Can the process of evolution be accelerated?
-
Gould explained it well
"Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
Salaam
This quote reinforces my belief that evolution is nothing but a dogmatic belief. Gould is clearly admitting the failure of the "theory" advanced by Darwin to explain the origin of life but has difficulty accepting it.
I am sure he would still be looking for a "mechanism", if he had been alive today that is ....
-
This quote reinforces my belief that evolution is nothing but a dogmatic belief. Gould is clearly admitting the failure of the "theory" advanced by Darwin to explain the origin of life but has difficulty accepting it.
No, what you're doing is conflating common descent with the mechanism of Darwinian natural selection like a typical dogmatic creationist. Common descent stands on its own evidence, it validity doesn't depend on any proposed mechanistic theories. Darwin never advanced any theory concerning the "origin of life" by the way, I suggest you do some reading up. And I also have no idea how you interpreted the quote to be an admission of failure of Darwinian natural selection on Gould's part. But creationists do have a tendeny for willful self-deception, so I shouldn't be to surprised.
I am sure he would still be looking for a "mechanism", if he had been alive today that is ....
We have a perfectly fine mechanism, but in Science nothing is 100% certain. I think that's what Gould was also trying to get across. Our theories may change, but observations remain the same.
-
Peace all,
A video clip showing a chicken born with duck feet probably due to a mutation
http//cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/scp_v3/viewer/index.php?pid=16598&rn=49750&cl=1779007&ch=68276&src=news
-
No, what you're doing is conflating common descent with the mechanism of Darwinian natural selection like a typical dogmatic creationist.
My earlier post was concerning Gould's quote so kindly stop inventing stuff I never said.
Common descent stands on its own evidence, it validity doesn't depend on any proposed mechanistic theories.
The fact that all living things possess the same features and functions can also be interpreted as proof of the existence of a common design. And that goes for the genetic code too.
The theory of evolution is unable to account for the enormous complexity of the DNA and the information contained within.
As an example, claiming that Myoglobin is the evolutionary ancestor of Hemoglobin is silly , for we know both myoglobin and hemoglobin possess exceedingly complex structures. To expect a mutation which randomly changes a protein's amino-acid sequence to turn that protein into a more complex one with more features is to believe in the impossible. In order to prove the evolutionist claims, every transitional stage between myoglobin and hemoglobin needs to be functional (and more advantageous than the preceding stage), and that is impossible. Moreover, the evolutionists' accounts fail to explain the origin of the myoglobin protein.
Darwin never advanced any theory concerning the "origin of life" by the way, I suggest you do some reading up.
Really ... Lets see who requires "reading up".
From www.answers.com
origin of life
This article focuses on modern scientific research on the origin of life. For alternate uses, see origin of life (disambiguation).
In the physical sciences, abiogenesis, the question of the origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth might have evolved from non-life sometime between 3.9 and 3.5 billion years ago. This topic also includes theories and ideas regarding possible extra-planetary or extra-terrestrial origin of life hypotheses, thought to have possibly occurred over the last 13.7 billion years in the evolution of the known universe since the big bang.
Origin of life studies is a limited field of research despite its profound impact on biology and human understanding of the natural world. Progress in this field is generally slow and sporadic, though it still draws the attention of many due to the eminence of the question being investigated. A few facts give insight into the conditions in which life may have emerged, but the mechanisms by which non-life became life are still elusive.
For the observed evolution of life on earth, see the timeline of life.
History of the concept
In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, Charles Darwin made the suggestion that the original spark of life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." In other words, the presence of life itself prevents the spontaneous generation of simple organic compounds from occurring on Earth today ? a circumstance which makes the search for the origin of life dependent on the sterile conditions of the laboratory.
Unfortunately, your personal attack against me has backfired.
It is clear it is you who needs "reading up", for you are totally unprepared to indulge in a debate concerning the theory of evolution.And I also have no idea how you interpreted the quote to be an admission of failure of Darwinian natural selection on Gould's part. But creationists do have a tendeny for willful self-deception, so I shouldn't be to surprised.
