|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Evolution is science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Hi. Please read the forums rules. We discourage copy/pasting. We would rather you put your arguments forward in your own words. It's OK that you weren't aware of this, but please bare it in mind in the future.
Enjoy your time here, and happy debating! Edited by AdminModulous, : No reason given. New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Observations about Evolution and This could be interesting....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
To the best of my knowledge Blythe only acknowledged stabilising selection. The idea that natural selection could drive adaptive change, then would properly belong to Darwin and Wallace. Certainly his 1836 paper on Varities in Animals holds that selection forces animals to retain their current form.
Do you have any support for the idea that Blythe had any special claim to the concept of speciation ? Or even beleived that new species could form ? His paper on seasonal variations in birds seems to day otherwise.
Of course, all these various facts lead us to the important consideration of, What is a species? What constitutes specific distinction? To which the only rational reply appears to be (and even this is quite incapable of probation), Beings derived from a separate origin.
I have found it to be a very general opinion among naturalists, that specific diversity must of necessity be accompanied by some perceptible difference in the structure. To this I cannot accede, until I hear of a sufficient reason why it should be the case. We perceive every grade of approximation, till in the shrews, for instance, a slight diversity in the form of one of the back teeth comprehends all the difference. It is therefore presumed that, as so very trivial a deviation cannot be said to affect the animal's habits, for what purpose, then, does it exist, save to intimate the separateness of the species? But, surely, it will not be contended that species were created with a view that man should be able to distinguish them! Surely, differences were not imposed merely to facilitate the progress of human knowledge! Is it not much more rational to conclude, that, as great differences in the structure import corresponding diversities in habit, so, by the same rule, minor differences also imply an equivalent diversity in degree? Let us, again, consider the American and European crows: here it would seem that specific diversity is unaccompanied by any structural deviation
"Seasonal and Other Changes in Birds" Blyth therefore claims SEPERATE origins for species that are exrtremely similar, perhaps to the point where there is NO distinction between them, and attributes their origin to seperate creation. How then can Blyth be said to endorse speciation ? And why would a continuing process of change be self-refuting ? Is not a stable orbit a continuous change of position and velocity ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Most of this is presented by Andrew Bradbury's writing. His whole book has been provided for all to view here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
I note that you don't answer my points other than referring to a book.
Presumably if you have the book you can use it to support your claims. But given the facts - Blyth insists that natural selection acts contrary to change, that species have sperarate origins, that different species can be apparently identical, distinguished only by being created seperately - it seems hard to credit the idea that he conceived of the idea of any species being related by common descent, with natural selection guiding the changes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Thats because Natural Selection, Variation and Speciation have nothing to do with Common Descent. Thats Evolution, which is intrinsically a reductio ad absurdum.
In other words, NS and Evolution are mutually exclusive terms. They are not related to one another. NS actually refutes Evolution. Darwin's main purpose and drive was to establish a Philosophy known by most intelligent Philosophers as Naturalism and then call it "Science." Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Evolution by means of natural selection has everything to do with variation, speciation and common descent.
How exactly are NS and evolution mutually exclusive and on what predictive scientific evidence do you base this assertion?
Darwin's main purpose and drive was to establish a Philosophy known by most intelligent Philosophers as Naturalism and then call it "Science."
Unfortunately you are judging others by the low standards of creationists rather than on the facts. Just because creationists decide what they believe to be true and then set out to provide "evidence" does not mean that scientists take this same topsy turvy, back to front route to establishing real scientific conclusions. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
You've yet to offer anything suggesting that Blyth beleived that speciation was even possible, let alone that natural selection played a role in it.
And if Blyth rejected common descent then he certainly rejected the possiblity that speciation could occur in part of a population (cladogenesis), leaving a significant discovery for Darwin.
quote:Only if NS cannot guide the change of speciation. Even if the entire population became a new species (anagenesis) that would still be evolution. Thus you only confirm the point that this idea belongs to Darwin, not Blyth. quote: Got any evidence for that incredible assertion ? Or is it more of the usual slander we've come to expect from creationists ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
You've yet to offer anything suggesting that Blyth beleived that speciation was even possible, let alone that natural selection played a role in it.
