the theory of evolution ...

[Yukon Cornelius]

The fish that I've been trying to catch lately seem very intellignet right about now.

wurd

[The Irish Doggy]

Assuming the theory held true, one would have to assume that there would be a living missing link in order for it to make sense, and the fossil record would show a clear progression.

 

 

The first assumption is false. There does not have to be living missing link at all. Evolution specifically predicts that some species will die out, some will continue to evolve new characteristics which help them reproduce, same may even stay mostly the same (sharks and alligators are a good example) they are so well adapted.

 

Also, this demand for a complete fossil record just doesn't work. It proceeds from another assumption that all bones will be perfectly preserved for our study a million years later and that we can find them. Good golly man, do you expect all our ancestors to lie down neatly one next to another in some climate controlled cave over tens of thousands of generations? Come on, dude... Burials didn't start to happen until modern homo sapiens and Neanderthals came around. Thats maybe 60-100 K years ago. Before that, heck our ancient ancestors mostly died where they died, and we're lucky to find anything. Between exposure to the elements, scavenging animals, bugs and bacteria, even a 40% intact skeleton (I believe Lucy is about that) is a majorly hugh find. The original article in this thread talked about comparing only a jaw bone and a skull!

[cre8tiff]

The first assumption is false. There does not have to be living missing link at all. Evolution specifically predicts that some species will die out, some will continue to evolve new characteristics which help them reproduce, same may even stay mostly the same (sharks and alligators are a good example) they are so well adapted.

 

Also, this demand for a complete fossil record just doesn't work. It proceeds from another assumption that all bones will be perfectly preserved for our study a million years later and that we can find them. Good golly man, do you expect all our ancestors to lie down neatly one next to another in some climate controlled cave over tens of thousands of generations? Come on, dude... Burials didn't start to happen until modern homo sapiens and Neanderthals came around. Thats maybe 60-100 K years ago. Before that, heck our ancient ancestors mostly died where they died, and we're lucky to find anything. Between exposure to the elements, scavenging animals, bugs and bacteria, even a 40% intact skeleton (I believe Lucy is about that) is a majorly hugh find. The original article in this thread talked about comparing only a jaw bone and a skull!

 

Would be akin to finding the skeletons of Adam and Eve, I reckon. In fact, no one seems to talk about that. Where is the evidence quoted in the Bible? Evidence of a "great flood"? Monsters and insanely huge men (moses is written to be like 200 feet tall.)? If you are going to use lack of physical evidence as an argument, that knife cuts both ways.

Edited August 10, 2007 by cre8tiff

[Thews40]

Would be akin to finding the skeletons of Adam and Eve, I reckon. In fact, no one seems to talk about that. Where is the evidence quoted in the Bible? Evidence of a "great flood"? Monsters and insanely huge men (moses is written to be like 200 feet tall.)? If you are going to use lack of physical evidence as an argument, that knife cuts both ways.

The argument places God as only an entity. Continuing to try and debate evolution vs. Christianity negates the validity of your argument.

[cre8tiff]

The argument places God as only an entity. Continuing to try and debate evolution vs. Christianity negates the validity of your argument.

 

Without an apples to apples comparision of evidence for and against, there can be no argument, only a series of unsupported assertions.

 

Or are we suppose to be arguing the validity of evolutionary theory itself, bar any other theories of the origin of species (mystical or otherwise)?

Edited August 10, 2007 by cre8tiff

[Azazello1313]

By including the origin of the first living cell in the question posed, it implies that the first living cell either came from a supreme entity or it didn’t. Arguing there’s a vast difference between “life” vs. “matter” in the question, it all basically comes back to the same variable of whether or not there’s a higher entity involved in the theory. Hiding behind semantics now won’t make the analogy you used less lame.

