[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Evolution vs. creationism

This is supposed to be a plants list so this will be my last posting on the
topic, but I simply could not let Bob Dixon's comments go unanswered.
Without getting personal or trying to be insulting, the most gentle thing I
can say is that these comments display an astounding level of ignorance as
regards biology and evolutionary theory.

>Steve- Go back and read the last chapter of "Origin of the Species".  You
>know the one by Darwin.  It lists specific fossil evidence that needs to be
>found in order to substantiate the theory.  Stuff like the progressive
>development of eyes and other complex organs.  None of that has been found.
>These things just kind "poof" into existance.  Like magic, or miracles, or
>the work of a higher controlling power.

Eyes and most complex organs are soft tissue and are not preserved in the
fossil record, so not finding a record of evolution in these organs means
nothing. As for eyes, taking just one example, you can see today, in living
species, clear and straightforward examples of possible "steps" in the
evolutionary process: light-sensitive neurons in worms, "eyes" in scallops,
insect eyes, etc etc. We cannot know the details of just how mammalian eyes
did evolve, because the evidence has not been preserved, but there is not
even a small problem in postulating a series of steps by which eyes could
have evolved. To say that such things "poof" into existence reveals only an
ignorance of biology.

>As for evolution as a currently ongoing event, I don't know of any
>of Creationism that denies it.  Creationism simply requires the existance
>a Supreme Being to control, direct, force, etc the emergence of new
>biological stuff, like eys, ears, etc.  The existence of misquitos
>demonstrates to me that there must be a controlling hand.  How else would a
>proboscis that sucks blood from vertebrates come into existence through
>gradual changes?  Think about it really hard, and with an open mind.  I
>you will realize the foolishness of such concept.

It took me, and I am not an evolutionary biologist, all of 90 seconds to
outline a perfectly plausible and gradual series of steps by which the
mosquito proboscis could have evolved. Just because *you* cannot concieve of
how it could have happened does not mean other people cannot.

Creationists often argue that evolution is a highly improbable series of
events, therefore there must have been a "designer." Looked at logically,
however, the existence of some supernatural "big daddy in the sky" to direct
everything is several billion times less probable than even the wildest
evolutionary scenario. It is true that all the details if evolution are not
understood, and may never be. But so what? Just because we do not understand
something there is no need to invoke the supernatural. Doing so puts us at
essentialy the same level as our distant ancestors quaking in their caves
and trying to appease the lightning and rain gods.

OK, enough! Back to my &$#@% algae bloom!

Peter G. Aitken