Are there inconsistencies in the current theory of evolution? Of course. The same could be said of almost every single other theory in science. I don't hear the creationists questioning the theory of infectious disease, or the theory of relativity, despite the fact that somebody, somewhere could probably come up with some kind of instance where they seem to fail.It is abundantly obvious to any NEUTRAL observer (read: non-religious, without a religious agenda) that the ultimate reason the creationists and ID crowd seek to discredit the theory of evolution and not other scientific theories that do just as good a job at explaining the world is because evolution clashes so profoundly with their deepest-held beliefs. The same could not be said of the theory of relativity, for example. And that exposes the real agenda of the creationists.Mariano, allow me to edit your last paragraph:"It is rather interesting that when evidence fails to support their theory the [creationist] crowd do not change their theory but manipulate, or in this case invent, 'evidence.'"There, that sounds about right. In a few years, when new archaeological discoveries, new genetic advancements, and new biological achievements are made further improving and bolstering evolution, I have no doubt that the creationists will move the goal post... again, and again.Of course evolution does not disprove the existence of a god--on that I agree with you. But what it does do is cut the legs out from under much of Christianity and other religious traditions.
Secularist10,Thanks for the comment.This is not about "inconsistencies in the current theory of evolution" this is about pretending that a drawing is evidence.aDios,Mariano
But Mariano, this post is "about pretending that a drawing is evidence" to what end? No reasonable person would ever say that a drawing of a funny-looking creature is proof of that creature's existence. There is no debate on that point.Obviously, I haven't read the book in question, but I suspect you are extracting one unusual-seeming thing from it (a tactic you have criticized anti-Bible people of doing)--for what purpose? Presumably for the purpose of discrediting the larger theory or idea being expounded. Furthermore, the bulk of this post is taken up by rhetoric critical of the theory of evolution, not the theory of drawing funny pictures.So I ask you a bit more pointedly, do you accept evolution?
I guess if you can't draw your lies, it's best to write them down in a big, thick, old book.
Secularist10From your first paragraph apparently the only neutral reader who can draw a conclusion from any study of the theory of evoluyion is one who is a) not religious or b) has no religious agenda? So your in essence saying that only an atheist or an agnostic can possibly understand yet alone be allowed to comment on these things? A fairly elitist position.Personally I myself can say I'm quite comfortable with the theory of evolution. It does not in any way destroy any of my deepest held beliefs. In fact I fail to even see why atheists would want to use it in an attempt to destroy God. Though thats just my musings in the subject for now. All in all Mariano simply shows that hard core Darwinists simply abuse the scientific procedure to disprove something that their cherished theory doesn't even touch.signed "that anonymous troll" ;)
You go, Mariano! Show those strawmen who's boss!Of course, Prothero never claimed that the drawing portrayed an actual creature. The drawing was only meant to illustrate how large body changes can come about through fairly minor changes to genes. That concept is absolutely true and well-evidenced.Do yourself a favor and stick to theology, because your science posts aren't convincing anyone.
Anonymous,Fair enough; when I said "religious" I was thinking of those who come to the question of where humans and the complexity of life came from with a specific religious assumption. But I can understand how that can be misunderstood. The point is that, when approaching a question, one cannot believe anything at the beginning that could influence one's conclusion or one's interpretation of evidence--which many religious people do.In any case, there's no reason to give religion the benefit of the doubt on this issue, given its long dubious history vis-a-vis science and knowledge.And as I said, evolution in no way disproves or "destroys God" per se. But it does neuter much of traditional religious claims about the origin of humans and of life.And you have not addressed the fact that most of this post is taken up by rhetoric critical of the theory of evolution, not critical of the theory of drawing funny pictures.
This comment has been removed by the author.
One thing that the Hox argument always seems to overlook: Timing and placement are as specific and critical as the actual construction (design) of said biochemistry. Gene knockout - any disruption in the cascade involved with Sonic Hedgehog (SHh) tends to have... well, interesting consequences. (Full figure can be found here.)All arguments involving Hox mutations - besides the apparent deleterious or wasteful effects on the organism - tend to overlook one simple point: The necessary complexity of the entire genetic cascade before the mutation ever occurred.Cart before the horse, so to speak - evolutionists can play the salesman with how mutation can (with alot of imagination) be the Vegas-style bioengineer for hopeful monsters... But they always seem to overlook (unintentionally most times) just how exactly (experimentally, verifiably, observationally) all of that genetic machinery - along with the narrow parameters for its timing both in upstream and downstream genetic events - actually came about in the first place. Gould was especially notorious at this - he could point to what he thought was Hox gene "conservation" across the taxonomic board (like saying that all cars use certain gauge bolts), but always came up short in the operational scientific department when it came time to actually show the conservation of Hox genes via macro evolution, much less the actual bioengineering of the Hox machinery/timing via natural selection and mutation. (Or any other biochemical machinery/timing, for that matter.)But, as with Gould and Darwin, faithful researchers will never have a shortage of how hopeful monsters can be construed (via National Geographic artists) as "looking like" signposts for Darwin's Grand Unifying Hypothesis. Great story tellers, these.
TaTSbroYou take away speculative drawings and you are left with not much with regards to actual scientific evidence for evolutionary theory. "The drawing was only meant to illustrate how large body changes can come about through fairly minor changes to genes"No one denies that fact. That problem lies when its taught as more than just an illustration. The fact is, most of evolutionary theory, the kind in which describes the origins of man relies on more speculation rather than actual scientific observation and experimentation. A rather blatant point already made in the blog post."That concept is absolutely true and well-evidenced."Then why in the world do they constantly think up and draw speculative illustrations? I would rather see the mountains of supposed scientific evidence than a bunch of speculative drawings from a biased mind