We’ve been reading Charles Darwin all wrong

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

See those blue lines?

They gloss over more missing links than Carter has liver pills and make evolution look smooth and analog.

Now tell me where I'm wrong.

You're wrong in that this whole thing is a problem for anyone but yourself.

 

[Buzzard3]

Perhaps you could suggest one or two for discussion?

Please consider this example:

Some scientists reason that a sharp rise in environmental oxygen levels triggered the so-called Cambrian explosion. I suggest that it's impossible to test the hypothesis that an increase in available oxygen will result in the evolution of novel organs, novel body plans and novel phyla.

And I suggest that there exists no empirical evidence whatsoever that an increase in available oxygen will result in the evolution of novel organs, novel body plans and novel phyla.

To make matters worse, there are doubts as to whether such a spike in the oxygen level at the Ediacaran/Cambrian boundary even occured.

So it seems to me that this "oxygen" hypothesis amounts nothing more than pseudo-scientific story-telling.

(I'm not sure why this has appeared in "bold", but I couldn't be bothered changing it.)

What sparked the Cambrian explosion? - Nature

An evolutionary burst 540 million years ago filled the seas with an astonishing diversity of animals. The trigger behind that revolution is finally coming into focus.

www.nature.com

 

[AV1611VET]

You're wrong in that this whole thing is a problem for anyone but yourself.

LOL -- missing links -- and you have no problem with that.

iawn

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

LOL -- missing links -- and you have no problem with that.

iawn

Maybe you can actually explain why you think any 'missing link' is a problem for evolution? If you can.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'd say that the vast majority of Christians who "accept the theory of evolution" actually know very little about it, and that they're victims of a belief system that filtered down from the scientific community into the education system and the mass media, then into the minds of the gullible masses.

Ironically, it turns out that the minority of Christians who refuse to accept the theory of evolution, actually know very little about it. Notice that in discussions here, they have asserted that it's about the origin of life, the Big Bang, and all sorts of other things. Occasionally I ask one of them to show us which of the four points of Darwinian theory has been refuted, and I always get a thundering silence.

Quantum theory makes my head hurt, and I don't really get it. However, the physicists who make things work using the theory give me considerable confidence that it shows us important truths about God's creation.

 

[The Barbarian]

LOL -- missing links -- and you have no problem with that.

It's "missing lynx." And it's been found. What gap between reptiles and mammals do you think exists?

 

[Buzzard3]

For a historian of science he has a remarkably poor understanding of what science is and what it can and cannot do.

Maybe that's why he died.

 

[The Barbarian]

Assuming of course, that God, who is a God of boundaries, hasn't set a boundary that evolution cannot cross.

The fact that no one can show such a boundary shows us that it's just another YEC attempt to insert their own wishes into scripture.

 

[The Barbarian]

Oh, good grief. Evolutionary biology is about how life gets the way it is. It is not a philosophy of life or meaningfulness or some substitute for religion.

Today's winner.

 

[BCP1928]

I'd say that the vast majority of Christians who "accept the theory of evolution" actually know very little about it, and that they're victims of a belief system that filtered down from the scientific community into the education system and the mass media, then into the minds of the gullible masses.

Certainly not the vast majority. Most Christians are Traditional Christians whose theology shows them that the theory of evolution does not challenge their faith.

 

[Buzzard3]

Because you're showing that you fundamentally don't know what you're arguing against.
Science doesn't deal in proofs, nor proves anything - that's for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals in facts, evidence, hypothesis and theories.

I'm not arguing that science deals with proofs. I'm arguing that no one can prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that no one can show such a boundary shows us that it's just another YEC attempt to insert their own wishes into scripture.

Sterility isn't a boundary?

Time isn't a boundary?

Extinction isn't a boundary?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not arguing that science deals with proofs.

Then why do you keep saying 'prove', like right after that comment?

I'm arguing that no one can prove that the history of life on earth is the result of a natural process.

We have evidence for it and absolutely zero scientific evidence for the history of life being the result of a supernatural process.

If you want to claim that life is a result of a supernatural process, you need to show evidence for it.

