.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Tom Coburn is a Big Fat Jerk


Home of the Barking Moonbat


Friday, December 03, 2004

Debating with Evolution Deniers

The Panda's Thumb is a great blog anyway, but their discussion Debating with Evolution Deniers is absolutely excellent. I'm glad to see people tackling this issue head on. Lots of good links at the site and great comments by informed persons. A good, insightful read.


At 7:32 PM, Blogger Zach said...

Oh, just great. The article you referenced links to a flawed article claiming that natural selection "refines" to the point of new species - and that's not something that's been shown to happen.

Macroevolutionismists fail to realize that mutations do not create new, specified nucleotide sequences... yet much a mutation must be possible in order for the neo-Darwinian hypothesis to work. However, no such mutation is emperically detectable.

By the way... anyone who honestly thinks that Intelligent Design states that God is the designer is truly ignorant. ID, in fact, does NOT claim that God is the designer. However, macrovolutionismists claim that ID does state that God is the designer. But no ID work actually claims that.

At 8:30 PM, Blogger Cookie said...

Well --- hate to be picky, but it's empirically, not emperically. :=D

All the major proponents of ID believe God --- specifically the Christian God --- is the designer. Although the publicity hedges their bets, likely in the hopes that no one will notice it is an arm of the Radical Right movement.

But we notice. :=D We're not as dumb as you think.

In addition, natural selection is RANDOM. Meaning that it's neither good nor bad, it just is. Like a blade of grass or honeybee or yellow jacket --- they are not inherently good or bad --- they simply are.

Furthermore, you're discounting microevolution. Macroevolution can occur wth, for example, gigantic volcanoes going off simultaneously in a number of cities and enveloping those cities in lava, thereby killing off all their occupants. That would lead to a number of deaths, meaning that the people who die no longer contribute to the gene pool. Or a radiation or chemical event which may or may not cause genetic mutations passed on to future generations -- Bhopal would be an example of a massive chemical event which is affecting future generations.

Microevolution, however, is believed to be more significant in the evoliutionary process. IOW, although evolution can occur at both the macro and the micro levels, micro is assumed to be more important to the process.

Not to mention, most mutations are deleterious and mutation is NOT the only mechanism. There's also isolation, migration, drift and some others I appear to have forgotten. When you choose the partner you wish to have babies with, you're engaging in selection, like it or not, and contributing to the evolutionary process by continuing your genes into future generations.

IOW, mutation is a mechanism, yes --- but not the only one.

And it can change DNA.

Homeschooled by any chance?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home