Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
524 online now:
nwr, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (4 members, 520 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,049 Year: 5,161/6,534 Month: 4/577 Week: 72/135 Day: 3/1 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can survival of the fittest accomodate morals?
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 3763 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 56 of 64 (563479)
06-05-2010 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Modulous
06-02-2010 12:31 PM


Now, now.
The evidence shows that the rates of changes in populations changes tends to be that of periods of stasis followed by relatively short bursts of rapid change.

Absolutely.

The theory backs this up.

Modulous, modulous, modulous.

For 110 years this evidence contradicted the theory. Darwin was sure that future fossil discoveries would exhibit his gradualism. They didn't.

A long, long, silence.

And then the evolutionist wish-fulfillment fantasy of Punctuated Equilibrium. The smaller isolated population defies mathematics and out-mutates the larger, unisolated population. Illogical, yes, but hey- it's all we've got.

And it's got to be better than a massive, conclusive, rock-solid, worldwide, disproof of Darwinian Gradualism.

The theory backs this up? No. The theory, very nervously and with obvious embarrassment, attempts to accommodate this fact.

And succeeds only in the mind of the most dogmatically resolute evolutionist.


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 06-02-2010 12:31 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 6:40 AM Kaichos Man has replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2010 7:30 AM Kaichos Man has taken no action

  
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 3763 days)
Posts: 250
From: Tasmania, Australia
Joined: 10-03-2009


Message 59 of 64 (563491)
06-05-2010 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Modulous
06-05-2010 6:40 AM


Re: did you mean 'then, then'?
By the way - you just got baited. Although I was talking about the modern theory, I deliberately paraphrased Darwin in the section you quoted me on just in case someone hungup on Darwin wanted to try and tell us about phyletic gradualism. The best bit was getting you to agree 'absolutely' with Darwin, before launching into a criticism of him.

Assuming you paraphrased him accurately, I don't see the reason for your victory celebrations. Darwin was saying that the evidence for phyletic gradualism wasn't there. It isn't. I was -and am- agreeing with him.

But I just described the result of Punctuated Equilibrium (the actual process is quite technical) and you said 'Absolutely.'

No. You described the evidence. And I agree with the evidence- absolutely. That the evidence is "the result of Punctuated Equilibrium" is entirely your belief- based, I suggest, on your "wish" to believe in the fantasy of evolution.

"Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

All at once and fully formed, Modulous. So Darwin's view, which "seems to be that the overall effect is constant gradual change but this could be achieved in fits and starts" is empirically wrong.

All at once. Fully formed. One fossil is replaced by another. With no evidence whatsoever (other than the pure speculation arising from a perceived phenotypic similarity) that one creature might have descended from the other.

Not evidence, but simple surmise backed by a mighty, mighty, desire to believe.

In any other field of science, such a theory would not be submitted through fear of ridicule.

Edited by Kaichos Man, : No reason given.


"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 6:40 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2010 7:56 AM Kaichos Man has taken no action
 Message 62 by Modulous, posted 06-05-2010 11:54 AM Kaichos Man has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022