's DI's link to the 600, DI initiated the list
the claim is 600 scientists,as you can see from DI's own list many are not scientists (source of list is DI)
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
check 720 Steves, most are scientists
see this link
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/XX/538_national_academies_of_science__6_21_2006.asp
#10here’s DI’s link to the 600, DI initiated the list
the claim is 600 scientists,as you can see from DI’s own list many are not scientists (source of list is DI)
They all seem to be doctors and professors of various sciences. Why do you say that they aren't scientists?
#11MD's, Math, Chemists not involved in evolution
not their specialtly, a few biologists yes OK
but very few of the specialties related to evolution
actual working scientists are on the other lists
Steve and NSCE (combined more than 1000 X 600)
but that's not the issue, Show me proof is the issue
as a technical specialist(not in evolution) I consult professionals when they get stumped. Often they say (as I show them answer) "nobody showed me that". That seems to be a common answer for the intellectually lazy. Nobody showed me the answers in my field, I studied, I learned, I experimented. And I continually do so because it enables me to keep my status as the most knowledgeable person in my field.
The DI is a sham, that was shown clearly in the Dover trial. Their 600 list is a sham. I looked for a list of their contributions to science and found none. Same thing at the Dover trial, no proof, no peer reviewed literature. Behe at the Dover trial said "..no literature on evolution of immune system", then peer reviewed literature was handed to him one by one. The stack in Behe's lap was 47" high. He did not back down, if a movie of the trial is made (a good possibility) he will come out looking like a complete idiot.
#12The DI is a sham...
As quoted in the post:
...Prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum --the oldest still published biology journal in the world-- Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.
Given such prominent signatories, in what sense can you call the list a sham?
#13Skell is not a biologist nor is he involved in biochemestry
he is a chemist and thinks evolution means "atheist"
he has no credibility in evolution
many details on Skell here
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/05/the_unexpected.html
#14oh, I forgot your Dr. Stanley Salthe
here's a few quotes from him:
Dr. Salthe, who describes himself as an atheist, said that when he signed the petition he had no idea what the Discovery Institute was. Rather, he said, "I signed it in irritation."
He said evolutionary biologists were unfairly suppressing any competing ideas. "They deserve to be prodded, as it were," Dr. Salthe said. "It was my way of thumbing my nose at them.
Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory, either. "From my point of view," he said, "it's a plague on both your houses."
more on Salthe plus your signers here
http://www.universityscience.ie/pages/news/2006/mar06_anti_evolution_petition.php
#15I didn't forget, here's some neat things on Richard von Sternberg
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/a_second_dimens.html
#16I invite you to post links to document your statement that a massive amount of fossils of transitional species would not be expected in the fossil record on the basis of Darwin.
Not how it works. You make the claim, you document it.
Note that argument from authority is not documentation.
What you need to do is:
1) State "the basis of Darwin", i.e. the theory
2) Define the tests that would tell us whether a given fossil was "transitional"
3) Define what would qualify as a "massive amount" of these and why
4) Show that the theory of (1) predicts that a "massive amount" of (2) would be in the fossil record
5) Show that a number comparable with (3) is not in fact present in the fossil record
In the unlikely event you get past (1), for bonus points you could try explaining why despite the fact that a massive amount of YOUR ancestors are not in the fossil record, you still have ancestors.
#17Rich,
The inclusion of a Professor of Chemistry hardly justifies your description of the list as a sham.
Dr. Salthe said he did not find intelligent design to be a compelling theory, either. “From my point of view,” he said, “it’s a plague on both your houses.”
That's fine with me. I haven't made the argument in favor of I.D. via God as a sole mechanism for speciation.
From the article you linked:
And even the petition's sponsor, the Discovery Institute in Seattle, says that only a quarter of the signers are biologists, whose field is most directly concerned with evolution. The other signers include 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine.
One-quarter of the 514 scientists who had signed the petition at the time of this article are biologists. That's over 125 scientists around the world who, according to your own criteria, are justified to speak on the subject, and who signed the petition saying that Darwin as the mechanism for speciation is not yet proven. That's very impressive testimony in favor of the position stated in my article. Additionally, dismissing the views of the physicists, professors of medicine, engineers, etc., who signed the list, does not seem reasonable. You yourself are not a professor of biology, yet you are happy to put forward your views, and I welcome them.
#18Frank,
Ann just wrote a book about it. If you don't want to respond to it, you need not; but your non-response is not going to persuade anybody that you have sufficient facts in favor of your view. I'm not saying you don't; but you haven't yet presented them here.
#19Ann just wrote a book about it.
As I wrote: "Note that argument from authority is not documentation."
Argument from authority is not impressive, especially as Ann Coulter is not an authority.
your non-response is not going to persuade anybody that you have sufficient facts in favor of your view. I’m not saying you don’t; but you haven’t yet presented them here.
YOUR claim is the following: "One of the most powerful arguments against Darwin as a means of speciation (that is, as a means of the origin of new species), is that one would expect to see a massive amount of fossils of transitional species, and while there are a number of possible candidates for transitional species, the expected massive amount of such fossils does not appear in the fossil record."
You have yet to provide any reason why one should expect to see a "massive amount" of fossils of transitional species, you've yet to define what a "transitional species" even is, you've yet to define what the "expected massive amount" is.
Until you do, why should anyone waste time attempting to refute your strawman.
As you say, "your non-response is not going to persuade anybody that you have sufficient facts in favor of your view". And I *AM* saying you do not.
#20Ann's book is obnoxious, in it she defends the bell Cueve, a totally debunked racist view of black and Hispanic inferiority. This book was funded by an outfit that reaches back to distributing nazi eugenics and films.
google Wickliffe_Draper, are most creationists racists?
Her science knowledge is shamefull. She is either stupid or she thinks her readers are stupid.
here's a thoughtful review
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm
part 2 comming soon.
I'm sorry, I mistook this blog as being intersted in science, my mistake, I won't be back.
