Sam Or I wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:
I'm not sure what they think real evolution is, but I suspect it's like what they do in Pokemon.
No, not at all. Thats just how they got all those animals on the boat, with the pokemon balls.
The bible explained through Pokemon, how'd of thought?
Your post convinced me to re-read this article on this pokeman-like morphology
I dug up about a month ago. This time I went deeper and found a gem pitched by scientists just
years after Darwin's
Origin basically pitching current creationist and ID-ist claims.
A late 19th century critic of Darwinism and natural selection and for "saltationism" was such (his name's Mivart):
Time and time again Mivart discussed a remarkable trait and then raised the question: How could such a functionally important feature have evolved gradually, through an insensible gradation of intermediates, to its present state? How, for instance, could mammals not only have survived, but multiplied in number and become diverse, if the first mammal had merely possessed a vestige of mammary gland, which, in turn, produced only a drop or tow of milk? How could sexually reproductive organism have persisted generation after generation if, initially, their reproductive organs were merely a hint of their necessary functional states? Turning Darwin's argument of purpose on its head, Mivart asked: How cold anything but the fully formed version of a feature, particularly on that was essential for sustenance of life or procreation, be beneficial to an organism? Using flatfish (soles, flounder) as one of many examples leading to doubting Darwin's assumption, Mivart questioned the advantage of selection causing one of the fish's eyes to be dragged gradually from one side of its head, across the rough sand of the ocean floor, until it reached its present position near the eye that had been on the opposite side of the body. Clearly, on various levels, the notion of gradual change did not make biological sense.
In other words, the long-dead, scientific debate of over a century ago that never did make inroads to Darwinism was scientists arguing for
irreducible complexity. Now, we still don't have a generation-by-generation paleontological record but we have found seemingly perfect transitional forms between hippo's and whales, what's really a more reasonable conclusion? That a hippo only ever morphed from one form to the next but at a pace virtually
equal to the plodding, gradation that Darwinism predicts or a .... plodding, gradation of change?
I was really disappointed when I read that; I thought maybe Professor Jeffrey Schwartz wasn't actually putting forth ID-type claims, but that it was a genuine scientific debate. It was actually both, but that debate is so long dead because it's virtually indistinguishable from ID claims nowadays that hold no weight and have been dealt with thoroughly.
FAQ
Search
Register
Login