Please read your post again. There are TWO INDEPENDENT clauses in that quote. The second one says
humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Is this a scientific statement? Is your faith in a discredited theory that blind? If he is so sure about the Darwin's proposed mechanism, why is he mentioning a mechanism "yet to be discovered"?
Was Newton that lacking in conviction after he proposed his laws?We have a perfectly fine mechanism, but in Science nothing is 100% certain. I think that's what Gould was also trying to get across. Our theories may change, but observations remain the same.
Science is not about what you think. It is about theories that can be backed up with evidence. So far there is NO evidence to support the human-from-ape myth.
-
My earlier post was concerning Gould's quote so kindly stop inventing stuff I never said.
The fact that all living things possess the same features and functions can also be interpreted as proof of the existence of a common design. And that goes for the genetic code too.
No its totally vacuous, because you still refuse to understand that the genetic code is degenerate. Similarities in gene sequences can only be rationally explained through common descent. As for your common design argument, we have a more parsimonious explanation without invoking unobservable and unverifiable supernatural entities, so Science goes with that. Please read up on Occam's razor.
The theory of evolution is unable to account for the enormous complexity of the DNA and the information contained within.
Nice argument from ignorance. Have you looked into the "RNA world" models of abiogenesis. This is not really within the preview of evolution. Expect a creationist to conflate abiogenesis and evolution.
As an example, claiming that Myoglobin is the evolutionary ancestor of Hemoglobin is silly , for we know both myoglobin and hemoglobin possess exceedingly complex structures. To expect a mutation which randomly changes a protein's amino-acid sequence to turn that protein into a more complex one with more features is to believe in the impossible.
Argument from incredulity. Can you stop with the logical fallacies buddy.
In order to prove the evolutionist claims, every transitional stage between myoglobin and hemoglobin needs to be functional (and more advantageous than the preceding stage), and that is impossible.
Argument by assertion. Great, you're just following the typical creationist script.
Moreover, the evolutionists' accounts fail to explain the origin of the myoglobin protein.
How about this, gradual evolution through modification.
Really ... Lets see who requires "reading up".
From www.answers.com
Nice try, mere speculation isn't a Scientific theory. A thoery in science has a specific definition. Its a hypothesis thats been tested and confirmed to such a degree that its considered to be an accurate representation of reality. Please don't conflate the definition of "theory" in the common vernacular with that in scientific usage. You only make yourself look more of an idiot.
Unfortunately, your personal attack against me has backfired.
It is clear it is you who needs "reading up", for you are totally unprepared to indulge in a debate concerning the theory of evolution.blablabla. You keep on typing this gibberish but at the same time you betray a fundamental ignorance of the whole subject eg. transitional organisms must be incomplete.
Please read your post again. There are TWO INDEPENDENT clauses in that quote. The second one says
You don't understand how Science works, why am I not surprised. Have you ever looked into the philosophy of Science? Do you know what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is? Do you understand that Science cannot ever prove absolutely any of its theories? We can't absolutely prove that our theories are a totally valid representation of whats happening, there could always be something else causing the phenomena. Science, by definition, cannot be dogmatic in this regard. Gould is simply being honest about the inherent limitations of Science. But I would expect a creationist to engage in such dishonest games.
Is this a scientific statement? Is your faith in a discredited theory that blind? If he is so sure about the Darwin's proposed mechanism, why is he mentioning a mechanism "yet to be discovered"?
Read the above. And stop making unsuported assertions, creationist.
Was Newton that lacking in conviction after he proposed his laws?
Goes to show that you totally and utterly missed the point. The fact that that Newton's theory of gravitation was overturned by Einstein goes to show that nothing in Science can be proven absolutely, we know this now very well. And whether or not Darwinian natural selection is the correct mechanism behind evolution, it has no bearing on common descent. Why don't you remove those creationist goggles for a moment and actually sincerely try to understan what Gould is trying to get across here.
Science is not about what you think. It is about theories that can be backed up with evidence. So far there is NO evidence to support the human-from-ape myth.
We have plenty of evidence, from the fossil record to comparative anatomy and physiology, and the genetic evidence. Blindly asserting, like a typical dogmatic creationist, that there's no evidence doesn't actually make it so.