#21Frank,
You seem to be arguing that no one can make an argument except by writing an exhaustive and redundant original article or book about it. This would preclude discussion by all who have not written original articles or books. It's a very strange criteria, that would put almost everyone out of the business of discussing anything.
#22Rich,
Her science knowledge is shamefull. She is either stupid or she thinks her readers are stupid.
The use of name-calling instead of facts is not persuasive.
However, I like this article you linked. I'm going to take this very seriously, and keep my eye out for the follow-up article as well.
#23Coulter's name calling and insults in her book entitle me to call her anything I want
Plus A kindly Indian Sikh ran a 7-11 store in San Gabriel Calif that I stopped in often as my office was nearby. Shortly afer 9-11, this kindly man was murdered by someone shouting “raghead”. An Indian is not an Arab. a Sikh is not a muslim, but they wear turbans.
The only other person using the term “raghead” at the time was Ann Coulter. I don’t like her! You may admire the hate she spouts, I resent it. Ann doesn’t have to worry about that Sikh complaining, he is dead. People like her calling good and kindly people ragheads feed the kind of stupidity that lead to this nasty murder. Yes, I can call her names!
#24You seem to be arguing that no one can make an argument except by writing an exhaustive and redundant original article or book about it.
Strawman. You have made a claim about what "Darwinism" predicts will be seen in the fossil record. Instead of supporting it yourself, which you cannot do, you have demanded others prove a negative.
Once again, that is not how it works. You get to support your own claims. It is telling that you change the subject whenever asked to do so.
We're waiting.
#25The use of name-calling instead of facts is not persuasive.
Then why are we discussing Ann Coulter?
This argument appears to imply that you can find 600 scientists who will sign anything.
That depends entirely what you're asking them to sign. The article I linked to before discusses what was signed, versus what the DI would like you to think was signed.
(Hint: "Darwinism" is not the same as modern evolution.)
As for the fossil record. For every transitional fossil we do find, there are two transitions on either side "missing". When we find those two, we now have four to look for. And so on.
#26Vik: You seem to be arguing that no one can make an argument except by writing an exhaustive and redundant original article or book about it.
Frank: Strawman. You have made a claim about what “Darwinism” predicts will be seen in the fossil record. Instead of supporting it yourself, which you cannot do, you have demanded others prove a negative.
straw man: n. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
The argument I refuted was yours. If the argument you made was a "straw man" argument, i.e., one that is easily defeated, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Again, I ask you to justify your demand that I not refer to the work of others, or to abandon that demand.
#27Vik: You seem to be arguing that no one can make an argument except by writing an exhaustive and redundant original article or book about it.
Frank: Strawman. You have made a claim about what “Darwinism” predicts will be seen in the fossil record. Instead of supporting it yourself, which you cannot do, you have demanded others prove a negative.
straw man: n. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
i.e., when YOU wrote "You seem to be arguing..."
I argued no such thing.
The argument I refuted was yours.
Do not lie about easily checked facts.
Again I ask you to document your claims:
Claim 1: "One of the most powerful arguments against Darwin as a means of speciation (that is, as a means of the origin of new species), is that one would expect to see a massive amount of fossils of transitional species
Claim 2: and while there are a number of possible candidates for transitional species, the expected massive amount of such fossils does not appear in the fossil record."
#28Again I ask you to document your claims:
Do you abandon your demand that I not refer to the work of others?
#29Do you abandon your demand that I not refer to the work of others?
I have never made any such demand, which is why you can't quote me doing so. That's just you beating up your own strawman again.
I've simply asked you to support your claims. I've also noted that appeal to authority is not evidence.
#30Vik, I was going to answer a question directed at Dr. Schroeder, but I see that this dance card is full. There are many people insulting others in an attempt to debate. It's absolutely tasteless. Of course, you've touched upon a topic that is almost mythical, dare I say, religious in its proportions. It seems, as with religion, people are fighting tooth and nail to protect it. Therefore, instead of rebutting or answering questions, I would like to put forth an observation. In our current society of "enlightenment", where the liberal elite gladly yell the epithet that "God is dead", it seems that these people desperately need to fill that void that would otherwise be occupied by what one might call "faith". They desperately need something to "believe" in even when those items are by no means what one should or can believe in. Science is one of those things. Science is an evolving field, to use a term every-one loves. What we thought we proved yesterday can change tomorrow. Thousands of years ago, the most educated people in the world "believed" the earth to be flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. Today, science and, especially, evolution/darwinism have become something that people "believe" in. They believe in it so much, it becomes their faith. So, when that faith is challenged, they rise up, even irrationally, to protect it and fight for its "truths". Even when clear and factual opposing evidence comes to challenge its legitimacy, they will not accept it. Why? Because they have nothing else. A religion, which includes (I don't think, at least for mine, that religion is based on faith.) faith, is something in which one believes. Science is NOT something to be believed or not to believe. Either, you agree with an hypothesis, or you don't agree with it. Either, it can be tested in a laboratory, or it can't be tested. If it can't be tested, than it's not a valid hypothesis irregardless of how much you "believe" that it's true. Darwinism is a THEORY. It's as much a THEORY as Einstein's worm holes. Scientists, so far, have never been able to recreate Darwin's theory on the origin of species in a lab. The fossil record does not support it, and all data to date are extremely inconclusive and mathametically impossible. How can one "believe" in a science theory?
Finally, to answer neil's comment, mathematically speaking, the "gradual morphological change" that Darwin speaks of for even an evolutionary body part (not even an entire species), like the eyes of an octopus would take billions upon billions of years to accomplish, and the earth just hasn't existed for that long. That time frame is generous and would only be accurate if a given mutation didn't cause the organism to die, as mutations we see today do, or that a given mutation causes the right evolutionary change and is on the "nose" every single time over, say, 100 generations. Thinking that that could actually happen would take... well, it would take a tremendous leap of faith. Secondly, the fossil record shows what "creationists", or for, my sake, religious monotheists (people who believe in the Original Testemant (sp?))believe; an explosion of life around the Crustacian period, which only occurred several million years ago, not billions. This being the case, it shows no gradual mutations, and even if there were, the fossil record actually proves that the given time, even as Darwin put it, necessary for gradual morphological changes did not exist. I hope I've answered your comment.