 

[BCP1928]

Please consider this example:

Some scientists reason that a sharp rise in environmental oxygen levels triggered the so-called Cambrian explosion. I suggest that it's impossible to test the hypothesis that an increase in available oxygen will result in the evolution of novel organs, novel body plans and novel phyla.

And I suggest that there exists no empirical evidence whatsoever that an increase in available oxygen will result in the evolution of novel organs, novel body plans and novel phyla.

To make matters worse, there are doubts as to whether such a spike in the oxygen level at the Ediacaran/Cambrian boundary even occured.

So it seems to me that this "oxygen" hypothesis amounts nothing more than pseudo-scientific story-telling.

(I'm not sure why this has appeared in "bold", but I couldn't be bothered changing it.)

What sparked the Cambrian explosion? - Nature

An evolutionary burst 540 million years ago filled the seas with an astonishing diversity of animals. The trigger behind that revolution is finally coming into focus.

www.nature.com

Except that in evolution there is no such thing as "novel organs and novel body plans" and "novel phyla" is a meaningless term.

 

[The Barbarian]

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent. “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” (1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address)
Dr. Provine

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species (my emphasis)

If I was going to characterize the thoughts of a famous scientist, I think I'd at least read his most famous work to be sure I got it right. But that's just me...

 

[The Barbarian]

BTW, the rise in animal diversity in the Cambrian, coinciding with a rise in oxygen levels, wasn't the only instance.

Scientists have found that increasing oxygen levels are linked to the rise of North American dinosaurs around 215 M years ago. A new technique for measuring oxygen levels in ancient rocks shows that oxygen levels in North American rocks leapt by nearly a third in just a couple of million years, possibly setting the scene for a dinosaur expansion into the tropics of North America and elsewhere. This is presented in a Keynote talk at the Goldschmidt Geochemistry conference, in Barcelona.

Rise of dinosaurs linked to increasing oxygen levels

Scientists have found that increasing oxygen levels are linked to the rise of North American dinosaurs around 215 million years ago. A new technique for measuring oxygen levels in ancient rocks shows that oxygen levels in North American rocks leaped by nearly a third in just a couple of million...

www.eurekalert.org

 

[AV1611VET]

Certainly not the vast majority. Most Christians are Traditional Christians whose theology shows them that the theory of evolution does not challenge their faith.

Then explain their zero tolerance for those who interpret Genesis 1 & 2 literally.

They seem pretty sensitive about it, and I suspect it's because they indeed are sensitive to being challenged.

I've been called just about everything, but what's in my profile.

And I suspect it's because I dare have standards.

And I'll post my standards, along with my prime directive, any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

No one else will.

And I suspect it's because they don't have any to post.

Just saying.

ETA: Okay -- the Scientific Method. I'll give them credit for that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd say that the vast majority of Christians who "accept the theory of evolution" actually know very little about it, and that they're victims of a belief system that filtered down from the scientific community into the education system and the mass media, then into the minds of the gullible masses.

Some of us "accept the theory of evolution" because we're educated and do know something about science. In fact, some of us who are wide-ranging topical researchers make it a point to survey, triangulate, compare and contrast the various view points on a topic in depth and are thus generally aware of the points and counterpoints, evidences and counterfactuals involved in issues inherent to the Theory of Evolution (or to the Biblical Literature, such as it is).

So, it can't be said that a number of us, however small (or large) a number we are, are merely "victims of a belief system that filtered down..."

If anything, the shoe that you're citing could also be placed on the foot of Biblical Fundamentalists and other ardent Dogmatists.

If you want to challenge my point of view, then realize I'm going to start here:

 

[The Barbarian]

Sterility isn't a boundary?

Time isn't a boundary?

Extinction isn't a boundary?

None of those are boundaries to evolution of new taxa. Indeed, some of that is required for such evolution. The point is that no one can show a boundary between (for example) mammals and reptiles that cannot be crossed by mutation and natural selection.

 

[The Barbarian]

Then explain their zero tolerance for those who interpret Genesis 1 & 2 literally.

Most Christians just challenge the revisions to Genesis by YECs. They seem pretty sensitive about it, and I suspect it's because they indeed are sensitive to being challenged.

And I suspect it's because I dare have standards.

You won't go to hell for being a YEC. God doesn't care if you approve of the way He does creation. But if you make YEC into an idol, that could be a problem for you.