And if Blyth rejected common descent then he certainly rejected the possiblity that speciation could occur in part of a population (cladogenesis), leaving a significant discovery for Darwin. Let us cover this issue here then, shall we? Francis Hitching mentioned that Eiseley had chronicled quite substantial portions of Darwin's writings that were nearly "word for word identical between Darwin and Blyth"" although Blyth's ideas preceded Darwin's publication of The Origin by over twenty years (I do not necessarily agree with Eiseley on the strict word for word comparison, however compare this from the Magazine of Natural History in 1835, which Darwin read on the Beagle, with Darwin's earlier chapters on natural selection in his Origin) .(9) Large parts of Darwin's personal notes during this period in 1835 reflected his familiarity with Blyth's writings, yet for some mysterious reason fifty pages of Darwin's notebook from this time are missing, with the cryptic reference "All useful pages cut out," (6) added by Darwin in 1856. This does not prove that Darwin purposely hid reference to Blyth's writings. You can draw your own conclusions. Darwin's own copy of Magazine of Natural History in 1837 showed that he made use of Blyth's paper of that year, the same year when he first claimed to have come up with the idea of natural selection on his own,(7)wherein Blyth had written essentially the same basic doctrine that Darwin took credit for.(8) Eiseley wrote, "At that moment, probably in 1837, the Origin was born." William Wells had actually written of natural selection in 1813 (as had many others, however it was Blyth's writing that Darwin clearly was impressed by during his voyage, and it was Blyth who saw natural selection in a creationist context) but Darwin claimed that he was unfamiliar with Well's writings at the time of the original publication of The Origin of Species. Later on, after being brought to task by certain individuals for taking credit for an idea that was not his own, Darwin gave Wells credit for the idea; however Wells originated nothing novel either: as noted, the basic concept of natural selection had been around since ancient Greek time. (Although it is a bit like pulling teeth, evolutionists are finally having to admit that there was really nothing original in what Darwin wrote, however they still insist that he somehow proved evolution. Very few of them can actually cite evidence for this. For more on this century old fable, see Chapter Four of The Darwin Papers) The significant difference between the writings of Charles Darwin and Edward Blyth was that Blyth was an ardent creationist; (other evolutionists had written of natural selection before Blyth, it's really a pretty simple concept and was nothing new when Darwin wrote about it either, as can be seen from this website), the uniqueness of Blyth's writing was that he saw natural selection within a creationist perspective, not from a purely naturalistic one, and his papers simply flowed with his sense of awe and reverence for the God of creation who had so wonderously and wisely made all of His creatures. Blyth showed that natural selection actually worked better within a creationist framework. Thus, with this major pillar destroyed, the theory of evolution didn't have a leg to stand on, except for the ongoing propaganda campaign conducted by those such as Roland that lends the momentum to continure the charade. http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/...te/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm Blythe actually demonstrated how Natural Selection actually works. He was the very first Scientist to ever do this, not Darwin! Darwin and Blythe's writings were basically identical word for word. Why is that? Well obviously, the burden doesn't fall on Blythe, since his writings were from 1835. But Darwin's writings being 25 years later? Perhaps this could also explain why he got sick on his voyage to the Galapogos (if he even in fact went!). In other words, NS and Evolution are mutually exclusive terms -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Only if NS cannot guide the change of speciation. Even if the entire population became a new species (anagenesis) that would still be evolution. Thus you only confirm the point that this idea belongs to Darwin, not Blyth. - Problem no. 1 with this is the fact that no new gain of information has ever occurred, and we should expect a TON of this if Evolution were true. So right away, Evolution is really dismissible. Natural Selection does not guide the change within Speciation. Problem 2:Here is an example of Blyth's description of natural selection, which, as opposed to Darwin's (and other evolutionist's writings), describes it as a process whereby the original created type of a species has the best chance of surviving among brute animals: " There has been, strangely enough, a difference of opinion among naturalists, as to whether these seasonal changes of colour were intended by Providence as an adaptation to change of temperature10, or as a means of preserving the various species from the observation of their foes, by adapting their hues to the colour of the surface; against which latter opinion it has been plausibly enough argued, that "nature provides for the preyer as well as for the prey." The fact is, they answer both purposes; and they are among those striking