-OC
#31In our current society of “enlightenment”, where the liberal elite gladly yell the epithet that “God is dead”
Are you calling Friedrich Nietzsche a member of today's liberal elite?
How often do you witness the liberal elite gladly yelling that epithet?
#32They believe in it so much, it becomes their faith. So, when that faith is challenged, they rise up, even irrationally, to protect it and fight for its “truths”. Even when clear and factual opposing evidence comes to challenge its legitimacy, they will not accept it. Why?
For creationists to accuse us of this is like Dopey accusing the other dwarves of being vertically challenged.
Regardless, we'd love to see your "clear and factual opposing evidence".
If indeed you had some, it would likely win you a Nobel prize.
Where is it?
#33I’ve also noted that appeal to authority is not evidence.
May I take it that you don't object to evidence presented by an authority I quote?
#34May I take it that you don’t object to evidence presented by an authority I quote?
Quote who you like. A peer-reviewed paper would be nice, but evidence should be judged on its own merits, not on who provides it.
#35Frank: [Quoting Vik:] "One of the most powerful arguments against Darwin as a means of speciation (that is, as a means of the origin of new species), is that one would expect to see a massive amount of fossils of transitional species”
Frank: To continue to repeat this obvious falsehood one must be either impressively ignorant or dishonest. One would NOT expect to see any such thing.
Darwin was the first to note this argument against his theory. From Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter IX:
But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
Darwin notes that "imperfection of the geological record" is a possible explanation. But here we are about 150 year later, with a quarter of a million fossil species found, and only a small number of potential candidates for transitional species.
It is surely true that since Darwin, much work has been done to explain why such fossils have not been found. But that's all it is -- possible explanations for why this fossil evidence is missing.
Now, to disagree with me, it's not enough to show arguments why Darwin may still be right, or evidence supporting Darwin. I have specifically stated that "I do not say that Darwin has been disproved. I state only that Darwin has not been proven." To disagree with me, you have to argue that Darwin has been scientifically proven. And if you argue that you're going to be disagreeing with the American Museum of Natural History, as shown in the original article, as well as with the 600 scientists who signed the statement expressing doubts about Darwin as a mechanism of speciation.
#36Darwin was the first to note this argument against his theory.
I see your problem - you think Darwin's theory as originally proposed is the same as current evolutionary theory.
It is not.
it’s not enough to show arguments why Darwin may still be right
He isn't. Aside from Creationists, most people are aware that Darwin got some things wrong.
Again you are engaging in beating up strawmen.
#37Ruth, the very actions of today's liberals and their cronies are the manifestation of that term. Personally, I think Nietzche was a crack, but that's a discussion for another day. In any case, you seemed to have missed the point of the metaphor, but that's OK. I think I've clarified the point.
Frank, your insults are cute and only goes to prove my point. Vik, myself, and hundreds of other scientists have given forth peer-reviewed articles and proof, as much proof as can be given from a scientific perspective, that Darwinism is false and its premise has not been proven by any of the means that Darwinists have claimed it to be. The fact that you're simply ignoring all of that and still calling for "proof" goes to also prove my point even further. You don't want to or can't perceive of the concept that what you believe in might not be true. Again, how can you "believe" in a science theory? Science theories are proven false every day. That's the very definition of a theory. If it can't be proven false, then it's NOT a theory. Why, of all theories, has Darwinism been the theory that so many people have chosen to jump on its band-wagon and ride to victory? Because, they thought and think this is the very theory that will prove that God is truly dead and that science is very much the new god. Forget the fact that Darwin includes "The Creator" numerous times within his original works and repeatedly said that what he was writing was in no means meant to replace the existence of a god. Forget the fact that there are more holes in the theory than swiss cheese. Forget the fact that every available fossil record shows no proof of evolution or gradual shift of species. Forget all of that. No, this was and is still the liberals' and atheists' golden ticket to show all those "bible thumping" wackos that they truly are uneducated hicks who refuse to accept the new progressive modern society. Darwinism is the PR weapon necessary to show those fly-over states that their values and morals are out-dated and based on no merit. That's the real purpose of this. It's not a scientific inquiry or quest of truth. It's a war between cultures. It truly is a culture war. It's a war against traditional values. It's a war against conservatism. That's it. If another theory came about tomorrow that could accomplish the same goals as following Darwinism, Evolution would be dropped faster than today's fashion fad. That's what it really comes down to, and that's just plain sad and pathetic.
-OC
#38Vik, myself, and hundreds of other scientists have given forth peer-reviewed articles and proof,
List 3 peer-reviewed scientific papers and provide one example of this proof.
No need to respond if you just made it up.
#39...you think Darwin’s theory as originally proposed is the same as current evolutionary theory.
So you are denying Darwin as an authority on evolution? It looks like I've made my point. You do not disagree that Darwin as a mechanism for speciation has not been proven.
#40Olah Chadasha
"Finally, to answer neil’s comment, mathematically speaking..."
I asked for a particular "biological or genetic mechanism..." So no, you didn't answer my comment at all.
Vik Rubenfeld
"... only a small number of potential candidates for transitional species."
Having looked at that page, and its source material I'm thinking that your definition of "small" is much different to mine.
It is surely true that since Darwin, much work has been done to explain why such fossils have not been found. But that’s all it is—possible explanations for why this fossil evidence is missing.
That, and actually finding thousands upon thousands upon thousands of fossils.
And if you argue that you’re going to be disagreeing with the American Museum of Natural History, as shown in the original article
See the comment in my first post.
So you are denying Darwin as an authority on evolution?
Oh, he's a wonderful authority on evolution as it stood up until about 1882. After that, not so much.
Darwin is certainly no authority on today's fossil record.