 

wow, this level of complete myopy makes continuing this discussion completely worthless. the formation of matter -- protons, neutrons, electrons -- took place within a fraction of a second of the beginning of the universe. the formation of life on earth took place billions of years later -- after stars and galaxies and solar systems and planets and atmospheres and complex hydrocarbons (etc.) had formed. saying the two aren't the exact same thing is "semantics", huh? it is clear that your brain is incapable of separating any scientific question from any other scientific question, and that you are incapable of separating ALL scientific questions from the basic metaphysical question. run through your scatterbrained "logic", the question, "what is the evidence for human evolution from earlier ape species?" becomes "where did matter come from?" "how do scientists believe the first cells formed?" becomes "where did matter come from?" "how old are the rocks in this geological formation?" becomes "where did matter come from?" "what is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?" becomes "where did matter come from?" this may make sense if you're willing to chit all over entire disciplines of human inquiry and discount centuries of direct observation and study to pretend that all scientific questions are equally unknowable before the great mysterious Box. such an obstanate position keeps your personal box of understanding pretty f'n tiny, and makes conversation with you about these things utterly pointless.. you seem to like it that way, which is maddeningly retarded, but hey, it's not like most of the rest of the folks on the planet aren't the exact same way.

 

A lot of details to fill in? You nailed that one. Assuming the theory held true, one would have to assume that there would be a living missing link in order for it to make sense

 

that is just patently false. the hugh majority of specieis that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. the transitional species between dinosaurs and birds are all long dead, but we know they existed, we have their skeletons. that's how evolution usually works, one branch splits, the resulting branches diverge, extinguishing the common, less-adapted ancestor species.

[Azazello1313]

The argument places God as only an entity. Continuing to try and debate evolution vs. Christianity negates the validity of your argument.

 

you and ton keep saying this....as if the nonsense you're attempting to argue has nothing to do with your religious outlook. same with all the other "intelligent design" proponents who exchange books with one another at church on sunday and then argue that ID has nothing to do with Christianity®. come on, cut the crap.

[tonorator]

you and ton keep saying this....as if the nonsense you're attempting to argue has nothing to do with your religious outlook. same with all the other "intelligent design" proponents who exchange books with one another at church on sunday and then argue that ID has nothing to do with Christianity®. come on, cut the crap.

 

it really doesn't. i only ventured down the path of christianity about 3-4 years ago. i'm definitely a newbie in that sense and i do hold separate christianity, repentence, forgiveness, grace, etc., from the search to understand how we got here. that's the power of christianity to me and then i try to work back and connect christ to god, to the old testament, to the beginning of life, etc. that is a struggle big time. there's no way i've put all these pieces together and am then coming forward to try and disprove all other theories, ideas. and as stated before by me, faith is not fact ... it's just faith.

 

bottom line for me is that there are still some serious major gaps to connect homosapiens to goo. we will continue to use science to try and make those connections and to understand, and i love that pursuit. it just rubs me the wrong way to watch our scientific community and those that believe the trace goes all the way back to simple cells be so sure that this is fact. even though our genetic code is very similar to apes, that doesn't mean that i was once an ape and my ancestors "evolved" from them. the fossils of "ape-men" that we've found in limited parts of the world (which are incomplete and highly challenged), don't prove this to be true. are individual species evolving and adapting to their environment thus causing changes to them over time? sure, i don't see how that can be disputed. maybe certain species mated in history creating some crazy animals and we've happen to find these oddities (it's a weird world). yes, certain organisms didn't seem to appear until certain parts in history, but that doesn't mean they came from the past ones. for all we know, they could have been placed here by a comet or by god or by something else.

 

in a way az you are not arguing with any of this because you are saying that science is just doing it's job and we can't dispute that. again, i agree. i personally believe, however, that we aren't as far along on this as we like to believe (we have a crazy need to claim understanding of all things - hence this thread). it gives us comfort to explain things and once we hit on an ideal that looks like it could, then we like to rally around it big time to say, "see, we get it!"

 

as people, we are either highly evolved monkeys who now are able to compose symphonies, ponder our existence, love our children, feel remorse when we've done wrong, stand up for what is right even in the face of our own death, believe that certain principles supercede our own individual gain, create breathtaking works of art, etc. or just maybe we are something different and our amazing, complex, intricate selves living in this incredibly synchronized and supportive environment is not the result of a random big bang and the directionless, random adaptation to pointless changes to the world around us. when viewed from that angle, could it shed a different light on evolutionary research and cause us to go about it in a completely different way vs. striving the make the linkages? couldn't it? maybe?

