It's no secret that evolutionists insist evolution is a fact. They disagree amongst themselves about the theory of evolution but they agree about the fact of evolution. If there is one point of agreement within evolution-dom, it is that evolution is a scientific fact. This proclamation runs all through the literature. From the popular articles and books to textbooks, evolutionists constantly reassure themselves their idea is beyond a shadow of a doubt. You can read more about this here. But when you ask real evolutionistists about this, a funny thing happens.
The fact of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, explained Harvard's Ernst Mayr, that it would be irrational to call it a theory. Comparisons to the roundness of the earth, gravity, and heliocentrism are typical. Sure this existence could all be a dream, but aside from such philosophical conundrums, evolution is clearly a fact.
This evolutionary drumbeat is constant, but when I ask evolutionists about this monumental claim, they suddenly become circumspect. Repeatedly in discussions and debates, evolutionists strangely never seem to sign up to this claim.
You don't understand what we mean by "fact," you don't understand evolution, and you don't understand science, are typical retorts. Suddenly, I am the one who is to blame for their absurdity. But I am merely asking them to reaffirm the holy creed. I am not using the words "fact," "evolution," or "science" any differently.
Or sometimes they avoid the question altogether. In any case, the contrast is deafening. After shouting dogmatic claims of facthood through their megaphone, when personally asked for an account they suddenly become sheepish. All is suddenly quiet.
When confronted, no one seems actually to agree with the party line. But of course in their circles, no one disagrees. It is a position of convenience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Evolution as Fact and Theory.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is directly observed, including mechanisms of selection and variation. Common Descent is strongly supported with evidence from such disparate fields as geology to genetics.
Evolution defined.
LOL! Still equivocating over fact and theory I see.
ReplyDeleteevolution fact - the ample evidence for common ancestry and descent with modification.
evolution theory - the explanation for the evidence described above.
How many times have people explained the difference to you CH? Twenty? Thirty? It's amazing how a grown man can continue to be so clueless and confuse the two. Unless it's being done as a willful deception.
I'll try to put it as simply as I can:
ReplyDeleteThat gravity occurs is supported by the evidence. What causes it is a question that is more complex and, theories about the mechanism are always being refined.
That allele frequency changes over time is supported by the evidence. What causes it is a question that is more complex, and theories about the mechanism are always being refined.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.
Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
ReplyDeleteDarwinists will say the darndest thing. Most Darwinists are not stupid people but why would you say something so stupid like this. The only conclusion I can come up with is that they are driven solely by their religious bias.
I mean really to compare the fact of gravity to the speciation of the diversity of life from a single or few common ancestors? This has got to be beyond credulity and beyond absurdity. A person does not need to understand Newtonian mechanics or relativity but they can authenticate the fact of gravity in every moment of their existence. A person can’t jump off the planet, can’t suspend an apple in mid-air, drop an object and see it fall to the ground, ad infinitum. When was the last time a Darwinist turned a prokaryote into a eukaryote, or a fish into an amphibian, or a mouse into a man. At best it is a theory that is unsupported by facts and a hodgepodge of just so stories.
Larry Moran: Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.
ReplyDeleteteleological blog: Darwinists will say the darndest thing.
Larry Moran is not a Darwinist.
teleological blog: I mean really to compare the fact of gravity to the speciation of the diversity of life from a single or few common ancestors?
ReplyDeleteI mean really to compare the fact of evolution to the universality of gravity supposedly causing planets and stars to move in their orbits. A person does not need to understand evolutionary theory to know that you should save your best seed for planting.
teleological blog: "Darwinists will say the darndest thing. Most Darwinists are not stupid people but why would you say something so stupid like this."
ReplyDeleteI know that it must be terrifying to think that other people look at the data and come to a *different* conclusion to you.
teleological blog: "The only conclusion I can come up with is that they are driven solely by their religious bias."
I am a Christian. A fairly conservative Christian. I don't even care for the term 'moderate,' let alone 'liberal' Christian. But I can tell you one thing for sure, you CAN NOT look at the data objectively when you whole heartedly believe that common ancestry CAN NOT be true. I understand your viewpoint, it was mine too for 80% of my life. When I was a young earth creationist and held the belief that Genesis has to be a literal, historical account in order for the rest of my beliefs to stand, NO amount of evidence could have convinced me that evolution was true. Any facts that seemed to align with evolution had a simple explanation: "God must have made it that way for some reason" As I have said time and time again, not all people accept evolution because of a religious bias; I accepted it in spite of one, due to the evidence. Does the evidence 'prove' evolution? No, it merely supports it. Is the evidence 'irrefutable'? I have claimed this in the past, but I now realize that ID could refute anything: "The Designer made it that way."