Which leads us nicely back to the 600+ scientists who are skeptical of "Darwinian" theory. That really doesn't tell us much about how those scientists feel about the 100+ years of post-Darwin evolutionary research. Since Darwinism is decidedly not modern evolution, why would the DI need to decieve the general public in this way?
#41Neil, it sounds like you agree with me, that Darwin as a mechanism for speciation has not been proven.
#42Vik, it seems that a class needs to be given being that this is such a heady topic. It's certainly not going to be solved on your message board. Frank, I "dont make stuff up", but thanks for the insult. You also have proven my point. I will get you those articles soon. Give me a day.
-OC
#43Vik,
Neil, it sounds like you agree with me, that Darwin as a mechanism for speciation has not been proven.
Are you being wilfully misleading or is that the level of reading comprehension you bring to this topic?
I could play your game and agree with your brilliant insight that Darwin was not personally responsible for speciation.
But we are talking about current theory and current evidence, not Darwin.
Olah,
You also have proven my point.
I hope that your "proof" that "Darwinism" is false is better than this.
#44But we are talking about current theory and current evidence, not Darwin.
That's absurd. The title of the article is, "Follow-Up on Ann Coulter and Darwin: Scientists Admit There is No Proof of Darwin."
It continues to appear that you agree with me, that Darwin as a mechanism for speciation has not been proven.
#45It continues to appear that you agree with me, that Darwin as a mechanism for speciation has not been proven.
Lying about easily checked facts does not help your credibility.
Anyone can read the thread for themselves and see how you misrepresent even this discussion, never mind "Darwin".
Do you think people are stupid? I guess you must.
#46You must be seriously running out of facts, to be relying on name-calling.
I'm asking you straight out, for an answer: Do you agree with me, that Darwin as a mechanism for speciation has not been proven?
#47This objection to name-calling in a discussion of Ann Coulter's latest tome really is hilarious.
Does Vik believe Ann was "running out of facts" when she called 9/11 widows "witches" and "harpies"?
Rest assured, Frank. Vik isn't fooling anyone but himself.
#48so you won't loose sight of the topic here'a review
od Ann's book that I'm sure all will enjoy
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm
#49This objection to name-calling in a discussion of Ann Coulter’s latest tome really is hilarious.
That'd make some sense if you were insulting Ann. But you're insulting the other people here. Bear in mind that it is the stated policy of this forum that "abusive remarks and trolls may be deleted."
#50Neil
Neil, it sounds like you agree with me, that Darwin as a mechanism for speciation has not been proven.
Only if you agree that "Darwin" is not the equivalent of modern evolution. [Insult to Ann deleted. Full copy of this original comment is on file. - ed.]
However, if you consider "Darwin" the equivalent of modern evolution, then no, I do not agree with you.
Which is it?
#51Vik,
You must be seriously running out of facts, to be relying on name-calling.
What name-calling? I said you are misrepresenting the discussion by claiming that people who do not agree with you, do in fact agree with you. So you are.
If you consider such factual observations to be "names", so be it.
Do you agree with me, that Darwin as a mechanism for speciation has not been proven?
"Darwin as a mechanism for speciation" is meaningless babble.
As for "proven", that's still a strawman. The theory of gravity has not been "proven". Gravity also remains one of the deeper mysteries of the universe, far less well understood than evolution.
Still apples fall and still evolution occurs.
#52That’d make some sense if you were insulting Ann.
That's where you objection to name-calling began. ("Several articles have used the very unscientific method of name-calling to respond to Coulter... There is no place for insults in a scientific debate. What does it mean, when insults are used as part of such arguments?")
You're dodging the question: Do you believe Ann was “running out of facts” when she called 9/11 widows “witches” and “harpies”?
But you’re insulting the other people here.
I haven't insulted anyone.
#53Neil: Only if you agree that “Darwin” is not the equivalent of modern evolution.
I make no reference to this "modern evolution," which according to you obsoletes Darwin, and which you have yet to provide any links to describe or document.
The title of the article this thread comments on, is "Follow-Up on Ann Coulter and Darwin: Scientists Admit There is No Proof of Darwin." If you didn't read the original article and had no idea what we are discussing, that's fine, but Darwin is what we're talking about.
Since you agree that Darwin's views have not been proven, I have made my point.
#54Frank: What name-calling?
You must be joking. "Lying" ... "Are you being wilfully misleading or is that the level of reading comprehension you bring to this topic?" You've issued lots of insults.
“Darwin as a mechanism for speciation” is meaningless babble.
What a preposterous statement. The title of Darwin's book is "The Origin of Species." As I've noted in the original post, speciation means the origin of species.
#55Ruth: You’re dodging the question: Do you believe Ann was “running out of facts” when she called 9/11 widows “witches” and “harpies”?
Ruth, this thread's about Darwin, not the 9/11 widows.
#56Vik,
You’ve issued lots of insults.
I've told the truth. Whereas you've insulted everyone's intelligence.
Vik: “Darwin as a mechanism for speciation” is meaningless babble.
What a preposterous statement. The title of Darwin’s book is “The Origin of Species.” As I’ve noted in the original post, speciation means the origin of species.
Gesundheit. "Darwin as a mechanism for speciation" is still meaningless babble.
That Darwin wrote a book on the topic does not make him a mechanism and nor does it mean there is a mechanism called Darwin.
Your reluctance to say what the mechanism actually is, that is understandable though.
#57Ruth, this thread’s about Darwin, not the 9/11 widows.
Heh. That's what I thought. More dodging.
[Various insults deleted. The full text of the original comment is on file. -- ed.]
#58Vik Rubenfeld
I make no reference to this “modern evolution,” which according to you obsoletes Darwin, and which you have yet to provide any links to describe or document.
I understand why you don't want to give a straight answer to my simple question.
Nevertheless, my post on 07/03/06 at 10:26 AM contains three links providing a multitute of post-Darwin scientific discoveries, specifically pertaining to the fossil record.
Since you agree that Darwin’s views have not been proven, I have made my point.