[godtomsatan]

as people, we are either highly evolved monkeys who now are able to compose symphonies, ponder our existence, love our children, feel remorse when we've done wrong, stand up for what is right even in the face of our own death, believe that certain principles supercede our own individual gain, create breathtaking works of art, etc. or just maybe we are something different and our amazing, complex, intricate selves living in this incredibly synchronized and supportive environment is not the result of a random big bang and the directionless, random adaptation to pointless changes to the world around us. when viewed from that angle, could it shed a different light on evolutionary research and cause us to go about it in a completely different way vs. striving the make the linkages? couldn't it? maybe?

 

No.

[Coffeeman]

WE INTERRUPT THIS FASCINATING ARGUMENT FOR A BRIEF COMMERCIAL (NON-PROFIT) MESSAGE:

 

Do the evolutionists/atheists really hope that after death we are just dirt, with no afterlife? The simple fact - (the 'bottom line' to all of this for me) - is that I prefer to believe there is a better place for us to go to afterwards. This goes not only for my loved ones, but also for those less fortunate who have had horrific lives here on earth, and for myself when I get to death's door.

 

That's it - this other stuff is details to be argued by those with plenty of time on their hands.

 

OK - CARRY ON......

[The Misfit]

as people, we are either highly evolved monkeys who now are able to compose symphonies, ponder our existence, love our children, feel remorse when we've done wrong, stand up for what is right even in the face of our own death, believe that certain principles supercede our own individual gain, create breathtaking works of art, etc. or just maybe we are something different and our amazing, complex, intricate selves living in this incredibly synchronized and supportive environment is not the result of a random big bang and the directionless, random adaptation to pointless changes to the world around us. when viewed from that angle, could it shed a different light on evolutionary research and cause us to go about it in a completely different way vs. striving the make the linkages? couldn't it? maybe?

 

 

ton, as a bengals fan, you're a good guy, so you get a pass. (And while God had nothing to do with Carson's Palmer injury, I think God did retaliate for that evil hit with the new Steeley McGhey mascot).

 

These arguments made by young-earthers and ID peeps are based in what we'll call postmodern theory -- generally assumed to be evil, left-wing radicals out to destroy the American way of life as we know it. Just so you know who you're in bed with here. It really demonstrates a half-assed understanding of both evolutionary theory and postmodern theory (such as there is one).

 

Furthermore, these "gaps" in the theory, as well as the cultural bias of scientists in forming hypotheses, is nothing even remotely new -- Thomas Kuhn let that mastadon out of the bag 50 years ago. The problem is of course that it doesn't just apply to evolutionary theory, it applies to how we understand anything, including religion -- the scientific method is the best we have for overcoming our subjective biases, but even its not perfect.

 

In reading thews, I don't even think the argument about the holes in evolutionary theory is the real argument, anyway. The real argument is what cr8tiff already sorta hinted at -- the Bible was written at a time when we were totally convinced that the earth was the center of the universe, and everything was put here to serve man -- we'll call it the "It's all about me, Paris Hilton" view of the world. That's your real beef here. Even if you take away the theory of evolution, there's still a whole body of knowledge out there that says, no, humans are not the pinnacle of creation, earth is not the center of the universe, the sun and stars do not revolve around us. I think that's why some people cannot accept the "science can coexist with religion" point of view -- in denying that man is the center of the universe and the pinnacle of creation, science is in a sense indeed out to destroy religion. That's not it's goal, but it is certainly one of its effects.

 

(As an aside, that also relates to what I see as the most problematic issue with the Bible -- why, if it were indeed inspired by God, is there not even so much of a hint that the cosmos do not in fact all center around the earth? You would think God would be smarter than that, since he created it and all.)