I know how tempting it is to use 'evolutionist' or 'darwinist' interchangeably with 'atheist'. It makes things simple, black and white. Even Cornelius labels me as primarily an evolutionist. It complicates the matter to have someone on the 'home team' accept evolution; it's easier to just pretend that Christians who accept evolution don't exist; that all 'evolutionists' are atheists, blinded by their 'faith'- but the notion that atheism is a religion is nonsense, and I have always recognized it as such. As someone said in another post, calling atheism a religion is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.
CH: "When confronted, no one seems actually to agree with the party line. But of course in their circles, no one disagrees. It is a position of convenience."
ReplyDeleteYour whole OP is a deliberate and shameless falsehood. I've seen dozens of people engage you on this and answer your question. I personally have engaged and answered several times on this very blog.
What does the Bible say about bearing false witness?
Is it possible to be a Christian and believe in the common ancestry of all terrestrial life at the same time?
ReplyDeleteFil said...
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to be a Christian and believe in the common ancestry of all terrestrial life at the same time?
Yes, absolutely. That description fits tens of millions of Christians worldwide.
Belief in a literal Genesis creation is not a requirement for being a Christian.
I can't see how. To be a Christian means to follow Christ, believe what he taught and that he died for our sins. If the Genesis account is merely allegorical(?) then Adam and Eve never existed. If they didn't exist there is no original sin and, hence, no need for a redeemer in Christ. Then all the Gospel accounts would be fraudulent. So you can be a Christian or believe in common ancestry. I can't see how to reconcile the two.
ReplyDeleteZacho my friend: A person does not need to understand evolutionary theory to know that you should save your best seed for planting.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn’t you say this earlier? Now I totally get how Darwinian UCA is a fact just as gravity is a fact. Yeah, I can see that. BTW, how you doing man? ;)
Derick:
ReplyDelete===
That allele frequency changes over time is supported by the evidence. What causes it is a question that is more complex, and theories about the mechanism are always being refined.
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.
====
Changes in allele frequencies is not in question, or the claim. The claim is that species evolved, one from the other, going back to a UCA.
teleological blog: Now I totally get how Darwinian UCA is a fact just as gravity is a fact.
ReplyDeleteGravity is to evolution (change in the heritable composition of populations) as the history of the Solar System is to the history of life.
Cornelius Hunter: Changes in allele frequencies is not in question, or the claim. The claim is that species evolved, one from the other, going back to a UCA.
The claim that organisms are related by Common Descent is strongly supported by evidence from disparate fields, from geology to genetics. We might start with the geological succession. The general outline of vertebrate evolution is primitive fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal to primate to hominids. A diverging lineage is reptile to dinosaur to bird. Still another, fin to limb to arm to wing to fin. And we can show that each of the lineages involves multiple branchings. There is no reasonable doubt that humans are related by common descent to other hominids, or that Darwin's Finches diverged from a common ancestor.
Dr. Hunter:
ReplyDelete"Changes in allele frequencies is not in question, or the claim."
That's the very definition of evolution. It doesn't fit very well with the favorite misrepresentation of the creationists, that individual organisms evolve.
"The claim is that species evolved, one from the other, going back to a UCA."
Species don't generally evolve "one from the other," populations split, diverge, and become separate species. Of course, we can't think about the fact that lines between species can be awfully fuzzy and hard to define, which isn't even remotely consistent with design or creation of "kinds."
Are you really this ignorant about basic, observable evolutionary phenomena, Dr. Hunter?
Zach:
ReplyDelete===
The claim that organisms are related by Common Descent is strongly supported by evidence from disparate fields, from geology to genetics. We might start with the geological succession. The general outline of vertebrate evolution is primitive fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal to primate to hominids. A diverging lineage is reptile to dinosaur to bird. Still another, fin to limb to arm to wing to fin. And we can show that each of the lineages involves multiple branchings. There is no reasonable doubt that humans are related by common descent to other hominids, or that Darwin's Finches diverged from a common ancestor.
===
Thank you Zach, it's good to know someone will give the straight talk.
Smokey:
ReplyDelete"That's the very definition of evolution."
No, changes in allele frequencies is not the very definition of evolution, it is an equivocation on evolution.
====
Species don't generally evolve "one from the other," populations split, diverge, and become separate species.
====
In both cladogenesis and anagenesis you have species evolving, one from the other, no matter how much you try to avoid it.
====
Of course, we can't think about the fact that lines between species can be awfully fuzzy and hard to define, which isn't even remotely consistent with design or creation of "kinds."
====
And so evolution is a fact.
Dr. Hunter:
ReplyDelete"No, changes in allele frequencies is not the very definition of evolution, it is an equivocation on evolution."
Because you say so? Someone who is deathly afraid of producing, or even examining, real evidence? Someone who is so far removed from actual science and scientists that he thinks that a blogger who is an abject failure as an independent scientist is a scientific "big shot"?
