What Have Darwinists Said That's True? (Abiogenesis, evolution, genesis, atheist)

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by ChristineES

I learned a long time ago not to argue The Theory of Evolution with people. I love science but I think from the little I studied about it, that it is full of holes. No one knows anything in the past for sure and there would be no way of knowing unless someone traveled in time to see it happen. People who believe totally in evolution seem to be so sure that they are right they seem no different to me than someone with very strong religious beliefs. It is a fruitless exercise to argue about it since it will always end up in a stalemate.

Study it some more. You might fill in some of the holes.
A great deal more is known than the general public is aware of.

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Seyorni :

Darwin maintained that offspring in a single brood were not identical. He believed that those individuals in a brood/litter that chanced to have more beneficial characteristics, given the existing environment, would fare better. He speculated that these individuals that chanced to be born better adapted to the current environment might produce more offspring than their litter/nest mates. He concluded that the superior reproductive success of those with more adaptive traits would result in an increased incidence of these traits in the general population.

Why is any of this hard to understand or controversial?

Darwin did not invent the notion of natural selection...and even creationists would agree that the more fit a creature is , the more likely it will survive/ reproduce...BUT Darwin went on to claim that simple Natural Selection would suffice to give rise to completely novel species...that's where the controversy arises.

"

The mystery is not the Survival... rather the arrival of the fittest

'

Btw Darwin vacillated between atheism and belief in well ... I dont know what exactly, ( a godlike order/ organizer perhaps ?) ..There were likewise times when Darwin privately expressed disbelief in his own theory. He did so in letters to a colleague ( believe his name was Asa Grey ) but no time to check just now...

Gotta evolve/ fly

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Study it ( Darwinian evolution ) some more. You might fill in some of the holes.
A great deal more is known than the general public is aware of.

Au contraire THERE ARE A GREAT MANY MORE HOLES in evolutionary biologists supposedly neatly drawn phylogenetic family trees than the public is aware of...nothing but holes in fact

Seyorni :

Convergent evolution ALWAYS produces similar designs to suite similar environmental conditions

Always ? I think your spouting nonsense...BTW convergent evolution might also be explained by informational/ intelligence fields underpinning all of fleshly creation/ the cosmos...Rupert Sheldrake said something similar if memory seves...( see Morphic fields ) Think about the way that a single cell divides and differentiates to eventually become a human infant...Seems to be some very mysterious organizing principle/force at work here...which science can't begin to explain...Omniscience perhaps ?

***

And for the record, the environments of Australia/ Tasmania etc...don't much resemble the rest of the globe... You'd never mistake a kangaroo for a cow either , though they both thrive on grass...

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Show me a single ‘ phylogenetic family tree’ which has been drawn/ firmly established beyond repute ? ( Good luck with that

Since only a fraction of all organisms that have ever existed get fossilized and we have found only a minute fraction of the fossils that may exist, the fact that we can even draw phylogenetic trees, whether they are beyond repute or not, is itself evidence of evolution.

If all life was created in it's existing form then how can there be so much convergence in the fossils we have found? Can Creationism explain why creatures as diverse as whales and cows share so many similarities?

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Storm

I've read references to "other theories of evolution" indicating that Darwinian evolution actually has legitimate challengers. Does anyone know what these other theories might be? Does punctuated equilibrium qualify?

Punctuated equilibrium is a view about the rate at which organisms evolve, but it doesn't conflict at all with natural selection. I've read Gould, and I've read his detractors, and I've read his defenders, and honestly, I can't figure out where Eldredge and Gould have anything all that dramatic or convincing to say. Their view is still gradualist; they don't believe, for instance, that one day Homo erectus women started giving birth to Homo sapiens children. I think they're notorious chiefly because they were perceived as contradicting Darwin, but I don't think they do contradict him in any important way.

Bear in mind that natural selection and sexual selection are practically tautologies; there is no doubt at all that both occur. What Creationists really object to is the idea of speciation, that over time different species can develop from the same "parent" species. Of course, that's obvious, too, so they have to content themselves with muttering about "kinds," which they rarely define and which they never define in any coherent or convincing way.

Originally Posted by ChristineES

Darwin was not an atheist. (I know this is off-topic but I felt moved to write it)

He was an agnostic.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

And for the record, the environments of Australia/ Tasmania etc...don't much resemble the rest of the globe... You'd never mistake a kangaroo for a cow either , though they both thrive on grass...

Only you would think that phylogeny can be based solely on dietary habits. If you are interested in the phylogeny of kangaroos, can I suggest a more detailed analysis.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

Punctuated equilibrium is a view about the rate at which organisms evolve, but it doesn't conflict at all with natural selection. I've read Gould, and I've read his detractors, and I've read his defenders, and honestly, I can't figure out where Eldredge and Gould have anything all that dramatic or convincing to say. Their view is still gradualist; they don't believe, for instance, that one day Homo erectus women started giving birth to Homo sapiens children. I think they're notorious chiefly because they were perceived as contradicting Darwin, but I don't think they do contradict him in any important way.

Bear in mind that natural selection and sexual selection are practically tautologies; there is no doubt at all that both occur. What Creationists really object to is the idea of speciation, that over time different species can develop from the same "parent" species. Of course, that's obvious, too, so they have to content themselves with muttering about "kinds," which they rarely define and which they never define in any coherent or convincing way.

Thank you, Midnight. FTR, the references to alternative theories of evolution implied legitimate scientific theories, not creation "science." Unfortunately, they failed to mention what the alternatives were, and it's been nagging at me ever since.

[Random]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

A great deal more is known than the general public is aware of.

Oh? Like what? How do YOU know?

[yossarian22]

What the hell have they said that is true? Who the hell knows?

They have offered a metric ton of accurate predictions based off their model. That's a helluvalot more than creationism or intelligent design has ever done.