Once again, I agree only to the extent that Darwin's views end at his death in 1882. And, once again, anybody who uses the word "Darwin" to imply current evolutionary thought commits the fallacy of equivocation.
#59Frank: That Darwin wrote a book on the topic does not make him a mechanism and nor does it mean there is a mechanism called Darwin.
What a quibble. Okay, rather than "Darwin as a mechanism for speciation", substitute, "Darwin's theory of evolution as a mechanism for the origin of species."
#60Neil: Nevertheless, my post on 07/03/06 at 10:26 AM contains three links providing a multitute of post-Darwin scientific discoveries, specifically pertaining to the fossil record.
Yes, but you offer no evidence that they obsolete Darwin's theory of evolution. As I noted in a previous comment:
...to disagree with me, it’s not enough to show arguments why Darwin may still be right, or evidence supporting Darwin. I have specifically stated that “I do not say that Darwin has been disproved. I state only that Darwin has not been proven.” To disagree with me, you have to argue that Darwin has been scientifically proven.
And you have said you are not arguing that Darwin's theory of evolution has been scientifically proven as a mechanism for the origin of species.
#61Okay, rather than “Darwin as a mechanism for speciation”, substitute, “Darwin’s theory of evolution as a mechanism for the origin of species.”
[Insult deleted]
And your point that it has not been "scientifically proven" is like arguing that gravity doesn't exist because Newton's laws of motion have not been "scientifically proven", and have in fact been disproven.
Evolution is both a fact ("apples fall", "humans and gorillas evolved from a common ancestor species") and a theory ("gravity", "evolution").
[Insult deleted]
#62[Insult deleted]
#63Evolution is both a fact ("apples fall”, “humans and gorillas evolved from a common ancestor species") and a theory ("gravity", “evolution").
New species do come into existence, but the mechanism for that has not been proven to be Darwin's theory of evolution - a statement you do not dispute.
#64Vik:
Frank: Evolution is both a fact ("apples fall”, “humans and gorillas evolved from a common ancestor species") and a theory ("gravity", “evolution").
New species do come into existence, but the mechanism for that has not been proven to be Darwin’s theory of evolution - a statement you do not dispute.
"Apples do fall but the mechanism for that has not been proven to be Newton's theory of gravity - a statement you do not dispute"
"Humans and gorillas evolved from a common ancestor species, but the mechanism for that has not been proven to be Darwin's theory of evolution - a statement you do not dispute"
Same thing. [Insult deleted]
#65“Apples do fall but the mechanism for that has not been proven to be Newton’s theory of gravity - a statement you do not dispute”
“Humans and gorillas evolved from a common ancestor species, but the mechanism for that has not been proven to be Darwin’s theory of evolution - a statement you do not dispute”
It certainly is the same thing, especially because Newton doesn't have a theory for the cause of gravity.
#66Vik, I see that you have taken to removing substantial arguments and labelling them "insults"
I wrote that your statement, as with the other examples I provided, is remarkable mainly for what it omits and because it is misleading. That is NOT an insult, and it is not even about you. It is a legitimate observation about your statement.
At least you mark your deletions, I will give you credit for that. And it is your blog so you may do as you wish.
However if you continue to butcher my text then we will not be having this dicussion here. In future I will send trackbacks so that you cannot edit my posts.
I have saved this text and will post it out of your reach if you delete it.
#67[Insult deleted.]
#68I wrote that your statement, as with the other examples I provided, is remarkable mainly for what it omits and because it is misleading. That is NOT an insult, and it is not even about you. It is a legitimate observation about your statement.
Of course it's an insult if you say I'm being misleading. I don't characterize your intentions, because it's an insult to do so. And for the record, you've whitewashed your comment. Here's what it was:
Your statement is remarkable only for how misleading it is and what it omits.
Not "mainly." "Only."
#69Yes, but you offer no evidence that they obsolete Darwin’s theory of evolution.
I would be delighted to. Buf first, to avoid any confusion on my part, perhaps you could unequivocally state what you believe Darwin's theory of evolution to be.
Secondly, you might try answering the question I rhetorically asked of Dr. Schroeder in my first post: what, scientifically, is the biological or genetic mechanism which permits all manner of “micro-evolution” variation but somehow slams the door shut and prevents “major gradual morphological change”.
#70Neil: I would be delighted to. Buf first, to avoid any confusion on my part, perhaps you could unequivocally state what you believe Darwin’s theory of evolution to be.
From the American Museum of Natural History:
DARWIN
Evolution Today - How Does Natural Selection Work?
Variation and Inheritance | Selection: Survival and Reproduction | Time and Adaptation
Natural selection is a mechanism by which populations adapt and evolve. In its essence, it is a simple statement about rates of reproduction and mortality: those individual organisms who happen to be best suited to an environment survive and reproduce most successfully, producing many similarly well-adapted descendants. After numerous such breeding cycles, the better-adapted dominate. Nature has filtered out poorly suited individuals and the population has evolved.
V.I.S.T.A.
Natural selection is a simple mechanism that causes populations of living things to change over time. In fact, it is so simple that it can be broken down into five basic steps, abbreviated here as V.I.S.T.A.: Variation, Inheritance, Selection, Time and Adaptation.
Neil: what, scientifically, is the biological or genetic mechanism which permits all manner of “micro-evolution” variation but somehow slams the door shut and prevents “major gradual morphological change”.
That's a question for a biologist. I guess you're seeking to make the point that you can't have one without the other. It's a reasonable argument, but it's very far from proven.
#71back to Couler and Scirnce
any high school student in the USA would flunk science classes if they use Coulter's science rant.
and that's a fact
#72Rich, I agree (except with the word "rant"), and I think that's a very good point. Darwin has not been proven, yet students are not permitted to say so. Our freedom of speech has been tremendously cut back, right in one of the places where it's most needed - our schools.
#73Vik:
Of course it’s an insult if you say I’m being misleading.
I said your statement was misleading, which is true.