====
Me: Species don't generally evolve "one from the other," populations split, diverge, and become separate species.
====
"In both cladogenesis and anagenesis you have species evolving, one from the other,"
No, cladogenesis is species evolving two from one.
"... no matter how much you try to avoid it."
You're projecting. You're avoiding the fact that in anagenesis the line between species is even fuzzier than it is in cladogenesis, too.
====
Me: Of course, we can't think about the fact that lines between species can be awfully fuzzy and hard to define, which isn't even remotely consistent with design or creation of "kinds."
====
"And so evolution is a fact."
Huh? Isn't putting words in other people's mouths a violation of the Ninth Commandment? Evolution is a fact because it is an observable phenomenon in real time. It is defined as a change in allele frequencies over time.
Note that anyone who tries to portray single organisms evolving, as you are so fond of doing, is being deceptive and/or ignorant.
Fil said... Is it possible to be a Christian and believe in the common ancestry of all terrestrial life at the same time?
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent question Fil, and the answer is absolutely yes. Now, I haven’t always thought this. Like many, I used to assume that all evolutionists were atheists, primarily as the result of people like Ken Ham who use the terms interchangeably. As I began to meet Christians who accepted evolution, I still had the suspicion that they couldn’t be a ‘real’ christian and a ‘real’ evolutionist at the same time. (You should have seen the look on my face when I discovered that C.S. Lewis was an evolutionist!) I can assure you, I am both a ‘real’ Christian and a ‘real’ evolutionist; I believe humans, like everything else in the universe, are the intention of God, that Jesus was God manifest in human form, that he died and was physically resurrected 3 days later, and that his incarnation, death, and resurrection somehow built a bridge between man and God that had previously been hindered by our ‘sin’ nature. I also accept that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor; that evolution is driven by natural processes like natural selection acting on random variation; and that there is no reason scientifically [or theologically] to think that God had to swoop in and perform a miracle any time in the process in order for it to move forward. That’s the short answer. I’d love to answer your other question much more thoroughly as time permits.
Now Cornelius, I know you’ve just read that and you’re thinking, “Look how many metaphysical statements that fellow just made! Religion drives his science!” or something similar. I must point out {again} that nothing in my theology or philosophy *requires* evolution to be true; it just *allows* it to be possible. My acceptance of evolution is based on the scientific arguments for it; not the ‘metaphysical’ ones.
Zacho: Gravity is to evolution (change in the heritable composition of populations) as the history of the Solar System is to the history of life.
ReplyDeleteYou are not seriously suggesting that this is all Darwinists mean by evolution is a fact, are you? If this is true then are you going to tell me that the entire tree of life is only a theory? Are you going to tell me that we all are the descendents of a fish is only a theory?
Derick: I know that it must be terrifying to think that other people look at the data and come to a *different* conclusion to you.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a good sign when you start off with the wrong conclusion. It has nothing to do with being terrified. I merely pointed out the stupidity of Darwinists and those like you who would agree with the statement that evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact.
I am a Christian. A fairly conservative Christian.
You know slapping a label on your forehead does not mean anything. I don’t judge you by what you call yourself but by your actions. And yes, an overwhelming majority of Darwinists are atheists. However, I would not rule out that it might be possible that some misguided Christians or those who claim to be Christians who believe in Darwinism, although I am skeptical that is possible. Make no mistake about it Christianity and Darwinism is antithetical to each other. No one can serve two masters. In Christianity God created all things, all things were created by Him. We and all of life were designed by God. Darwinism dictates the absence of God. Everything from the big bang to the talking ape is a product of random natural processes. Everything can be explained by pure materialism and a god is not necessary, even if it exists.
You may want to call yourself a conservative Christian but you are living like the devil. You better make up your mind, if you are really committed to this atheistic Darwinism, because if you are then maybe you should stop fooling yourself and stop calling yourself a Christian.
So true Dr. Hunter. I debate evolutionists quite often, and although they claim a 'mountain of evidence' for their 'theory,' they can never produce any that doesn't require one to first ASSUME evolution is true. When confronted with this, they respond with insults and vulgarity. I guess it offends them when you don't blindly follow their darwinian religion.
ReplyDeleteteleological blog: Now I totally get how Darwinian UCA is a fact just as gravity is a fact.
ReplyDeleteZachriel: Gravity is to evolution (change in the heritable composition of populations) as the history of the Solar System is to the history of life.
teleological blog: You are not seriously suggesting that this is all Darwinists mean by evolution is a fact, are you?
Your original statement lends confusion to two different senses of the term "fact". We observe evolution (as defined above). We observe gravity. We infer Common Descent. But Common Descent is as well established as other historical facts, such as the great age of the Earth, or the formation of the Solar System from a primordial nebula.
