Radorth

I was challenged awhile ago to show how Darwin himself has been contradicted by ever-changing evolutionary theory.

Darwin Ch 10, Origin of Species

We have seen in the last chapter that the species of a group sometimes falsely appear to have come in abruptly; and I have attempted to give an explanation of this fact, which if true would have been fatal to my views.

This gradual increase in number of the species of a group is strictly conformable with my theory; as the species of the same genus, and the genera of the same family, can increase only slowly and progressively; for the process of modification and the production of a number of allied forms must be slow and gradual, one species giving rise first to two or three varieties, these being slowly converted into species, which in their turn produce by equally slow steps other species, and so on, like the branching of a great tree from a single stem, till the group becomes large.



From Skeptic vol. 1, no. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 38-47, by D Prothero, PhD


My own research (Prothero and Shubin, 1983; Prothero, 1992; Prothero, Heaton, and Stanley, in press) examined all the mammals with a reasonably complete record from the Eocene-Oligocene (about 30-35 million years ago) beds of the Big Badlands of South Dakota and related areas in Wyoming and Nebraska (Figure 2). This study not only sampled every available lineage without bias, but also had much better time control from magnetic stratigraphy (Prothero and Swisher, 1992) and wider geographic coverage than the studies by Gingerich cited above. With one exception (gradual dwarfing in the oreodont Miniochoerus), we found that all of the Badlands mammals were static through millions of years, or speciated abruptly (if they changed at all).


(Rad) IMO neither creation theory nor evolutionary theory is the least convincing, but at least some creationists will admit to taking leaps of faith, whereas evolutionists virtually all claim to be "rational."

Rad

lpetrich

So freaking what?

Radorth seems to think that Charles Darwin's works are the Bible of evolutionary biology. Except that they are not, and biologists studying evolution have been willing to state that Darwin was mistaken here and there.

Monkeybot

Hmm, I thought it was generally accepted that Darwin didn't have all the kinks of evolutionary theory ironed out -- for example, his work preceded Gregor Mendel, so he wasn't clear on the mechanism by which variation occurred within populations.

You are aware that people can be "rational" and still come out wrong? It's not about the final destination, it's about the process. Evolutionary theory is based on reason and heaps of evidence (although individual evolutionists' beliefs may not be), so calling it "rational" is a pretty fair charge.

Darwin's Beagle

Rad==
I was challenged awhile ago to show how Darwin himself has been contradicted by ever-changing evolutionary theory.

<snip part about punctuated equilibrium contradicting Darwin>

DB=
Hmm, ... my copy of _On the Origin of Species_ has 445 pages of text. It was originally published 144 years ago. I do not know of a single biological monograph anywhere near that length and more than a couple of years old that couldn't benefit from at least a minor revision due to the advent of new knowledge. Yet you appear to believe that punctuated equilibrium overthrows the whole Darwinian theory. One wonders why neither Niles Eldridge nor Stephen Jay Gould (the founders of the modern version of punctuated equilibrium) agreed with your assessment. Perhaps, because it doesn't.

What Gould in his _Structure of Evolutionary Theory_ went through great pains to make clear is that stasis in the fossil record is data just as important as change. What the fossil record shows is that for a typical species there will be a prolonged period in which there is relatively little change, then in A SINGLE BEDDING PLANE, that species will go extinct and other very similar ones appear. Given the fact that a SINGLE BEDDING PLANE covers a period of time lasting THOUSANDS OF YEARS, which theory do you think the evidence supports better, descent with modification (ie evolutionary theory), or special creation?

Most RATIONAL people would say evolutionary theory. Of course, since an omnipotent sky-pixie COULD do anything he wanted, he could wipe one species out and replace it with a similar species every now and then. After all, if you are omnipotent what do you care if you look like a bumbling baffoon. But you would have to accept that on faith.

Rad==
IMO neither creation theory nor evolutionary theory is the least convincing,

DB=
So, tell me ... what is more convincing to you.

Rad==
but at least some creationists will admit to taking leaps of faith, whereas evolutionists virtually all claim to be "rational."

DB=
EXACTLY!!

Doubting Didymus

There seems to be some confusion here.

Radorth, would you mind clarifying for us exactly what point you are trying to make? Perhaps you can fill us in on the background of this challenge you were presented with? Did you meet someone who claimed that Darwin was 100% right about everything?

Thanks.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
"Radorth, would you mind clarifying for us exactly what point you are trying to make?"

The point here is that trolls can sometimes expand their feeding habitats.

Doubting Didymus

Eh, What?

hezekiah jones

I mean Radorth has consumed the vegetation in his last pasture and evidently intends to seek nourishment among the "faithful evolutionists."

Buffman

He only nourished himself on the weeds in that pature. The ones that had been intentionally planted by the superstitious Weedmasters hoping to dominate all forms of rational growth in the meadow of accurate Reason. If you looked closely, you could see them huddled at the fence railing chanting, burning incense, and praying to their Master Weed in the Sky for guidance about, and deliverence from, critical reasoning logic.

Radorth

Ah no. I was challenged, baited really, on a number of occasions to show what I have just shown. Evolutionists have no coherent and comprehensive theory, and some of them have admitted it, for which they are now labeled "no true scientist."

What is my point? Is there a reading comprehension problem here?

Yeah, some large fireweed and some fish that cannot be got to mate with their evolutionary ancestors, we are told. That does not prove that some chemicals accidently mixed to make pond scum which became fish, mammals, etc. Evolutionists deny they are theorizing origins, but they do it all the time, in effect. They are basically using lousy evidence to deny the possibility of creation, or creation plus evolution, and thus God. This is why they believe all sorts of unproven nonsense, and call pig's teeth "evidence." A true skeptic would say we don't know a damn thing.

Anyway can we assume now that Darwin's theory is nonsense, by his own admission? Or shall we just assume that skeptics are little more "rational" than Christians when it comes to their beliefs?

You and Gould didn't read this apparently:

Nice try though

Rad