 

And evolutionary theory really isn't your biggest beef for another reason: That would be the issue of free will. As more and more evidence comes in suggesting that our concept of free will is largely illusory -- well, that is the real threat to traditional Christian cosmology. For instance, love is a chemical reaction which can be triggered by pheremones and detected through brain activity -- that doesn't make for a good Celine Dion song, but that's where we're going. We're just now learning the wonders and mysteries of the amygdala and even how the older part of the brain will make decisions for us that our consciousness is not even aware is going on. It's fascinating stuff, but it portends badly for a relgion that insists one must "choose" its savior or spend an eternity in damnation, that free will is God's ulltimate gift to man.

 

Dammit -- I just heard Kenny Irons is indeed done for the year. More Rudi in the passing game this year.

[McNasty]

WE INTERRUPT THIS FASCINATING ARGUMENT FOR A BRIEF COMMERCIAL (NON-PROFIT) MESSAGE:

 

Do the evolutionists/atheists really hope that after death we are just dirt, with no afterlife? The simple fact - (the 'bottom line' to all of this for me) - is that I prefer to believe there is a better place for us to go to afterwards. This goes not only for my loved ones, but also for those less fortunate who have had horrific lives here on earth, and for myself when I get to death's door.

 

That's it - this other stuff is details to be argued by those with plenty of time on their hands.

 

OK - CARRY ON......

 

With respect, the possibility exists that a benevolent God not only doesn't want us, but actually has engineered a loathsome life of suffering for each and every one of us personally. [/end Tyler Durden Discordian speech] If a personal God exists, and suffering also exists, and God is the author of all that exists, is he not, ultimately, the author of all the Evil that plagues us?

 

This attitude doesn't jive with my personal mythology, but it seems, to me at least, that it is the flip side of the coin of that wager you're making. Dichotomous thinking and dualism, especially when you try to supress and repress the "evil" side of things, makes for strange behavior. At least, in my own personal experience. Value judgments like good and evil, heaven and hell, etc. depend so much on individual perspective that the truth of their value gets mired down in language, as we try and explain them to someone else. Reminds me of the old Zen koan: "Who is the Master who makes the grass green?"

 

Please note, that I am not at all trying to bash anyone personally, or knock the underpinnings of people's faith... simply adding another extremely far-out opinion to the mix.

[Coffeeman]

It's fascinating stuff, but it portends badly for a religion that insists one must "choose" its savior or spend an eternity in damnation, that free will is God's ulltimate gift to man.

 

I prefer to believe that a truly loving God would just leave those 'incorrigible' folks (as only He/She could define it) in the ground, as opposed to the eternal suffering reserved for an immortal Satan and his demonic minions. And then just resurrect those deserving of a heavenly afterlife - after awhile, the memories of those who are still dirt starts to fade - as the passage 'ashes under the feet of the righteous' seems to indicate.

 

But that's just me. Feel free to call me a completely blindly optomistic idiot, if that helps you somehow feel better about yourself....

[tonorator]

Dammit -- I just heard Kenny Irons is indeed done for the year. More Rudi in the passing game this year.

 

to quote chuck heston ... "damn you ... damn you all to hell!!!!"

 

there is no god.

[Thews40]

you and ton keep saying this....as if the nonsense you're attempting to argue has nothing to do with your religious outlook. same with all the other "intelligent design" proponents who exchange books with one another at church on sunday and then argue that ID has nothing to do with Christianity®. come on, cut the crap.

Must be that time of the month aye? If you focus on the animal kingdom and the proof that animals evolved, ok… lots of bones. I personally think most of the evolutionary “proof” really can be attributed to cross-breeding of similar species, due to environmental conditions, selective breeding of an existing one, or an artist's rendietion of the missing pieces. As in Darwin’s finches, if long-nosed humans had some survival advantage and made up the bulk of the populace it would result in humans with a very large noses. This isn’t changing the species, but through selective breeding would prolly result in a skull change over time. JMHO

 

Getting back to arguing Christianity as the poster child for what compromises what God is, it’s really attempting to inject your political agenda regarding ID IMO, and we go back to left vs. right wing politics. There are a lot of people who just believe that God is some sort of entity. There’s a lot of religions that aren’t Christian based, so my point is to generalize the concept of God as just that… something that cannot be explained and requires belief in without proof. Oddly, as you adamantly defend your stance and patronize mine, I always had you pegged as believing in God as an entity? For argument's sake, I still contend that God as an entity removes the label of Christianity and all it encompasses.