Gould: In science, fact can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
teleological blog: I merely pointed out the stupidity of Darwinists and those like you who would agree with the statement that evolution is a fact like gravity is a fact.
Interesting, then, how the vast majority of the scientific community considers evolution a fact. But then again, you just conflated the meanings, even after the distinction has been provided. If you mean the Theory of Common Descent, then you should use the proper terminology. Yes, humans descended from more primitive mammals. That's a fact.
music1028: I debate evolutionists quite often, and although they claim a 'mountain of evidence' for their 'theory,' they can never produce any that doesn't require one to first ASSUME evolution is true.
Hypothesis-testing is the heart of the scientific method. The key is that the empirical predictions should be specific and uniquely entailed in the hypothesis.
ZachrielYour original statement lends confusion to two different senses of the term "fact".
ReplyDeleteNo, no, no Zacho. You are accusing me of doing exactly what you are doing. I was applying the word fact in the exact sense that Darwinists apply the word fact, and you just did it again.
Zachriel: We observe evolution (as defined above).
Which is what? (change in the heritable composition of populations) Alright this is an observed fact. But did you stop here? No.
Zachriel: We infer Common Descent. But Common Descent is as well established as other historical facts, such as the great age of the Earth
See you just conflated observed reality and Darwinists speculation and called it fact. You are the one that is confusing the term. You can infer common descent all you want but it is not a fact. It is not even a historical fact because there is no way of corroborating how it got from point A to point B. At least with the age of the Earth you have a continuous measure of isotope decay and plate tectonics that will give us a measurable minute increment from point A to point B. You have no innumerable measurable intermediaries to connect you from point A to point B and you have no empirically measurable mechanism that would be required to create the numerous novelties to go from point A to point B.
Zachriel: Interesting, then, how the vast majority of the scientific community considers evolution a fact. But then again, you just conflated the meanings, even after the distinction has been provided.
How? Did you even read what I wrote? I did say that most Darwinists are not stupid people did I not? The only reason I can come up with that would cause them to say something this stupid is because of the religious bias. If you have another theory on why Darwinists would say something this stupid let me know.
And again, as I’ve demonstrated it was you who conflated the meanings not I
I can't believe that everyone here is agreeing that "gravity is a fact". Haven't they heard of the orbit of Mercury, or the quantum realm?
ReplyDeleteGravitation is clearly so much speculation built on a house of cards. Gravitationists don't just claim that things fall (microgravity) — they claim that somehow, lots of things falling over deep time actually leads to large bodies becoming round. You can't make this up, folks!
When was the last time a Newtonist made a planet spherical? Just show me a planet becoming round — how hard can it be? — and I'll turn on a dime.
Gravitationists have incredible FAITH in the power of tiny accumulations and invisible magic mystery beams. Gravitationists say that Mars is round "because of gravity". So, why aren't its moons, Phobos and Deimos, round? Did they just forget to scrunch themselves into balls?
Or… could it be, just maybe… entropy? "Of course not", says the Newtonbot. How convenient.
teleological blog: You can infer common descent all you want but it is not a fact.
ReplyDeleteCommon Descent (as it applies to most taxa) is very well supported. There is no reasonable scientific doubt that humans and horses share a common ancestor.
teleological blog: You have no innumerable measurable intermediaries to connect you from point A to point B and you have no empirically measurable mechanism that would be required to create the numerous novelties to go from point A to point B.
One doesn't have to have innumerable intermediaries. What we do have is a testable hypothesis. Indeed, every newly discovered fossil species supports Common Descent, including their placement in the fossil record.
teleological blog: And again, as I’ve demonstrated it was you who conflated the meanings not I
The term is Common Descent.
Lenoxus: I can't believe that everyone here is agreeing that "gravity is a fact".
ReplyDeleteI know exactly what you mean. When it comes to gravity I lose my ability to think rationally. For example, every time I stand on the edge of a tall building without a parachute I immediately stop becoming a gravity denier, can you imagine that? I was wondering how many times have you deny gravity by jumping off a tall building without a parachute?
Just for the record, I am not recommending anyone doing this even if you are a gravity denier.
Zachriel: Common Descent (as it applies to most taxa) is very well supported. There is no reasonable scientific doubt that humans and horses share a common ancestor.
ReplyDeleteOf course it is. So now you are back to saying that UCA is a fact like gravity is a fact?
Zachriel: One doesn't have to have innumerable intermediaries.
Of course not, I would say the same thing if I am a Darwinist. If common descent does require innumerable intermediaries like Darwinian gradualism requires over long periods of time and innumerable minute changes, what am I left with, other than some disparate old fossils and a lot of just so stories? Yuck, who wants that?
teleological blog: So now you are back to saying that UCA is a fact like gravity is a fact?
