“We’ve made so much progress that Darwinism hardly even exists anymore, so anyone who focuses on Darwinists is probably an ignorant creationist. Ummm, but Darwinism still explains a lot…”

This talking point can be woven into the myth of Progress and wound back in with Darwinian creation myth.

For example:
Like Dr. Dembski, Mr. Cordova is obviously very intelligent and well informed. Why does he make so much of Bullock’s ignorant equation of modern evolutionary theory and Darwinism? The notion of “Darwin-only education” is bizarre….

Despite this bit of propaganda modern evolutionary theory can be and is still often referred to as “Darwinism” and Darwin is still featured prominently in most highschool texts. Proponents of “Darwinism” have even stated:

If there are versions of evolutionary theory that deny slow gradualism, and deny the central role of natural selection, they may be true in particular cases. But they cannot be the whole truth, for they deny the very heart of the evolution theory, which gives it the power to dissolve astronomical improbabilities and explain prodigies of apparent miracle. (The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design by Richard Dawkins :250)

Apparently critics of Darwinism have been successful that it might be said that they do not want to believe a theory that is hardly relevant: “There are people in the world who desperately want not to have to believe in Darwinism.” (Ib. :250)

Another talking point, “There is no such thing as Darwinism because there’s dissent among evolutionists. … but let me be quick to add that this dissent doesn’t mean that we don’t already know the facts of evolution!”

Example:It amazes me to see how UDers collectively shift from citing dissent among evolutionists to show that evolutionary theory is in disarray to claiming that the establishment is monolithic in its support of “Darwinism” (a total red herring — there are no Darwinists in 2008). You can’t have it both ways.

But both are true because the same people that may debate evolution among themselves have a history of trying to represent an “overwhelming” type of consensus when it comes to matters of public policy.

What is happening to Darwinists and biologists is typical to every field of expert in an age of communication and information, more information/knowledge dissolves charlatanism. If there isn’t much charlatanism to Darwinism then you have little to worry about.

Austin English compared gravity to evolution. I told him it was ludicrous as gravity allows us to make exquisite predictions of the future and evolution can’t predict anything.

You then started to make analogies about evolution and the rolling of dice. Yeah, buddy, but it’s almost infinitely sided dice. No two rolls ever have to come up the same in a finite universe. You can’t make predictions based on statistics from dice like that. That’s why neo-darwinian evolutionary theory can make no predictions.

For participating in the stupidity of comparing of evolution to gravity you are out of here. Say hi to Austin English wherever he is.

Long before there was dos, James Burke developed a TV series that traced the connections between technological events right back into ancient-days. The series was called Connections and was riveting television. If you ever have the chance to look at the first series by all means do it. In one episode he traced computing from long ago to the mills of the monks in the middle ages to the Eniac. It all could be looked at as one continuous chain.

Dos was just an intermediary step after this. Whether this has any relevance for life, I haven’t a clue.

If so, then I’d buy it.

Waaaaahhhhhh!!!!

It is torture. Boat loads of sympathies to you.

You don’t have to agree with my explanation. In fact I didn’t say I agreed with the explanation I gave. You asked how someone could believe in common descent and I explained the most common answer given which is what lot a whole lot of people accept.

All common descent does not have to be a macro evolutionary process. In fact I know of no evidence that there is much evidence that it was. It could be a micro evolutionary process taking place over tens of millions of years. If one leaps from common descent to some mechanism for common descent then the person is being speculative. When we start getting lots of whole genomes in the future then one may have much harder evidence for micro evolutionary speciation events.

Most of what people who espouse ID suggest is only speculation too. There is no evidence for any specific ID event to have ever happened. If there is let me know because I have never seen any discussed here. Lots of speculation but no specifics which is the continual knock against ID from those who disagree with it. If Salvador want to say there has never been a speciation event which I disagree with then I could ask him if there ever was a ID event. If he wants to say there has never been any evidence for a macro evolutionary speciation event than I fully agree.

Also there is nothing in common descent and ID that conflicts as far as I know.

Denton gives some examples that are highly probable or suggestive that have taken place in the wild with birds and reptiles. But we are talking about small changes here. I believe there are some example of insects getting used to a new form of food supply and not mating with its original population or birds developing different song patterns and not mating with its original population. But again one can argue if this is really a species change but since a separate population has developed it is possible over time there could be more significant changes that would be classified as species change but the results will be trivial. There is the fruit fly differences by islands but they are still basically fruit flies. Stephen Matheson mentioned Allen Orr who is an expert on the genetics of speciation and whose special interest in Drosophila. The Edge of Evolution allows for speciation within genera and maybe family but not any further. When Matheson returns we should ask him to give his opinion on this.

If you want something that happened in the laboratory or under observation in nature then the answer is probably no. But it probably takes several thousand years for these small changes to settle in and cause a real species change. But again these species changes will probably be genetically very small.

Also Allen MacNeill’s mice example might also qualify and this took place much less than thousands of years.

And for those wanting to comment on what I just said, please do not bring up that there isn’t any consistent definition of species. I am well aware of all the problems and issues with using the term. Some people like to pounce on that issue like it means something

So, it’s a “likely explanation“? Without empirical evidence, how does one adhere to a likely explanation as fact? I have absolutely no problem with the theory of evolution being taught in our schools. It’s a valid “theory” based on the fact that organisms share similarities. But, fact it is not.

Since all organisms share similarities, the best we’ve come up with is that they must have all evolved from a common ancestor. I can certainly accept evolution as a mechanism for organisms to adapt to various environmental changes, but that’s ALL WE HAVE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF. We don’t have anything remotely close to providing empirical evidence that macroevolutionary changes actually occur. It seems to me that we merely accept that argument due to the similarities of organisms and the lack of a better naturalistic explanation.

From a design standpoint, it only makes sense that we share similarities with everything else in our environment or we wouldn’t be able to breath the same air, eat the same food, live with and of each other in the same environments, etc.. That seems to me to be the reason why we find that all organisms share similar genetic makeup. So, while the *idea* of common descent is a valid one, IMO, it is no less a metaphysical idea than the other mythical or mystical explanations because the empirical evidence for the concept is just not there.

“Such an explanation does not say that every form of life on the planet descended from the same type of single celled organism nor does it say that all multi cellular life is descended from some common ancestor nor does it say anything about the mechanism for how the common ancestor first got the genomic sequence is question or how the descendant species developed apart.”

!! Gosh, that answer is always so irritating…no offense. Something had to start the process…some original lump of life. I’m assuming you aren’t suggesting that there were endless miraculous swamp events that branched out like grass rather than the root of a tree. Odds are already so far fetched that one lucky lump could have emerged and started life from scratch that I can’t imagine it happening continuously. I also have no clue how a lump of life can gather the massive information we see in our world today from virtually nothing but primitive swamp water and whatever was present in the atmosphere.

ARrrrggghhhh. I honestly don’t see what is so scientific about this explanation. It’s a freaking miraculous event…no less miraculous than any metaphysical explanation.

[forgive my impatience...1/4 of my body is covered in poison ivy at the moment and I’m irritable as hell. I can’t do anything other than lie here and bitch...my apologies.]

Has PandasThumb mafia in their infinite knowledge given examples of natural selection being directly observed to even cause a speciation, much less a bona fide macro evolutionary event?

I think John Davison had a point, we haven’t seen much new since about 2 million years ago (assuming the Earth is old). Evolution appears to be finished….