 

In stepping outside the box, if we indeed did come from the same pile of goo, whatever genetic mutation that could have happened to somehow have given us the supreme intelligence would probably have happened in other species… if indeed we did come from the same pile of goo. There should be Mr. Ed’s out there in other species if the theory made sense, but I see it as taking the puzzle pieces you have and coming up with the best plausible answer based on the existing evidence. I contend that the bones wouldn’t be that hard to find if it iindeed happened that way, and there would be very different variants of humans placed all around the world in different environments.

 

In a nutshell, it really doesn’t matter that much to me… I’m not passionate about it, and it’s really just sort of interesting. I changed my stance on ID basically because facts should rule the world of what’s taught in schools, though IMO evolution is still a theory and not a fact regarding humans; just too hard to manage the separation of church and state. The puzzle doesn’t only comprise a plausible theory based on tangible evidence, as I certainly question the broader spectrum of the entire universe in answering it. If time zero starts with carbon dating bones, then that’s your time zero… not mine. The theory that chemicals just happen to mix together in a way to create all life is a stretch to say the least. Science is very cool and everything unearthed regarding how is interesting, but my focus is on why and I could really care less. I’ve but about 40 more years if I’m lucky, and if that makes me weak-mined so be it.

 

You can tear this all apart now, but time zero is infinite… I need that answer first before I place all the weight in proving life is without meaning and I don’t have a soul. I do… been to the other side whether or not you believe I did, so my perspective is very different. If you want to dig for the fossils yourself to prove you’re right, ok… again, it doesn’t really matter to me and I hope you're wrong. The global question encompasses answers to infinite concepts on both sides that don’t rely on tangible evidence to factually prove them. It’s a leap of faith either way... depends on what the question/argument encompasses.

[bushwacked]

Thews, I 've never related to the indirect ramblings you are now famous for, in fact I hardly read them because I find them painfully obtuse. I did read your most recent post. I will say its fairly obvious you have very little appreciation of the magnitude of time from the earliest forms of single celled creatures to present. You seem to be incapable of considering it's been a few billion years instead of a few thousand. Now you are claiming there aren't enough different characteristics of humans from one regional environment to another, and therefore evolution is a farce? If you don't even look at it from a scientific perspective that still seems like a completely wacky statement. Do you need to see half monkey-men in Australia to consider that the theory of evolution might be plausible?

Edited August 11, 2007 by bushwacked

[Thews40]

Thews, I 've never related to the indirect ramblings you are now famous for, in fact I hardly read them because I find them painfully obtuse. I did read your most recent post. I will say its fairly obvious you have very little appreciation of the magnitude of time from the earliest forms of single celled creatures to present. You seem to be incapable of considering it's been a few billion years instead of a few thousand. Now you are claiming there aren't enough different characteristics of humans from one regional environment to another, and therefore evolution is a farce? If you don't even look at it from a scientific perspective that still seems like a completely wacky statement. Do you need to see half monkey-men in Australia to consider that the theory of evolution might be plausible?

You have your logic and I have mine... believe what you're told to believe and place all focus on the tangible... here's the box [you].

[Ursa Majoris]

The global question encompasses answers to infinite concepts on both sides that don’t rely on tangible evidence to factually prove them.

When I used to get stoned on a regular basis, a bunch of us would lay on the grass under the stars and burble this kind of thing.

 

Here's another you can add to your toolbox of mary jane sayings. Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere.

[bushwacked]

You have your logic and I have mine... believe what you're told to believe and place all focus on the tangible... here's the box [you].

 

No Thews. I have logic based on Science. You have whatever you think you need to do. And your rationale for whatever you are trying to do isn't very convincing.

[tonorator]

These arguments made by young-earthers and ID peeps are based in what we'll call postmodern theory -- generally assumed to be evil, left-wing radicals out to destroy the American way of life as we know it. Just so you know who you're in bed with here. It really demonstrates a half-assed understanding of both evolutionary theory and postmodern theory (such as there is one).

