Do you take evolution literally? (blessing, science) - Page 3

logician · #21 03-17-2008, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seyorni

Anyone who'se compared a litter of puppies to their parents -- and each other-- has to aknowledge that there is variation from generation to generation. Why is it so difficult to see that small variations, multiplied over thousands of generations, can result in a creature with no obvious similarity to the prototype?

Most people, even creationists, will aknowledge the effectiveness of animal and plant husbandry.
The ansestors of toy poodles and maize look nothing like nappy little dogs or tall stalks with gigantic ears of huge seeds. Why is it hard to see that there are Natural forces that duplicate the farmer's selective process?

Sometimes evolution happens much more quickly (geologically speaking), such as after mass extinctions, when there are many niches to fill. Reproductive isolation happens much faster in such scenarios, with the subsequent genetically new creatures

Seyorni · #22 03-18-2008, 10:33 AM

Quite true, logician. island effect, punctuated equilibrium, &c. (yes, I have all of Gould's books).

I was trying to keep things basic.

TurkeyOnRye · #23 03-24-2008, 02:46 PM

Yes, I take evolution literally. The evidence is far too convincing.

Jaiket · #24 03-29-2008, 10:34 AM

If Darwin was speaking figuratively it would be a tad amusing.

Willamena · #25 03-29-2008, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaiket

If Darwin was speaking figuratively it would be a tad amusing.

Frubals.

Mr Spinkles · #26 03-29-2008, 12:42 PM

Yes, I take fossils literally.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd.../hominids2.jpg

Booko · #27 03-29-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John_672

I take evolution literally every morning just before breakfast. Keeps me regular.

Dates are much tastier.

I'm not sure how I would take evolutionary theory in a metaphorical way.

I don't view it as absolute, though, any more than anything else in science. It's "true" until someone can prove otherwise, which usually takes on the order of 25-30 years for most well-established theories.

Science does change over time, but it's pretty conservative in how it does so.

Mr Spinkles · #28 03-29-2008, 06:04 PM

I sort of agree with the point you're making, Booko, but I would also point out that certain things are just not going to go away. Newton's theory of gravity may be revised, but it will always remain basically correct. It will likely never be the case that, oops, masses don't exert an attractive force on each other after all.

Likewise, although the details of evolution may need revision, we are extremely unlikely to find that humans are not cousins of other species.