instances of design, which so clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an omniscient great First Cause. Experiment demonstrates the soundness of the first opinion; and sufficient proof can be adduced to show that the other is also sound. Some arctic species are white, which have no enemy to fear, as the polar bear, the gyrfalcon, the arctic eagle-owl, the snowy owl, and even the stoat; and therefore, in these, the whiteness can only be to preserve the temperature of their bodies [VI. 79.]; but when we perceive that the colour of nocturnal animals, and of those defenceless species whose habits lead them to be much exposed, especially to enemies from above, are invariably of the same colour with their respective natural haunts, we can only presume that this is because they should not appear too conspicuous to their enemies.". Blyth, Magazine of Natural History, 1835 http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/...te/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darwin's main purpose and drive was to establish a Philosophy known by most intelligent Philosophers as Naturalism and then call it "Science." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Got any evidence for that incredible assertion ? Or is it more of the usual slander we've come to expect from creationists ? Slander nothing. Why do Scientists today claim that only Naturalism is Science? Do you happen to realize that none of that was even considered until the Age of Enlightenment? The Greeks used to combine God and Science! Being that Creation Science has not been refuted, it is in fact the Evolutionists who carry the burden of proof, though, they always love to shift it over to the YECS side. Also see: Francis Hitching, an evolutionist, wrote: "Darwin took everything Blyth had said and used it to support an opposite conclusion"(10) i.e. the denial of the miraculous and of special creation. Darwin changed natural selection around to mean evolutionary descent of all beings from a common ancestor, which was never Blyth's original contention at all." http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/...te/Number2/Darwin2Html.htm The author seems to dance around the issues here and does not stand firmly committed to any position for the most part. What is significant however are the quotes surrounding his claims. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Got any evidence for that incredible assertion ? Or is it more of the usual slander we've come to expect from creationists ? Please Paul, try to remember to point out that it is the Biblical Creationists that are constantly slandering folk and not Creationists. I consider myself a Creationist, yet fully support both Evolution and the TOE. It is not Creationists, but rather the subset of those who worship the Bible as opposed to GOD and the message found in the Bible that you are addressing. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
HUH?
Why then are you attacking the Biblical Creationists here? Thats a Genetic Fallacy at work. Your hypocrisy shines through Jar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
Someone who supports Created Evolution? Thats like...I believe that square circles exist.
I've heard much goofier claims come from Evolutionists though...so I'm not truly that surprised. Talk Origins gives me a good laugh for the day...also, Pandas Thumb is good for a laugh at times (I love watching their strawman attacks on Intelligent Design). Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Why then are you attacking the Biblical Creationists here? First because they are factually wrong. Second because they Cheapen the Word of GOD. Third because they generally are clueless about Christianity or GOD's message. Fourth because they are woefully ignorant about either science or theology. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Most words have multiple definitions, but labelling yourself a creationist seems both confusing and misleading. The word creationist most commonly refers to someone who takes a literal interpretation of the creation account in Genesis, but it can refer to other types of creationists, such as old earth creationists and IDists. But at best your definition is an extremely uncommon use of the word, and at worst it's just, as I said earlier, confusing and misleading.
Further, I don't see why any thread time should be taking up introducing and resolving this confusion where it isn't the actual topic of the thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
First because they are factually wrong. - You might want to back up why they are "factually" wrong first.
Second because they Cheapen the Word of GOD. - You might want to demonstrate how they cheapen the Word of God second. Third because they generally are clueless about Christianity or GOD's message. - You might need to demonstrate how they are generally clueless here. Fourth because they are woefully ignorant about either science or theology. - You might wish to demonstrate how they are woefully ignorant here. Wanna talk about Ad Hominem attacks? See above. You really like avoiding issues, don't you? I can tell we're gonna have a fun time already here Jar. Edited by Casey Powell, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Casey Powell  Inactive Member |
I agree with you Percy. Lets move on.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024