 

absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. i'm just asking questions, not joining any group. and questioning the evolution theory does not mean there is a lack of understanding.

 

Furthermore, these "gaps" in the theory, as well as the cultural bias of scientists in forming hypotheses, is nothing even remotely new -- Thomas Kuhn let that mastadon out of the bag 50 years ago. The problem is of course that it doesn't just apply to evolutionary theory, it applies to how we understand anything, including religion -- the scientific method is the best we have for overcoming our subjective biases, but even its not perfect.

 

no argument.

 

In reading thews, I don't even think the argument about the holes in evolutionary theory is the real argument, anyway. The real argument is what cr8tiff already sorta hinted at -- the Bible was written at a time when we were totally convinced that the earth was the center of the universe, and everything was put here to serve man -- we'll call it the "It's all about me, Paris Hilton" view of the world. That's your real beef here. Even if you take away the theory of evolution, there's still a whole body of knowledge out there that says, no, humans are not the pinnacle of creation, earth is not the center of the universe, the sun and stars do not revolve around us. I think that's why some people cannot accept the "science can coexist with religion" point of view -- in denying that man is the center of the universe and the pinnacle of creation, science is in a sense indeed out to destroy religion. That's not it's goal, but it is certainly one of its effects.

 

(As an aside, that also relates to what I see as the most problematic issue with the Bible -- why, if it were indeed inspired by God, is there not even so much of a hint that the cosmos do not in fact all center around the earth? You would think God would be smarter than that, since he created it and all.)

 

now you are making no sense. whether things physically revolve around the earth or whether they revolve around the sun is completely irrelevant. maybe it doesn't all spin around us at the center, but everything surely seems geared for us to be precisely where we are. that is incredibly powerful.

 

And evolutionary theory really isn't your biggest beef for another reason: That would be the issue of free will. As more and more evidence comes in suggesting that our concept of free will is largely illusory -- well, that is the real threat to traditional Christian cosmology. For instance, love is a chemical reaction which can be triggered by pheremones and detected through brain activity -- that doesn't make for a good Celine Dion song, but that's where we're going. We're just now learning the wonders and mysteries of the amygdala and even how the older part of the brain will make decisions for us that our consciousness is not even aware is going on. It's fascinating stuff, but it portends badly for a relgion that insists one must "choose" its savior or spend an eternity in damnation, that free will is God's ulltimate gift to man.

 

observing what happens to the body when it feels love doesn't discount the power of that love. the chemical reaction is the by product, not the cause.

[evil_gop_liars]

Moth study backs classic 'test case' for Darwin's theory

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Published: 25 August 2007

 

For more than a century it has been cited as the quintessential example of Darwinism in action. It was the story of the peppered moth and how its two forms had struggled for supremacy in the polluted woodlands of industrial Britain.

 

Every biology textbook on evolution included the example of the black and peppered forms of the moth, Biston betularia. The relative numbers of these two forms were supposed to be affected by predatory birds being able to pick off selectively either the black or peppered variety, depending on whether they rested on polluted or unpolluted trees.

 

It became the most widely cited example of Darwinian natural selection and how it affected the balance between two competing genes controlling the coloration of an organism. Then the doubts began to emerge.

 

Critics suggested that the key experiments on the peppered moth in the 1950s were flawed. Some went as far as to suggest the research was fraudulent, with the implication that the school textbooks were feeding children a lie.

 

Creationists smelt blood. The story of the peppered moth became a story of how Darwinism itself was flawed - with its best known example being based on fiddled data.

 

Now a Cambridge professor has repeated the key predation experiments with the peppered moth, only this time he has taken into account the criticisms and apparent flaws in the original research conducted 50 years ago. Michael Majerus, a professor of genetics at Cambridge University, has spent the past seven years collecting data from a series of experiments he has carried out in his own rambling back garden. It has involved him getting up each day before dawn and then spending several hours looking out of his study window armed with a telescope and notepad.