ReplyDeleteGravity is directly observed, so is considered a fact. Evolution is directly observed, so is considered a fact. The historical formation of the solar system from a nebula is so strongly supported by the evidence that it is considered a scientific fact. Common Descent is so strongly supported by the evidence that it is also considered a scientific fact.
Zachriel: One doesn't have to have innumerable intermediaries.
teleological blog: Of course not, I would say the same thing if I am a Darwinist.
Please try to avoid the term "Darwinist" as your usage doesn't match the modern sense. By the way, do you have pictures of every moment of your life? Or should we presume that your development, growth and aging never occurred because of gaps in the historical record?
teleological blog: If common descent does require innumerable intermediaries like Darwinian gradualism requires over long periods of time and innumerable minute changes, what am I left with, other than some disparate old fossils and a lot of just so stories?
Testable hypotheses.
Zachriel: Please try to avoid the term "Darwinist" as your usage doesn't match the modern sense.
ReplyDeleteOh really? In what modern sense do you mean, you guys change the meaning of words (e.g. fact) so much it is hard to keep up?
Zachriel: By the way, do you have pictures of every moment of your life? Or should we presume that your development, growth and aging never occurred because of gaps in the historical record?
You must be joking right? You are not seriously resorting to this type of rhetorical sophistry to justify your lack of support for Darwinian evolution are you? I mean do you really want to compare the evidence for my development with the evidence for UCA? Someone actually saw my birth. Did someone see a fish turned into an amphibian? I went to school, had friends, acquaintances and interaction with countless individuals who can testify to my aging process. Do you have eyewitnesses that can testify to observing common descent? I can observe the development of another human being from birth to maturity. These are facts.
Zachriel: Common Descent is so strongly supported by the evidence that it is also considered a scientific fact.
ReplyDeletePutting aside how strongly you might think common descent is supported. Let me ask you once again, are you now saying that UCA is a fact like gravity is a fact? It is a simple question. If I am a Darwinist I would answer in the affirmative.
Zachriel: Please try to avoid the term "Darwinist" as your usage doesn't match the modern sense.
ReplyDeleteTB: Oh really? In what modern sense do you mean, you guys change the meaning of words (e.g. fact) so much it is hard to keep up?
What would you call an evolutionary biologist who specializes in studying non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution?
teleological blog: In what modern sense do you mean, you guys change the meaning of words (e.g. fact) so much it is hard to keep up?
ReplyDeleteDarwin's original theory has been superseded. In modern science, it refers to natural selection. Many modern evolutionary biologists are not darwinists.
teleological blog: You are not seriously resorting to this type of rhetorical sophistry to justify your lack of support for Darwinian evolution are you?
It was your sophistry, er, standard of evidence, "You have no innumerable measurable intermediaries to connect you from point A to point B."
teleological blog: Putting aside how strongly you might think common descent is supported. Let me ask you once again, are you now saying that UCA is a fact like gravity is a fact?
Common Descent as it applies to the vast majority of taxa is well-established. Universal Common Descent is strongly supported. There is some ambiguity at the root of the tree, and is under active investigation.
TB: Did someone see a fish turned into an amphibian?
ReplyDeleteTB, this is just plain stupid. Evolution happens to populations, not individual organisms.
Can you grasp this simple concept?
Zachriel,
ReplyDeleteEvolution defined as the change in allele frequency of a population is an observed fact and its mechanism is the NS outcome of genetic variation.
However, this is not what is being contested.
ID contests the use of NS outcomes from genetic variation as the mechanism which accounts for non-reversible morphological change in organisms from generation to generation.
Smokey: TB, this is just plain stupid. Evolution happens to populations, not individual organisms.
ReplyDeleteCan you grasp this simple concept?
Actually, no I can’t seem to grasp this simple concept. I guess I am not smoking whatever that you are smoking. So evolution is even harder than I thought. Using your logic evolution have to turn an entire population of fish with the exact mutations to every fish at the same time over and over again until the entire population turns into amphibians. I am sure you have empirical evidence of how all of this happened right?
Zachriel: Darwin's original theory has been superseded. In modern science, it refers to natural selection. Many modern evolutionary biologists are not darwinists.
ReplyDeleteReally, many? How many? If Darwinists spend less time obfuscating terms to a bankrupt hypothesis maybe they just might see what a total failure it has been. In any case, the term Darwinist/Darwinism continues to be use by Darwinists and pro-Darwinian journals long after the modern synthesis. Look at this excellent post by Casey Luskin at Evolution News and Views, Busting Another Darwinist Myth
Zachriel: Common Descent as it applies to the vast majority of taxa is well-established. Universal Common Descent is strongly supported.
One thing I think we will both agree on is that you have represented Darwinists well in authenticating the thesis of Dr. Hunter’s OP.