As to "proof", scientists have given forth peer-reviewed articles and proof, as much proof as can be given from a scientific perspective, that "Darwinism" is an excellent theory and its premise has been proven by all of the means that scientists have claimed it to be. The fact that you’re simply ignoring all of that and still calling for “proof” goes to also prove my point even further. You don’t want to or can’t perceive of the concept that what you believe in might not be true.
Anti-scientists desperately need something to “believe” in even when those items are by no means what one should or can believe in. That "Darwinism" is false is one of those things. Today, anti-science and, especially, anti-evolution/"darwinism" have become something that people “believe” in. They believe in it so much, it becomes their faith. So, when that faith is challenged, they rise up, even irrationally, to protect it and fight for its “truths”. Even when clear and factual opposing evidence comes to challenge its legitimacy, they will not accept it. Why? Because they have nothing else.
#74for people who want proof see http://www.talkorigins.org
for those continually demanding proof there is nowhere to go
#75Frank, that's a very clever argument. Unfortunately, the premise is incorrect. Scientists don't claim that Darwin as the mechanism for the origin of species has been proven. That's why (as noted in the original article) the American Museum of Natural History says that Darwinian evolution "may" cause the origin of species, and not that it "does" cause it.
#76Vik:
Scientists don’t claim that Darwin as the mechanism for evolution has been proven.
PZ Myers:
"...the absurd claim that "There's no physical evidence for [evolution]", and insists in chapter 8 of her new book that there is "no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record." This is like standing outside in a drenching rainstorm and declaring that there is no evidence that you are getting wet.
Let me introduce you to PubMed. This is a freely accessible online database of articles published in the biomedically related fields of the life sciences. It indexes over 4800 journals and contains about 12 million articles going back to 1966, and it's growing constantly."
The article goes on to reference a litany of evidence.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php
Vik:
That’s why (as noted in the original article) the American Museum of Natural History says that Darwinian evolution “may” cause the origin of species, and not that it “does” cause it.
They do not say that, and if they did they would be incorrect. The quote in your article is:
"Evolution Today: How Do New Species Evolve?
Separate groups of organisms belonging to the same species may adapt in different ways to better exploit diverse environments or resources. They also may evolve varied characteristics for attracting mates. That is, different groups evolve in different directions. Over time, these groups or populations may become so different that they can no longer breed together-separate species are formed."
Your interpretation is clearly refuted by the highlighted sentence - not may evolve but do evolve.
Your interpretation also commits the Fallacy of Equivocation. ("May" as in "Sometimes", "Can"; vs. "May" as in "Might be the case").
#77Your interpretation is clearly refuted by the highlighted sentence - not may evolve but do evolve.
I think your reading of this is reasonable.
#78Frank and Rich,
Checking the link provided by Rich to the TalkOrigins archive, I find this on the first page of the "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution:"
Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.
So on this page they're saying that none of the evidence presented in this section assumes Darwin's theory as having been proven as the mechanism for macroevolution.
Following another link from the TalkOrigins archive, I find this on the page titled, "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory:"
...biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
...Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community.
It appears to be undeniable that scientists don’t claim that Darwin as the mechanism for evolution has been proven.
#79Vik:
So on this page they’re saying that none of the evidence presented in this section assumes Darwin’s theory as having been proven as the mechanism for macroevolution.
You're missing the point. It is true that that essay does not make the assumption that "Darwin's theory" has been proven. That is only because it does not need to, and it is setting out to show that it does not need to. This does not support the conclusion that it has not been proven. It says nothing about it either way, deliberately so.
It's no different than being able to illustrate Ohm's law without needing to assume that the Eiffel tower is in Paris. Ohm's law would still work if the Eiffel tower was on the moon. That doesn't mean we can't say the Eiffel tower is in Paris or that this has not been proven.
The reason is that he is illustrating that macroevolution is a fact regardless of how it happened (exactly as "apples fall" is a fact, independent of any theory of gravity). And the deeper reason is, of course, that creationists have slung such mud around on the topic that the guy wanted to be utterly clear on the question.
It's like this:
Scientist: "Macroevolution is a fact!"
Creationist:"Ah but you're assuming that 'Darwin's theory' has been proven, so your reasoning is circular!"
Scientist:" No, look here, I can show that macroevolution is a fact without assuming that "Darwin's theory" has been proven!"
Creationist: "Ah, so you're saying that 'Darwin's theory' has not been proven!"
Scientist: Sigh.
there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution
However, in terms of this debate, all of them are in the Darwinian postcode. In terms of my Eiffel tower analogy above, it's as if there were some disagreement as to which street the tower is located in, not which town. Creationists by comparison locate the answer on a different planet, quite literally [pun intended].
#80That’s why (as noted in the original article) the American Museum of Natural History says that Darwinian evolution “may” cause the origin of species, and not that it “does” cause it.
Once again, see my first post.
It appears to be undeniable that scientists don’t claim that Darwin as the mechanism for evolution has been proven.
Quite true. Darwin had no concept of modern genetics, and since we now know genetics affect allele frequencies, then natural selection is not the mechanism for evolution. So Darwin was wrong.
However...
Natural selection is a mechanism by which populations adapt and evolve.
Add gene flow and genetic drift and we now have a combination of evolutionary mechanisms. Maybe we'll find more.
That natural selection is a part of that mechanism is proven (insofar as "proven" means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it). The only question is how much of a part. So Darwin was right.
But, if you're looking for proof of natural selection of the same kind and level as we have proof that evolution occurs, that can't happen for reasons already given. That's like comparing apples to oranges.
And to use this as some kind of reason to doubt evolution is, at best, to misunderstand what is going on.
That’s a question for a biologist. I guess you’re seeking to make the point that you can’t have one without the other. It’s a reasonable argument, but it’s very far from proven.
The point is that Schroeder implicitly accepts an evolutionary mechanism far more complex than anything that evolutionary biology proposes.
#81The interesting thing about the TalkOrigins page on "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory" is the distinction it makes between evolution, which TalkOrigins states is a fact, and Darwin as the mechanism for it, which it plainly states is not proven:
...humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
...Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
Frank, your point on the evidence essay is well-taken; this is a separate essay from the one on evidence.
