EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY FORUM ARCHIVE
Return to the active forum
Re:The Fact of Evolution
Todd · 06/03/04 at 10:37 ET
You made the point of saying that evolutionary processes have been observed. But in order for evolution to occur according to Darwin's theory, all life forms come from a common ancester. This means that, for instance, at some point in history a dog had to have produced a non-dog. This has NEVER been observed. Incidentally, the "evidence" you referred to in embryology was proven a fraud in 1874. The only thing that has been scientifically proven is micro-evolution (variation). There is NO evidence for macro evolution. Before you call something a "fact" you might want to do a little independent research. Scientifically, the theory of evolution doesn't have a leg to stand on! Just in case it might help clarify a minor point of confusion here... There are several theories in biology regarding the manner in which populations of living things are believed to change their composition over time. They are typically spoken of collectively: (1) because they were nearly all implied to varying degrees by Darwin's "Origin of Species," and so all associated with his name today, and (2) because they are all, again to varying degrees, corroborated by empirical observations from various lines of study. One of the better sources breaking down "evolution" into its various component theories is Mayr's "One Long Argument." Thus, the theory of common origins and the concept of natural selection, although they are obviously related in most discussions, do not depend logically upon each other. The composition of populations changes over time in some way related to ecological constraints (an observed fact), but this doesn't logically entail that all species came from a common root species, or even that species are mutable. The author of the original note here has a problem apparently not with "evolution" so much as the mutability of species, which is what links the idea of natural selection and the idea of common origins so powerfully. That is, there is a conceptual leap that anti-evolutionist Creationists in general do not make in accepting at least tentatively that natural selection occurs as observed, and accepting that this can lead to the origin of new species. I think one of the sticking points that anti-evolutionist creationists have with species mutability is that they don't recognize intuitively the remarkable variation within each species. We see variation within human populations very easily, but to the casual observer the members of each animal and plant species seem very much a homogeneous collection, and the species seem very distinct. They are asked to take on faith what it takes naturalists many years of patient observation to recognize, that within each population of living things, there is great variation, and this variation is apparently what drives natural selection to the degree that new species can arise. If there is a way to address through education our widespread ignorance about the natural world in the U.S., it might be by promoting direct observation of living things, and pointing out the significance of the variation we see and how it relates to the local ecology, rather than simply insisting that Darwin was right. That is, people who go through the same experience and reasoning that biologists do, and see why they think the way they do about living things. Of course, science educators are simultaneously in what is effectively a propaganda war with influential conservative evangelicals in the U.S. who draw all the traditional associations between Darwinism, liberalism, atheism, intellectualism, and all sorts of evils of society and thus work to actively undermine what I think of as the roots of modern education. kind regards, Todd
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.
