Friday, September 9, 2011

Speciation

Thanks to NWA's ignorant post, I felt compelled to find something that NWA could understand regarding speciation. I think this excellent video should do the trick:



For a fuller discussion of macro-evolution, Talk Origins has a series on predictions based on evolutionary theory and the results that confirm the theory.

Note: A theory is not the same as "hypothesis," which is a preliminary guess. A "theory" in science is a concept that explains observed phenomena, and which can be further tested with more observations. So far, observations by trained biologists have confirmed and refined the theory of evolution in many ways. Observations by Christian pseudo-scientists have been debunked by responsible actual scientists. Note: these scientists are not "Darwinists." They are scientists - they trust the scientific method to add to human understanding, and do not revere Darwin at all except in the same way they revere any scientist who has proposed a new theory that has stood the test of time. They are not "Darwinists" any more than they are "Newtonists" or "Einstinists."

5 comments:

ed said...

I don't understand the basis of your rage?

L.Long said...

Have you all noticed that all Gideon can do is bad mouth our spelling and grammar. Try to tell us what 'theory' does not mean. But no experimental evidence that HIS 'wild arse thought' is even close to valid.
Bad mouthing evolution does NOT make your thought true.
You MIGHT be able to show some doubt of evolution is valid but that will never 'prove' your ideas true.

Allusive Atheist said...

If someone can't or won't recognize the difference between the common meaning of "theory" and the meaning of "theory" as it applies to scientific principles then they lose all credibility with those who can and do recognize the distinction.

Sadly, most people can't, won't or just don't care. So unless intellectual honest is a high priority there is little point in recognizing the difference.

To complicate matters the theory of evolution is an opportunity for the willfully ignorant to double down on their misinformation. For the theory of evolution is NOT a theory regarding the existence, non-existence, possibility, plausibility or probability of distant decedents differing (genetically and phenotypically) from their distant ancestors. The theory of evolution is the **explanation of how and why** the observed and observable phenomenon of distant decedents differing (genetically and phenotypically) from their distant ancestors occurs.

It is also important to understand why we have a theory of evolution. Early on it was not an attempt to explain our origins. It is an attempt to explain the similarity and difference of pre-historic organisms, geo-biodiversity, genealogy and why organisms exist in their "current" states (including speciation). That it tells us so much about our own origins, among many other unexpected things, is serendipitous.

Scientific knowledge is corrigible, mutable unfixed. It is not ideological, set in stone or impervious to new/better information. We can never assume that what we now know is the end result, merely the current best understanding. If we don't test our ideas and actively seek to be "less wrong" we will be as ignorant in 10 or 50 years as we are today. That's as true for individuals as it is for societies. Does a person today believe no more and no less than they did 10 years ago? Is it even possible for a living person to learn nothing in ten years?

The question then becomes how important is it to be right about any given idea and what tools can we use to sort the grain from the chaff... how can we be less wrong.

Never Was An Arrow II said...

That VID is yet another perfect example of why macro evolution and species morphing in so little amount of time (millions or billions of years) is impossible.

As a Catholic I am not compelled to argue against evolution. In the eyes of the Church, anything could have happened, so long as God was behind whatever course mankind finally took. Catholics explore logic—we don't fight it.

I just don't think Darwinian theory can withstand the math, forget about all the biological improbabilities.

You have two salis—who are identical in every way—except they can't mate. And how long did that micro-evolution of apparent relateds take? When I'm talking about macro, I'm talkin' about significant morphing change, not one small aberration like the salis. I mean radical species change.

I mean verifiable and repeatable. Theory remains just that UNLESS you now want to change the age-old Scientific Definition for Theory like Dismissive, I mean Allusive, wants to.

One year we had to spray the apples, when it was windy. There was a grove of Bartlett pears in a gully below this part of the orchard that inadvertently got sprayed. The spray was specifically for Red Delicious apples to greatly enhance their naturally occurring 'points' at the apple's bottom, right around the calyx of the RD apple.

Well, guess what happened? The pears had the same points around their calyx that year—and everybody noticed these irregular pears. And those who noticed, asked about these strange pears.

Next year the pears were fine.

The pears, like everything else in creation are HARDWIRED to retain their created biological identity.

So, they returned to what they naturally were.

There are forces within nature that greatly resist tampering. Darwinians don't account for this force and so many others.

If Man evolved from apes—why do we still have apes?

If one man did evolve, it flies in the face of chance mathematics that a female would have evolved at precisely the same time, in the same region, found this like man, copulated with him and bore children that survived and were able multiply the process.

Now, I'll tell you how God ACTUALLY did it—in under six thousand years. It's all documented.

How God rapidly filled the earth (this factoid is contained within the Oral tradition of the Church, from a Jewish source, and was likely disclosed to Moses by God, Himself).

Adam and Eve at the start of the human race, had multitudinous offspring, exactly 32 SETS of twins, except for Enoch. And the twin had twins.

The world was young and man had not been bridled, but indeed was commanded to multiply. There was no disease, famine, or constricted age, etc. Yes, people did die, but not for hundreds of years.

And the first time it ever rained was at the time of Noah! But that story is for another day.

Anyway, today with the advent of widespread contraception use, we see a different worldwide trend happening. But inversely proportional, this time. Look at how rapidly we are de-populting in some countries like Japan.

Lots to think about.

Too many holes in Darwinian evolutionary theory for me, I'm afraid. Nothing logically follows through to its expected end.

LadyAtheist said...

Evolution took millions of years. The fossil record demonstrates that the speed of speciation is about what one would expect.

If you want to cling to your hypothesis that a magic wand made everything happen just the way your god-fairy wanted it to be, that's your right, but it's the same "right" as believing in fairies and the Easter bunny. You have the right to be wrong, but you should also expect people who know better to point and laugh at you.