Posted by Tom on September 17, 1999 at 08:46:16:
In Reply to: So you are saying that you are shortsighted? posted by rpcman on September 16, 1999 at 16:55:07:
Hello, I respect what you're saying about the practical difficulties
of inducing macroevolution in a lab. Nevertheless, my argument still stand that
the most rigorous standards of scientific method do not or perhaps could not
demonstrate evolution of this kind. I agree that the fossil
record provides at least circumstantial evidence for macroevolution. I'm not contending that living things came
into existence instantaneously. But evidence of progressive development of
living things over time does not prove that the Neo-Darwinian paradigm is correct.
In fact the fossil record seems to show a number of anomalies that contradict
the macroevolutionary view. While one can imagine an evolutionary
sequence running from the Austrolapithecine hominds to Homo Sapien Sapiens, (something I
don't have a problem with), the fossil record seems to suggest rather sudden "punctuations" in
this sequence. Daniel Dennett, incidentally, accuses Gould of being a creationist of sorts
for even proposing such a heresy. Nevertheless, the fossil record seems to support
what Gould (who is certainly an orthodox evolutionist) claims.
To go back to the original point about lab-induced macroevolution, I realize that this
may be impossible. Still it would be nice if the scientic elites could be a bit more
forthright in acknowledging the limitations of scientific method to demonstrate such claims.
This might appease many of us who are critics of the evolutionary priesthood. I have not problem with
my children being taught about Darwin's theory. In fact I've encouraged discussion
at home whenever the subject came up. But I get the impression that it is sacred dogma
for many of you folks, and not subject to the same kind of scrutiny as other
scientific subjects.
Many of my scientific colleagues here at the University of Georgia share my skepticism. They also
find that they are silenced by what they affectionately call the
Darwin Gestapo.
Tom Lessl
: : The only evidences of macroevolution that I'm familiar with
: : are based on speculative interpretations.
: Speculative? Did you read and look at the evidence provided in the link? There is little to speculate about. A speculative theory is one that posits species being created out of thin air when such events have never been witnessed.
: : Even where the fossil records
: : seems to suggest such changes, (and these instances are rare), there is NO evidence
: : that natural selection plus mutation is capable of producing them.
: I see you don't bother to look very hard. If I offered you a dozen or so books on the subject, would you read them?
: Virtually every ancient fossil ever found (and this is not a number that can be considered 'rare') is evidence of macroevolution. You'll be hard pressed to find fossils older than a few million years ago that closely resemble species still alive today.
: : A lab-induced organism that has a complex
: : organ that it previously lacked.
: Wouldn't that be nice. Unfortunately, evolutionary theory does not predict real-time macro-evolution.
: : Tropical birds losing the capacity to
: : fly don't impress me.
: And apparently the observed instances of speciation that have been referred to on this board don't either.
: Tell me what would impress you that wouldn't violate the constraints (namely time) of current evolutionary theory.