re: #616 Sharmuta

re: #608 Charles

re: #617 Jimmah

Sharmuta, if I knew anything about Italian Wall Lizards, I could answer that, although Charles might object as I will later point out. Do I have any objection to them evolving? No. Let me be as clear as possible on this — I believe man evolved from some ape-like creature. The DNA evidence is beyond dispute. I do not believe G-d or anybody else made immutable species. In fact, I don’t even know if there is a G-d, but if there is one the one thing I know for sure is that he probably thinks most of what is said about him in organized religion is foolish.

Having said that, I am shocked and dismayed that there isn’t more critical analysis of the theory of evolution from actual scientists rather than religionists. A great scientist, when he comes up with an idea,
often hopes he is wrong because he will then be able to be certain about something. Confirmation of a theory is all well and good, but as I said before, confirmation is a weak argument. The proposition “All swans are white” was confirmed throughout Europe innumerable times for centuries until, low and behold, black swans were discovered.

Now Charles, I know very well what falsifiability is. It means a theory is capable of being determined false. It doesn’t matter by what means. Now you seem to be saying that only fossil evidence can refute fossil evidence in evolution. I am perplexed by that position in light of the fact that Darwin and Wallace used naturalist observation primarily as evidence to arrive at the theory. The theory of evolution encompasses the PROCESS of one species becoming another. Elements of that are (a) the physical structure of the change, (b) the environmental forces at work, and (c) the behavioral changes made. Each affects the other and accordingly, each constitutes evidence for the theory. Darwin set forth a principal in Origin of Species that said that attributes that reduce the ability to procreate or eat will be culled in any species by virtue of natural law. But this isn’t the case with humans. I am not making a moral argument. I am making an argument that is irrefutable about which evolutionary theory engages.

Darwin, perhaps, could have said, “on balance, if damaging behaviors or structures do not outweigh other positive attributes about the creature, the species will survive.” But he did not say that. QED.