Steve: Evolution defined as the change in allele frequency of a population is an observed fact and its mechanism is the NS outcome of genetic variation.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is directly observed, and Common Descent is inferred. Both are considered scientific facts; the former by way of observation, the latter by the strength of the evidence.
Steve: However, this is not what is being contested.
That's understood.
Steve: ID contests the use of NS outcomes from genetic variation as the mechanism which accounts for non-reversible morphological change in organisms from generation to generation.
Natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolutionary change, but is important to adaptation. We should start with the evidence for Common Descent. This provides us the historical sequence of events. Then we can discuss the mechanisms involved with those events.
Zachriel: Darwin's original theory has been superseded. In modern science, it refers to natural selection. Many modern evolutionary biologists are not darwinists.
ReplyDeleteteleological blog: the term Darwinist/Darwinism continues to be use by Darwinists and pro-Darwinian journals long after the modern synthesis. Look at this excellent post by Casey Luskin at Evolution News and Views, Busting Another Darwinist Myth
We just used the term "darwinism." So claiming it isn't used is rather odd. The term does not normally refer to the modern Theory of Evolution, but to theories and mechanisms of natural selection, or sometimes to Darwin's original theory.
Zachriel: We just used the term "darwinism." So claiming it isn't used is rather odd. The term does not normally refer to the modern Theory of Evolution, but to theories and mechanisms of natural selection, or sometimes to Darwin's original theory.
ReplyDeletePlease, I don’t see where Darwinists are using Darwinism as exclusively applying to NS. If you want to quibble over semantics I would give you neo-Darwinism, a term I’ve used in the past but it is just too much trouble to keep typing neo in front of Darwinism all the time. Beside anyone who has been debating this issue knows what is meant by Darwinism/Darwinian/neo-Darwinism anyway, it is an atheistic creation myth cobbled together with some just so stories. The only reason why Darwinists are objecting to the term now is because they know the public is getting wise to their fraud so this is a PR campaign as evident by E.O. Wilson’s complaint. And maybe Darwinists are thinking it is about time to change the label to delude the public once again into thinking that there is progress being made in the Darwinian myth.
Let’s also not forget what Sean Carroll said. ”The first revolution came when Charles Darwin … through a process called natural selection … The second revolution came with the merging of Darwin’s theories and the science of genetics … But neither of those approaches revealed how individual animal forms were made or how they evolved.” In other words, Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt in producing organisms in macroevolution. What is unfortunate for Carroll and Darwinists is that there isn’t any mechanism including evodevo and non-selective ones that does not involve some form of RM and some form of NS. That means the myth is dead.
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeleteLet’s also not forget what Sean Carroll said. ”The first revolution came when Charles Darwin … through a process called natural selection … The second revolution came with the merging of Darwin’s theories and the science of genetics … But neither of those approaches revealed how individual animal forms were made or how they evolved.” In other words, Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt in producing organisms in macroevolution. What is unfortunate for Carroll and Darwinists is that there isn’t any mechanism including evodevo and non-selective ones that does not involve some form of RM and some form of NS. That means the myth is dead.
Those aren't Sean Carroll's words. They were written by Lori Valigra in a review of Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful.
They have also been dishonestly quote mined. The whole passage is
Evo Devo is the third revolution in the field known as evolutionary biology or how animals were made and evolved.
The first revolution came when Charles Darwin published his seminal book on evolution, "The Origin of Species."
Darwin explained how, over eons, living organisms became diverse through a process called natural selection, meaning that nature decided which species had best adapted to their environment, and thus would thrive.
The second revolution came with the merging of Darwin's theories and the science of genetics.
But neither of those approaches revealed how individual animal forms were made or how they evolved. That's where Evo Devo comes in, attempting to explain a process through which a single- celled egg develops into a multibillion-celled animal, and why there are such deep connections among animals.
And while this third revolution may seem complex, it's based on the ancient tool kit with the small number of common ingredients.
Source
Did you do the dishonest quote-mining, or did you just mindlessly C&P it from another creto site without checking or caring that it was false?
TB wrote:
ReplyDelete"Actually, no I can’t seem to grasp this simple concept [that populations, not individual organisms, evolve]."
If you can't grasp the concept, how can you possibly know whether it is a valid one?
"So evolution is even harder than I thought."
ROTFL!
No, it's much easier. Again, if you don't grasp the concept, you can't possibly know what is easier or harder.
teleological blog: I don’t see where Darwinists are using Darwinism as exclusively applying to NS. If you want to quibble over semantics I would give you neo-Darwinism, a term I’ve used in the past but it is just too much trouble to keep typing neo in front of Darwinism all the time.
