- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 12,895
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
I can't investigate if there are no sources.
If you were unaware of the information around the topic, and made a negative assertion anyways, then you were making an assertion from ignorance. That is, unless you were under the impression that all available data was presented to you here
Nice little bit of cut and paste from AnswersinGenesis, ICR and a couple of other clueless sites.
No humanist "deifies" Darwin - no matter how often the fundies say such nonsense.
As with the rest of the post, the statements about the fossil record do nothing more than illustrate the ignorance of the creationist.
"Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809. The theory of evolution, which he propounded, revolutionized the world of science and impacted society at large. As we approach his birthday in February, the Centers for Inquiry will be celebrating the contributions of Darwin and all the science teachers who labor in the schools to teach evolution and ward off continuing attacks from Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates."
Ed Buckner - Spring, 2002 Secular Humanist Bulletin
"...humanism is the dominant theme of the modern intellectual world because it provides a perspective on man and nature that is derived from the natural, biological, and behavioral sciences. It is a picture of a universe at least fifteen billion years old in which human life evolved by natural causal pressures."
Kurtz, Paul - IN DEFENSE OF SECULAR HUMANISM, (Buffalo: Prometheus Press, 1983) p. 8
BTW: I've read these source and not from AnswersinGenesis, ICR etc. More on Darwin Day and Humanists
Darwin Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Darwin Day » British Humanist Association
Support the Darwin Day Resolution: Contact Your Representative Now!
You're welcome.
Fossil record:
For openers...
“The only illustration Darwin published in 'On The Origins of Species' was a diagram depicting his view of evolution: species descendant from a common ancestor; gradual change of organisms over time; episodes of diversification and extinction of species. Given the simplicity of Darwin’s theory of evolution it was reasonable for paleontologists to believe that they should be able to demonstrate with the hard evidence provided by fossils both the thread of life and the gradual transformation of one species to another. Although paleontologists have, and continue to claim to have, discovered sequences of fosssils that do indeed present a picture of gradual change over time, the truth of the matter is that we are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus-full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin‘s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations, which in turn demands that the fossil record preserve an unbroken chain of transitional forms.”
Schwartz, Jeffrey H. - Sudden Origins (NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1999) p. 3
I'd be happy to provide more about the record from other evolutionists if you'd like. Ignorance indeed.
hfd just admit it - you are a creationist. The use of certain key words and phrases are a dead giveaway. Amongst these are "Darwinist", "deification of Darwin", "macroevolution", "the only source for evidence, the fossil record", "evolutionist"
When attempting to refute 150+ years of research carried out by hundreds of thousands of scientists, maybe, just maybe, you should do a bit of studying. Although I will admit that for the True Believer, no evidence will ever be enough.
As many 'evolutionists' have pointed out, the fact that some scientists have promoted their own ideas about the causes and paths of evolutionary development does not negate other ideas in all instances. Punctuated equilibrium and gradual change over millenia can both be true and do not negate each other.
I wonder if you are getting your 'quotes' from this site- Evolution and Atheism
Darwinism is alive and well as is punctualism
". . . if an individual with ambition to study nature rejects neo-Darwinist biology in today's ambience, he becomes a threat to his own means of livelihood . . .
Lynn Margulis.
You are completely ignoring the context. "In today's ambience" are the key words. Margulis was, of course, the early and strong proponent of symbiotic origin of mitochondria and plastids. We are talking, more generically, about "horizontal gene transfer" these days. It appears that on the level of prokaryotes at least, there are no real "evolutionary trees" with insulated branches, but rather a mesh of cross-linked evolutionary lines. The "neo-Darwinists in today's ambience" had insisted that there is nothing at all but head-to-tail generational gene transfer, even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Well, that's their problem, not Darwin's.
Come again? Punctuated equilibrium is a hypothesis that exists entirely within the Darwinist framework.
(And it is a popular myth, that Darwin could not see his ideas workable outside of the perptual gradual changes. Indeed, he pointed out that species do not change at the same rate - how could they, if adaptation determines the rate, and not some mystical drive toward perfection? Some species adapt better to a given environment, some environments last for longer periods of time...There bound to be periods of stagnation in evolution.
Go back and read Somerville's comments to me and then consider context.
Stasis and gradualism are miles apart.
natural selection does not create the new, it simply conserves what is.
The old survival of the fittest construct is meaningless.
the fittest survive, and generally speaking, as pointed out by Eldredge, they move from a hostile environment.
it would be easier if you had quoted him, or gave a link.
In any case, you seem to be objecting to the core of Darwinism - the idea that random individual variations and natural selection are responsible for emergence of new species. And you appear to cite developments and elaborations on this core - as if they were refutations. They are not.
I do object to th core of Darwinism. The promoters of punctualism have in fact refuted the idea of gradualism and the idea that natural selection creates the new.
"Indeed, most gradual change ....
Then you misrepresent what "promoters of punctualism" are actually promoting. And they certainly do not propose any mechanism for "creating the new" other than natural selection. Out-of-context quotes cannot change the fact that in relation to the "core" both Gould and Eldredge were 100% Darwinists.
I have in no way misrepresented the position of either Gould or Eldredge.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?