"Every day, hundreds of observations and experiments pour into the hopper of the scientific literature… and every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth. Every fossil that we find, every DNA molecule that we sequence, every organ system that we dissect supports the idea that species evolved from common ancestors. Despite innumerable possible explanations that could prove evolution untrue, we don’t have a single one. We don’t find mammals in Precambrian rocks, humans in the same layers as dinosaurs, or any other fossils out of evolutionary order. DNA sequencing supports the evolutionary relationships of species originally deduced from the fossil record. And, as natural selection predicts, we find no species with adaptations that benefit only a different species. We do find dead genes and vestigial organs, incomprehensible under the idea of special creation. Despite a million chances to be wrong, evolution always comes up right. That is as close as we can get to a scientific fact."
Friday, April 17, 2009
Great Quote About Evolution
The following quote is taken from Jerry Coyne's new book, "Why Evolution Is True".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
total BUNK! There are PLENTY of instances of mammals, invertebrates and insects mixed in the same layer of rocks. In one case, an entire tree was found UPSIDE DOWN through layered strata. So... did it just somehow stay upright for "billions" of years while rock slowly accumulated around it? Highly improbable. We also still have NO IDEA how something in between a wing and a leg is somehow better than a plain ol leg. It isn't better unless it's ALL there, and evolution tells us that it can't all be there at once. When you go to look at something determined to see evidence to support your claim, that's not scientific inductive reasoning anymore. That's deductive. And that's what most of today's scientists set out to do. They want to "prove" what they already deeply, desperately believe.
ReplyDelete...and every fact that has something to do with evolution confirms its truth.Interesting... so what type of biological observation would not confirm "evolution," whatever it may be?
ReplyDeleteI have two main problems with the assumption of truth in pure evolution theory. One is that it is just that, theory, meaning that it can by definition be neither confirmed nor denied. In spite of popularly accepted ideologies, evolution has yet to be proved conclusively due to too many variables, contradictions, and lack of scientifically recorded evidence predating humans. This factor can never be overcome, for evolutionary philosophies rely upon estimates of time prior to human intellectual development and not pure fact. This is not to say that such estimates cannot be accurate, but rather to say that there is no way to prove that they are accurate without relying on a presumed theory (age of the earth, evolution v creation, etc.). The second issue is point of origin. Evolution implies a logical development of species due to intellectual growth and adaptation to better survive and thrive in various environments. However, it also assumes a point of origin of matter coming from a big bang or similar universal starting point. This assumption undermines the very "logic" that evolution depends upon, for the statistical likelihood that a chuck of space debris would stop in place by developing a large enough mass to start it's own gravitation pull in the exact location in space needed to provide just enough solar energy to heat the surface without burning it perceptually is extremely low. Add on that the statistical possibility that such space debris would have the exact elements available for the development of any form of independent life form is even further remote. Add to this the exact rotation speed, revolution path and tilt of the earth, the unlikelihood of single celled organisms to have any motivation to merge, etc.; and one must recognize that either something was directing the details of this process or we're extremely lucky that chaos theory kicked in allowing infinite possibilities to enable us to even exist. There in lies the crux, if the statistical probability of such things coming out of chaos is some infinitesimally small, then how can a logical person assume that such Probability would increase as more complex creatures added even further possibilities to the mix. Therefore, the point of origin debate comes down to the likelihood of logic coming from chaos.
ReplyDeleteSorry but EVERYTHING in science is a theory. For instance, gravity is a theory. This is so our knowledge can advance and become more complete. Theories are well supported ideas from several lines of evidence. A theory is not a guess.
ReplyDeleteThat state is untrue. After all, if you want to use pure science to argue then you must acknowledge that there is a purpose for the differentiation between scientific law and theory, otherwise scientific process flies out the window.
ReplyDeleteAs for the above debate, once again, evolution relies upon all life evolving from single celled organisms, but that however, does not answer the question of where single celled organism originated. Are you trying to make the argument single-celled life comes from inanimate elements? What then was the catalyst? If that's all that is required then why have limited explorations not found any life forms on Mars in any variety. After all, if life can derive from inanimate elements without a specific catalyst, then life forms should be able to develop on other planets, or galactic satellites such as the moon because they would grow in such a way to survive the harsher elements of their environments. Isn't that one of the basic premises of evolutionary theory, that life with grow and adapt in any way possible to ensure survival of the fittest in any given environment?
Evolutionary theory doesn't address where the first single celled organism came from. You have missed what evolutionary theory is. Evolution is about what happens after life has appeared. It has nothing to do with how life came about on earth. The theory you are probably referring to is abiogenesis.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your question about life forms in space, that's part of the interest of whether there is water on Mars and the Moon. Water seems to be a needed element for life or at least life as we know it.
Laws of nature are constructs of man to describe how nature works. They are theoretical. It is possible that we don't completely understand the "laws" of nature or that we have mis-understood them. Gravity is a theory, relativity is a theory, evolution is a theory, Mendel's laws are theory, the earth orbits the sun is a theory, and so on. A theory is the highest point an idea can reach in science. Once again, a theory is a well supported idea with many lines of evidence; it's not a guess.
ReplyDelete