ReplyDeleteNeodarwinism is not universal among evolutionary biologists. For instance, Lynn Margulis says she is a Darwinist, but not a Neodarwinist. That means she sees natural selection as the primary engine of adaptation, but thinks that simple views of mutation and interorganismic competition doesn't reveal the whole story.
We have no desire to quibble over semantics, but Darwinism is not defined as "an atheistic creation myth cobbled together with some just so stories.
thorny: They have also been dishonestly quote mined.
ReplyDeleteI gave the link when I first quoted it in, Nietzsche’s Madman : Finding Darwin’s God With no disrespect to Dr. Hunter, my post title was probably meant as a little dig at Kenneth Miller’s book.
It was a paraphrase of what Carroll said in his book Endless Forms Most Beautiful. However, it is an accurate representation of what Carroll said. As a matter of fact Carroll’s own words are even more indicting of Darwinism. I am not going to waste my time and transcribe it for you go look it up.
Zachriel: We have no desire to quibble over semantics, but Darwinism is not defined as "an atheistic creation myth cobbled together with some just so stories.
ReplyDeleteReally? ‘Cause that is all that it seems to be. :D
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeletethorny: They have also been dishonestly quote mined.
I gave the link when I first quoted it in, Nietzsche’s Madman : Finding Darwin’s God
You didn't give the link at all in this thread. The one you provided now also has the quote-mined quote provided out of context and with the false claim that it was a direct statement from Carroll. Shame on your dishonesty.
It was a paraphrase of what Carroll said in his book Endless Forms Most Beautiful.
In neither place was it presented as a paraphrase. Shame on your dishonesty.
However, it is an accurate representation of what Carroll said. As a matter of fact Carroll’s own words are even more indicting of Darwinism. I am not going to waste my time and transcribe it for you go look it up.
I don't have to look it up. I read the book and Carroll says nothing like what you are misrepresenting. I also provided the whole context of the statement from the original article you wouldn't.
Shame on your dishonesty.
Steve wrote:
ReplyDelete"ID contests…"
I thought you guys were trying to claim that ID is a theory. People or groups of people contest things. Are you admitting that ID is a political movement at its core?
"... the use of NS outcomes from genetic variation as the mechanism …"
How about writing in English? Outcomes are not mechanisms. I have no clue what you are saying in this phrase.
"...which accounts for non-reversible morphological change in organisms from generation to generation."
So can we agree that populations of organisms do vary from generation to generation? Morphological, genetic, biochemical, or all three? If Darwinian mechanisms (don't forget non-Darwinian ones) don't account for such change, what does, Steve?
thorny: Shame on your dishonesty.
ReplyDeleteAre you trying to overcompensate for some inadequacy like your diminished intellectual capacity? Is your atheistic Darwinism so threatened by the powerful case that I’ve presented that you are betting your entire religious faith on this ad hominem?
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeletethorny: Shame on your dishonesty.
Are you trying to overcompensate for some inadequacy like your diminished intellectual capacity? Is your atheistic Darwinism so threatened by the powerful case that I’ve presented that you are betting your entire religious faith on this ad hominem?
No, I'm just calling you out on your dishonest quote-mining. Seems to be your only trick, since you've yet to show the slightest clue about any technical scientific points on evolution.
Shame on your dishonesty
Thanks to thorny for catching my mistake of incorrectly attributing the quote from CSM to Sean Carroll. I made the mistake of thinking that the author of the CSM article was quoting Carroll when in fact she seems to be giving a paraphrase of what Carroll said in his book. This should have been the quote I used from Carroll’s book.
ReplyDelete“The two greatest revolutions in biology, those in evolution and genetics, were driven by such insights. Darwin explained the parade of species in the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms as products of natural selection over eons of time. Molecular biology explained how the basis of heredity in all species is encoded in molecules of DNA made of just four basic constituents. As powerful as these insights were, in terms of explaining the origin of complex visible forms, from the bodies of ancient trilobites to the beaks of Galapagos finches, they were incomplete. Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.
The key to understanding form is development, the process through which a single-celled egg gives rise to a complex, multi-billion-celled animal. This amazing spectacle stood as one of the great unsolved mysteries of biology for nearly two centuries. And development is intimately connected to evolution because it is through changes in embryos that changes in form arise. Over the past two decades, a new revolution has unfolded in biology. Advances in developmental biology and evolutionary development biology (dubbed “Evo Devo”) have revealed a great deal about the invisible genes and some simple rules that shape animal form and evolution. Much of what we have learned has been so stunning and unexpected that it has profoundly reshaped our picture of how evolution works. Not a single biologist, for example, ever anticipated that the same genes that control the making of an insect’s body and organs also control the making of our bodies.” --- Sean Carroll, “Endless Forms Most Beautiful”, pg ix-x (emphasis added)
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeleteThanks to thorny for catching my mistake of incorrectly attributing the quote from CSM to Sean Carroll. I made the mistake of thinking that the author of the CSM article was quoting Carroll when in fact she seems to be giving a paraphrase of what Carroll said in his book. This should have been the quote I used from Carroll’s book.