Neil, this page on TalkOrigins doesn't say, Darwin + gene flow + genetic drift has been proven as the mechanism for origin of species. It appears to be plainly stating that there is as yet no mechanism for this that scientists regard as proven. That of course doesn't mean science stops; it doesn't mean all the work to date is thrown out; certainly not. Work continues. Science is seeking proof of the mechanism for the origin of species. But it does appear that TalkOrigins plainly states that no mechanism yet proposed has been proven, and more work needs to be done on it.
#82Vik:
...humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
This is the same point as that made in the other essay. It is stating that common descent is a fact, regardless of how it happened.
As Neil has pointed out we already know that there are other mechanisms at work - other evolutionary mechanisms - but we also know that natural selection is part of the overall mechanism.
To continue to debate "Darwin" when it is already known that Darwin got some things wrong is astonishing. Also you seem to use terms like "unproven" as if to imply (or at least you allow readers to infer) that evolutionary theory is no better than a random guess - or is somehow on a par with other "unproven" theories, such as the theory that speciation is caused by invisible pink unicorns that live in the walls of your house.
It is not so.
#83if we wish to provide a totally meaningless phrase 2 of them would be:
"Darwin as the mechanism for evolution has been proven. "
"Darwin as the mechanism for evolution has not been proven. "
so why argue a point that is not acually a point
and
what is the point? if evolution is a well established and solid theory, what is the point?
#84Rich,
if we wish to provide a totally meaningless phrase 2 of them would be:
“Darwin as the mechanism for evolution has been proven. “
“Darwin as the mechanism for evolution has not been proven. “
A scientist could never argue that it's meaningless whether something has been proven. Can you imagine Newton saying, it doesn't really matter whether it's proven that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction? We went to the moon by relying on Newton's 3 laws of motion. If those laws were wrong, it wouldn't have worked. Really, no scientist can state, as you have stated, that the notion of proof is meaningless.
We really are getting into the arena of faith and religion, rather than science, if you argue that proof is not necessary.
#85Frank,
If you're agreeing that Darwin isn't proven as the mechanism for the origin of species, we agree. We certainly agree that new species have come into existence.
If you're saying that there's no such thing as proof in science, see my just-previous comment on that subject.
#86Vik, I've already said that that remark is misleading and omits important information. I've even explained why and so have others. [Insult deleted]
The statement "new species have come into existence" is also rather anaemic and pretends that far less is known than is actually known.
Firstly, do you agree with this statement: "all individual humans alive today share a common ancestor"?
Secondly, do you agree with this statement: "all individual humans and all invidual gorillas living today share a common ancestor"?
Lastly, do you agree with this statement: "gorillas and humans evolved from a common ancestor species", or do you claim that is not "proven"?
#87Vik, I’ve already said that that remark is misleading and omits important information. I’ve even explained why and so have others.
I'm just asking you if you agree that Darwin's theory of macroevolution has not been proven. What important information does that question omit?
Firstly, do you agree with this statement: “all individual humans alive today share a common ancestor”?
Secondly, do you agree with this statement: “all individual humans and all invidual gorillas living today share a common ancestor”?
Lastly, do you agree with this statement: “gorillas and humans evolved from a common ancestor species”, or do you claim that is not “proven”?
I don't address those questions in this article, or in this comment thread. You are mixing up Darwin's two distinct discoveries. Per TalkOrigins, as I quoted above:
Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
So Darwin can be 100% correct about the fact of evolution -- and the answer to your three questions can be "yes" -- and still be wrong about the mechanism of evolution.
#88Once again though you claim to have deleted an insult there was none. This is fast reaching the point where I will have to post comments elsewhere in order to force you to respect the integrity of my posts if you will not do it willingly.
You are mixing up Darwin’s two distinct discoveries.
Nope. I'm trying to establish the sense in which you use terms such as 'proof' and 'proven'. There are various interpretations possible and yours appears to be non-standard.
Implied by your question is that "proof" is a black and white question - a theory is proven or it is not. Since scientific theories are always provisional and never proven (even Newton's laws continue to be tested), it is possible to make such a claim about any theory if you set the bar ridiculously high. This results in false equivalences between perfectly good theories and ludicrous ones, because neither is "proven".
Do you believe that the sun shone before humans existed? Is that a proven theory? If you would answer no to that then it would be obvious to everyone that when you say a theory is not proven, you're not saying much. In which case your claim regarding "Darwin" is similarly empty.
And again:
You are mixing up Darwin’s two distinct discoveries
We can see that the title of your post makes no distinction at all between them and nobody reading your post would come away knowing the difference if they did not know it already.
In fact your use of terms such as "proof" and "Darwin" and others are all highly ambiguous. Someone could read your title to mean there is no evidence for macroevolution (there is), or that gorillas and humans did not evolve from a common ancestor species (they did), or that natural selection is not a mechanism for speciation (it is).
Not only could they reach such wrong conclusions from your post but they could wind up construing it to mean that there was scientific proof of your statement when in fact there is none!
#89You have avoided answering my question:
Frank: Vik, I’ve already said that that remark is misleading and omits important information. I’ve even explained why and so have others.
Vik: I’m just asking you if you agree that Darwin’s theory of macroevolution has not been proven. What important information does that question omit?
In any case, since TalkOrigins states that no theory of evolution has been proven, my point is clearly correct. At this point, to disagree with me, you have to disagree with TalkOrigins.
#90Neil, this page on TalkOrigins doesn’t say, Darwin + gene flow + genetic drift has been proven as the mechanism for origin of species. It appears to be plainly stating that there is as yet no mechanism for this that scientists regard as proven... At this point, to disagree with me, you have to disagree with TalkOrigins.
As I (and Frank) already pointed out, that's not the case.
TalkOrigins is correct in saying that the exact mechanism for evolution has not been proven (insofar as it ever could be). Nevertheless, there is no real doubt that natural selection is a part of that mechanism.
