Re: If you believe any of your theories, you've turned science into a religion.
- From: brian@xxxxxxx (Brian Tung)
- Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 00:34:06 -0800 (PST)
us2 wrote:
> Then Maybe you cpuld give a short definition of macro-evolution,
> because you have completely confused me so far.
Actually, the only time I have ever heard anyone speak of macro-
evolution was ID people. So to be more accurate, I shouldn't say
that ID people define macro-evolution incorrectly, so much as I
should say that in defining it the way they do, they give an
incorrect picture of how evolution works.
Inasmuch as it means anything at all, it seems to denote the arising
of new species. There's nothing that says that has to happen all at
once. The fossil record simply isn't precise enough for anyone to
conclude for certain that it happens like that.
I agree that it would be entirely unlikely for a tiger to come from
a lion (or similarly large change) in just one generation. But no
one ever seriously claims that that happens, unless they're trying
to draw up a straw man picture of evolution.
Much more likely, what is perceived as macro-evolution is merely a
great many steps of micro-evolution (also not a term that I hear
biologists use, by the way--only ID people). So the same mechanisms
that yield one also yield the other.
I really don't know why this strikes some people as far-fetched.
Internally, there are a great many similarities between species.
It isn't at all implausible that over a great many generations, one
species could slowly become two. At first, the two populations
could interbreed, but with diminishing efficiency and increasing
problems, until eventually they wouldn't be able to interbreed at
all, yielding two separate species.
Sometimes, of course, that might not happen. Perhaps, the two
populations would interact in such a way that they become more or
less homogeneous again.
> And can you prove it?
Nothing in science is ever proved beyond all doubt. That only
happens in fields where the ground rules are defined by humans--e.g.,
mathematics. In science, at best, you have "reasonably certain."
That being said, speciation has been observed in microorganisms,
which have the advantage of being extraordinarily fecund, so that
generations are productive and short, so that speciation occurs
faster. And it is also a myth, put forth by some ID proponents,
that transitional fossils are absent from the record. They are not;
for a list of references, consult the talkorigins web site--I recall
seeing some citations for journal papers there. (I don't work in
that field, so I'm afraid I don't recall the specific instances
offhand.)
I don't blame you if you don't believe this, but in turn, you must
understand that in terms of whether something is scientifically valid,
it doesn't really matter if you believe it or not. It only matters
that it explain, to the extent claimed, what happens in the natural
world. Those supposed inconsistencies in evolution by natural
selection are illusory; they are only inconsistencies in a someone's
misconception of natural selection. No teacher, in Kansas or in
any other state, should be required to teach material that is simply
an inaccurate description of scientific work, simply so that it can
be attacked and ID thrown out as a non-scientific alternative.
--
Brian Tung <brian@xxxxxxx>
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: If you believe any of your theories, you've turned science into a religion.
- Next by Date: Re: pros/cons of these 2 scopes?
- Previous by thread: Re: If you believe any of your theories, you've turned science into a religion.
- Next by thread: Re: If you believe any of your theories, you've turned science into a religion.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