 

He wanted a definitive test of the idea that selective predation by birds really was responsible for the differences in the chances of survival among black and peppered varieties of B. betularia. His garden outside Cambridge is in an unpolluted area so in this setting it should be the typical or peppered variety of the moth that has a better chance of survival than that of the black or carbonaria form; it is unlikely to be seen by birds against the mottled background of the lichen-covered trees.

 

In a seminal description of his results to a scientific conference this week in Sweden, Professor Majerus gave a resounding vote of confidence in the peppered month story. He found unequivocal evidence that birds were indeed responsible for the lower numbers of the black carbonaria forms of the moth. It was a complete vindication of the peppered month story, he told the meeting.

 

"I conclude that differential bird predation here is a major factor responsible for the decline of carbonaria frequency in Cambridge between 2001 and 2007," Professor Majerus said.

 

"If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution," he said.

 

Criticisms of the 1950s experiments with the peppered month, carried out by the Oxford zoologist Bernard Kettlewell, came to the fore in a 2002 book by the American author Judith Hooper. Hooper's book, Of Moths and Men, suggested that the scientists at the centre of these experiments set out to prove the story irrespective of the evidence.

 

While the professor has also described drawbacks to Kettlewell's methodology, he was able to address all of these concerns and even tested an idea that Hooper had raised in her book - that it was bats rather than birds responsible for moth predation - a suggestion he dismissed altogether.

 

Professor Majerus compiled enough visual sightings of birds eating peppered moths in his garden over the seven years to show that the black form was significantly more likely to be eaten than the peppered.

 

A statistical analysis of the results revealed a clear example of Darwinian natural selection in action.

 

"The peppered moth story is easy to understand, because it involves things that we are familiar with: vision and predation and birds and moths and pollution and camouflage and lunch and death," he said. "That is why the anti-evolution lobby attacks the peppered moth story. They are frightened that too many people will be able to understand."

 

Natural selection in action

 

The peppered moth comes in two distinct, genetic varieties: the black, melanic form (carbonaria) and the mottled form (typica). Against the background of a lichen-covered tree growing in unpolluted countryside, the typica form is well camouflaged. But in polluted areas where lichens do not grow, it is the melanic form that is difficult to see.

 

The Victorian naturalist J W Tutt noted that 98 per cent of peppered moths caught near Manchester at the end of the 19th century were the melanic variety. He was the first to suggest that it was the result of higher predation of typica by birds. With cleaner air in the late 20th century, it was the turn of the melanic form to suffer from bird predation. Now it is the typica form that is more common in most areas of Britain.

[tonorator]

it took a scientist 7 years to discover that when birds eat up all the moths of one color, the moths of the other color will then outnumber them? and this finding somehow supports the theory that says that people, men and women, are here due to a completely random and chance process, having orignated from some slime?

 

sheesh.

[TheShiznit]

it took a scientist 7 years to discover that when birds eat up all the moths of one color, the moths of the other color will then outnumber them? and this finding somehow supports the theory that says that people, men and women, are here due to a completely random and chance process, having orignated from some slime?

 

sheesh.

 

wow...what a discussion. My two cents....and they would be a very cheap two cents....would simply be this. Why does evolution have to be completed...somehow made into scientific law.....it is a theory....with TONS of unanswered questions. Allow it to be just that.....allow it to ebb and flow and eventually an answer will come...maybe thousands of years from now...but it will come. Even the Catholic church is embracing science as a helper and not a hinder to the promotion of a benevolent creator. I am not an expert an religion and am still getting through my first read of the Bible. But I think they both can work together....God creating and then letting nature takes it course. Then again....I can be totally wrong....but we all can agree the earth is older than what....7000 years old!!!!

[AtomicCEO]

and this finding somehow supports the theory that says that people, men and women, are here due to a completely random and chance process, having orignated from some slime?

 

Actually, this test shows that it's not random at all. Your comment displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what you're arguing against... which undermines your point severely.

[bushwacked]

Actually, this test shows that it's not random at all. Your comment displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what you're arguing against... which undermines your point severely.

 

You can say that again.