|
• Snow Closings
|
|
| Tue, Feb. 09 - - Mobile - RSS | |
| YOUR TOWN: Caroline | Culpeper | King George | Fredericksburg | Orange | Spotsylvania | Stafford | Westmoreland | |
|
|
Theory of evolution is still evolving
Date published: 5/12/2009 Theory of evolution is still evolving The April 20 letter titled "Evidence in fossils? Yes, not supporting Darwin" repeats the unfounded assertions made in the self-published book "Brainwashed and Miracles" by Aaron L. Kolom, a proponent of "intelligent design." Mr. Kolom is not a biologist; he has appeared on religious TV programs favorable to the line of argument that in 1909 noted invertebrate paleontologist Charles D. Walcott hid evidence unfavorable to Darwin's theory of evolution. A little research conducted at my favorite branch of the Central Rappahannock Regional Library revealed that Mr. Walcott, after his discovery of Cambrian fossils in 1909, traveled and searched extensively from 1910 to 1924. After his death in 1927, his work was put in storage (far later than the conspiratorial date of 1909 stated in the April 20 letter). Both Charles Darwin and Charles Walcott were puzzled by the "Cambrian explosion" findings. The debate, disagreements, and study continue about possible causes, including whether it was caused by the end of an ice age or changes in oxygen level or chemistry. Mr. Walcott did not hide his findings. Unscientific and untrue stories by intelligent-design believers do little to disprove a theory that is still evolving. Scientific studies by J. Wil-liam Schopf, Richard Foley, Stephen Jay Gould, and others are there for the reading. As the "Old Perfessor" Casey Stengel said, "You could look it up." Don Mohr Stafford
Date published: 5/12/2009
the rest of my comment was
(posted by
senor
, May 14, 2009 11:14 am)
that it's meaningless to attach "liberal progressive" or "conservative" to science or evolution - it is what it is. Not sure how scientific understanding necessarily implies a political viewpoint. You throw the term around a lot ot infer something about me and others in a way to easily categorize people instead of addressing the actual topic. And then accuse me and "liberals" (just doing it again) of changing the topic as if it's really a unique trait to any group.
ok pub if you want to play word games
(posted by
senor
, May 14, 2009 11:01 am)
My point was that there's no set design for how organisms evolve. Just because another eye or claws or wings would be useful doesn't mean they'll ever appear. And evolution isn't necessarily 'improvement' just changes that don't prevent organisms from staying alive long enough to reproduce. There's no end purpose, it just happens. Warlord indicated that some sort of conscious adaptation occurs.
Warlord's proof of ID:
(posted by
leclare
, May 14, 2009 9:38 am)
Just look around you..trees, a cat, a blonde..there's the proof. Huh? My wife says to me, "Your toenails need clipping and your armpits smell." To me, that's the proof of ID--It's just as rational as the other. Dr. Laura said on her radio show a few years ago that she told her son that there IS proof of God's existence. Just look around you, she said. So he did, then probably captured a cat (one of the proofs of ID, right?) to torture it and burn it alive (that's what he enjoyed). Goodbye proof.
No direction to evolution?
(posted by
Publius2
, May 14, 2009 7:23 am)
Evolution as advertised has a most clear direction. It is the improved ability for a species to survive based on the ever changing environment in which it lives. Species without the ability to adapt (animal, plant, or other) quickly become extinct. Some species can adapt their surroundings to various degrees (man having the most skill at this), but ultimately their survival depends on adaptability. This is most assuredly a 'direction'. To this end, man's only responsibility is to his own species survival.
An answer for senor.
(posted by
Publius2
, May 14, 2009 7:10 am)
At the risk of changing the subject (a well known liberal tactic when the argument is being lost), The answer to your question is yes I am more than capable of making a point without referring to those in disagreement as 'liberal progressives'. However the majority of those that disagree with opinions expressed by me are quite liberal and quite progressive. Neither is a derogatory term, any more than conservative is when describing those that fit in that group. I believe you feign offence to the term.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