#91...there is no real doubt that natural selection is a part of that mechanism.
That's not what TalkOrigins says. As quoted above, TalkOrigins says:
...humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
#92Vik:
"...there is no real doubt that natural selection is a part of that mechanism."
That’s not what TalkOrigins says. As quoted above, TalkOrigins says:
"...humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
The Eiffel tower is in Paris whether the earth is round or some other yet to be discovered shape.
Therefore it is not proven that the earth is round.
Your argument.
#93Robert Savillo has a great point by point rebuttal of Ms. Coulter's arguments posted at Media Matters:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200607070010
Savillo does grouse at Coulter for her smearing, but the facts and links are quite interesting, especially the sections showing how Coulter uses certain quotations out of context (see the discussion of the Cambrian explosion). I would guess, however, that Savillo is nicer to the opposition than Coulter.
#94Thanks for the link, ThroatWobbler. I look forward to checking it out.
#95here's a more detailed review of Coulter's book
#96humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Not sure how that contradicts what I said.
Anyway, I saw this interesting comment on free republic.
#97The entire "Discovery Roster" is a sham, as will be demonstrated before the summer ends, in another venue...
Just because you prove one brand of evolution to be false does NOT mean evolution itself is fundamentally flawed...you can simply see how a wooly mammouth has lots its fur for example and developed larger ears in the hot heat in todays modern day African Elephants.
#99"One of the most powerful arguments against Darwin as a means of speciation (that is, as a means of the origin of new species), is that one would expect to see a massive amount of fossils of transitional species, and while there are a number of possible candidates for transitional species, the expected massive amount of such fossils does not appear in the fossil record. "
Wrong!
#100cartooms about mohammet all well and good but how about a few cartoons on the shenegans of the holy roman catholic imperial fascist church with winged angelic bums floating around the sistine chapel or orgasmic nuns married to christ embracing all shapes and sizes of crosses. the recent cartoon in the bangkok post of buddhist thailand is marvellous. it shows pope benedict the 16th with a condom floating above his head. standing beside him is the grim reaper and a puzzled black girl holding a baby who is again pregnant and probably unmarried.
#101on questions of evolution and darwinism versus conscious creationism this and that. darwins contribution to mankind is tremendous and recently has been amplified by the concept of punctate evolution and the fact that certain species look the same but have very different genes. its a complex matter that is not theoretical as there is so much proof in reality about the evolution of all species. in point of fact the genes of the mosquito crocodile cobra giraffe and the awful predator homo sapiens is within all of us. i like the hebraic understanding that the evil and good inclination is within all of us and that there is no god only infinity eternity the unknowable and the unnameable. the word god is a meaningless english word and that the name hashem (the name-yud hai vav hai) has millions if not billions of meanings. i enjoy defining yud hai vav hai. the symbols for these 4 letters is the yud(a drop of semen) hai(orgasmic breathing of male and female and vav(the phallic column at the entrance of many japanese villages) is what its all about baby. be fruitful and multiply. in the hindu culture every hindu temple has the shiva yoni and linga a place for all male hindus to meditate. it is a round stone with a nipple cum penis at its centre. surrounding the nipple penis sculpture is a ring which is part of a cobra and at the side the vagina and clitoris are graphically present. the kama sutra and the songs of solomon(shir ha shirim) are the equivalent in words and the temples of karnuk in india are erotic skulptures the bain of the christian invaders who hate sex which is the equivalent of sin and damnation. all hail to the immaculate conception and virginity which is the way of christianity. the scopes trial be damned its very protestant fundamentalist american. nasty UNHEALTHY AND CAUSES A LOT OF HUMAN SUFFERING.
#102You claim to have "600 scientists" who have signed a statement expressing doubts about evolution, and the BEST of that crowd you can quote is someone from the "Autonomous University of Guadalajara, Mexico"? Well, we all know that barely a week goes by without some major discovery from THAT institution. Come to think of it, the fact that this guy is a pathologist, one of the sciences we get the clearest indication of ongoing evolution, is perhaps a good explanation for the state of public health in Mexico.
It is interesting that anti-science people call evolution a "religion" yet pounce on all the words science uses to prove its open mindedness (like "theory" and talking about how species "may" evolve) as proof it doesn't actually know what it is talking about. Religion is when you choose a belief and stick with it no matter what the evidence. Evolutionary science has changed according to the evidence, a couple of Darwin's original beliefs themselves were discarded even as the major thrust of his argument was proven more sound. The fact that the books are constantly being rewritten is proof they are not engaging in a "religion".
#103It is pointless to try to argue with a religious viewpoint or a faith based viewpoint. Faith is not based on any legitimate or logical or rational argument. It is based on a deep seated need to believe. Whilst I respect the right of people to believe in anything they wish, I do not respect what religious people believe in.
It never ceases to amaze me that otherwise intelligent people will suspend their intelligence (which is all we have) in favour of wishful thinking because they are unable to accept the cosmos without the ludicrous postulation of a benign, loving creator.
It is therefore not possible to have an intelligent discussion about religious belief unless it takes place between non believers. Once a religious believer enters the debate, logic and reason cannot prevail against the childish retort of 'well I believe it anyway, so there! Nah nah na na nah!
Religious belief is a night light for adults who are afraid of the dark.
I agree that people should not stoop to Ann Coulter's style of discorse when criticizing her. After the full articles I do understand they found it hard to resist.
Yet I doubt Myers thinks that the Discovary Institute's signatories make arguments as tired as Coulter's. Indeed, it appears some of them have no problem with the idea of common ancestry.
(Incidentally, I wonder how many of the Discovery Institute's signatories are named Steve.)
And yes, new species may evolve. Then again, they may not. Just because they're in the situation where they could evolve, doesn't mean they will.
Finally, perhaps Dr. Schroeder should explain, scientifically, what is the biological or genetic mechanism which permits all manner of "micro-evolution" variation but somehow slams the door shut and prevents "major gradual morphological change".