|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
|
|
Propeller Head Plaza Technical and scientific discussion of amps, cables and other topics. |
|
In Reply to: Re: In the case of an unfalsifiable premise... posted by rditmars on October 13, 2003 at 15:06:45:
These three individuals were giants in their fields who offered critisim of or alternatives to evolutionary theory and they were rejected out of hand. Goldschmidt was a geneticist who issued a challenge to all Darwinists by listing a series of complex structures (including hemoglobin) that could not possibly have been created by the accumulation and selection of small mutations. He theorized instead macro mutation. His ideas have been repackaged in a less aggressive form in the current idea of Punctuated Equilibrium popularized by Stephen Jay Gould. No debate occurred. Darwinists simply ridiculed his ideas and did not address his critisim in any way. Grasse was (is) one of he greatest zoologists in history. He highlighted some pretty obvious faults in Darwin's theory. Most notably he showed that drawing analogies of artificial selection to natural selection, as is commonly done in evolutionary apologetics (Huxley, Futuyma, and Mayr), is self defeating as artificial selection demonstrates the conservative nature of selection upon genetic traits rather than the opposite. Every cow, horse, dog and sheep bred for the past 5000 years have produced only cattle, horses, dogs and sheep. He showed that this was especially obvious on the molecular level where sera, blood proteins and hemoglobins all remain rigidly defined. To quote "The fact is that selection gives tangible form to and gathers together all the varieties a genome is capable of producing, but does not constitute an innovative evolutionary process.". He felt that Darwin's theory could account for changes within defined animal groups (species in most cases) but that it could not possibly be the cause of macro evolution. The reaction from every major evolutionary apologist has be one of dismissal. No one has seriously engaged his critisim (and there were a lot more) in print or public forum. The case is the same today where Michael Behe and Michael Denton's prominent published critisim go unaddressed.In answer to your second point, Grasse's observation certainly qualifies as do thousands upon thousands of incongruous fossil finds (man-made lead pellets in Precambrian layers, Trilobites found in late marine fossil beds and the congruent dinosaur tracks and human footprints are a few of the more famous ones). There are dozens of other obvious observational data points that fly in the face of evolution, but these do not qualify as disproof of the theory. To disprove the theory one has to observe that natural selection of micro mutation does NOT result in speciation. Of course no one has ever observed that it does, so the whole point of proof becomes moot really. This is the key issue...the theory is not provable or falsifiable any more so than the Genesis account, spontaneous generation from ooze, the battle of Gods and the Frost Giants, the defeat of the Titans or any other creation story ever told.
Thanks,
Rob
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: In the case of an unfalsifiable premise... - dado4 17:04:36 10/13/03 (3)
- Well it was fun for a while.... - rditmars 18:20:29 10/13/03 (2)
- It boils down to what's comfortable doesn't it? - dado4 19:59:28 10/13/03 (1)
- Paluxy River Dinosaur footprints! - Pat D 17:38:04 10/18/03 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