Props to you for admitting and retracting your first mistake. Now will you admit and retract your second? Up above you claimed this:
TB: "In other words, Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt in producing organisms in macroevolution."
What Carroll showed and said was not that Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt but rather that it is incomplete.
Carroll "As powerful as these insights were, in terms of explaining the origin of complex visible forms, from the bodies of ancient trilobites to the beaks of Galapagos finches, they were incomplete."
You're half way to being honest about this. Can you make it the whole way?
thorny: TB: "In other words, Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt in producing organisms in macroevolution."
ReplyDeleteWhat Carroll showed and said was not that Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt but rather that it is incomplete.
I never claimed he used the word bankrupt. His is a Darwinian Prior there is no way that he would use that word to describe Darwinism unless he comes to his senses. If you actually get you head out of the fog long enough, you might see the sentence right after that. ”Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.” Why is neo-Darwinism bankrupt/incomplete? Because it cannot explain how macroevolution happen. It cannot explain directly because all Darwinism tells you is that genes are inherited and life has a fitness pressure. If Darwinism was able to explain directly/indirectly how macroevolution occurred he wouldn’t have to come up with this cockamamy Evo Devo to try to convince people of macroevolution.
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeletethorny: TB: "In other words, Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt in producing organisms in macroevolution."
What Carroll showed and said was not that Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt but rather that it is incomplete.
I never claimed he used the word bankrupt. His is a Darwinian Prior there is no way that he would use that word to describe Darwinism unless he comes to his senses. If you actually get you head out of the fog long enough, you might see the sentence right after that. ”Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.” Why is neo-Darwinism bankrupt/incomplete? Because it cannot explain how macroevolution happen. It cannot explain directly because all Darwinism tells you is that genes are inherited and life has a fitness pressure. If Darwinism was able to explain directly/indirectly how macroevolution occurred he wouldn’t have to come up with this cockamamy Evo Devo to try to convince people of macroevolution.
I guess half way to honest is as far as you're willing to go. Got it.
thorny: What Carroll showed and said was not that Darwinism/neo-Darwinism is completely bankrupt but rather that it is incomplete.
ReplyDeleteAre you daft? Stop acting like a Darwinian drone and repeat the word incomplete like a mantra. What does it mean to be incomplete in the context of what he is saying? Does he show anywhere in his book how the first 2 revolution even provide a partial/incomplete answer to how macroevolution occurred? Has Carroll written any papers demonstrating how the first 2 revolution created macroevolution? What he said was ”Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.”
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeleteAre you daft? Stop acting like a Darwinian drone and repeat the word incomplete like a mantra. What does it mean to be incomplete in the context of what he is saying?
It means exactly that, incomplete, i.e. the other two provided some but not all of the answer to the puzzle.
Look at Carroll's own words that you're fond of quote-mining again:
Carroll: ”Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.”
Go get your dictionary. What does the adverb directly mean in that sentence? What does the opposite of directly, indirectly mean?
Your feeble attempts at dishonest quote-mining and word game are both childish and pathetic.
thorny: Look at Carroll's own words that you're fond of quote-mining
ReplyDeleteDo you even know what quote mining means? Neither go look it up or look in a mirror. You are taking the words in isolation and not in context. You can’t take the general meaning of a single word and apply a generic meaning that obviously does not fit the context. It is incomplete because it describes NS and heredity but not where new forms come from. There is no direct explanation because it explain something else not new forms. Did you even read any of his books? I am done with your lame arguments, you Darwinian drone.
teleological blog said...
ReplyDeletethorny: Look at Carroll's own words that you're fond of quote-mining
Do you even know what quote mining means?
Yes, it's the dishonest way you have taken Carroll's words out of context. Here they are again in context.
Carroll: “The two greatest revolutions in biology, those in evolution and genetics, were driven by such insights. Darwin explained the parade of species in the fossil record and the diversity of living organisms as products of natural selection over eons of time. Molecular biology explained how the basis of heredity in all species is encoded in molecules of DNA made of just four basic constituents. As powerful as these insights were, in terms of explaining the origin of complex visible forms, from the bodies of ancient trilobites to the beaks of Galapagos finches, they were incomplete. Neither natural selection nor DNA directly explains how individual forms are made or how they evolved.
Hmmm..."As powerful as these insights were, in terms of explaining the origin of complex visible forms..they are incomplete". Doesn't sound anything like the dishonest spin you put on it, claiming Carrol says Neo-Darwinism is bankrupt.
And yes, I've read his books. I have them sitting on the shelf behind me. Have you actually read them, or are you just C&Ping your quote-mined dishonesty from a creto source?