tacticslion wrote:
The difficulty with Neo-Darwinian evolution is that most all fossils found that seemed to indicate that there were missing links have either prove to be wholly animal (found today), wholly human (generally with arthritis or a bone problem), a hoax (where the evidence was planted), or a mistake (where the evidence was mixed up, much as it was for early excavations of brontosauri [grammar?] with wrong heads and all that).
Aside from seperation of humans from animals (humans are in fact animals...). There's the "missing link" argument (there are several links between prehistoric apes and modern humans. I'm sure you've read this page, but review it for me.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html )
Shortly, put the explaination for why this isn't a problem is either strawman'd or simply completely misstated by your in your next paragraph. Let's take a look.
Quote:
This theory states, in common terms, that evolution happens very rapidly, all at once. Ex: A dinosaur lays an egg and a bird hatches from it. Ex: a non-human primate has a baby and it's human. The current arguments about this particular theory are whether it occurs as part of a cataclysmic event (the new race completely replaces the old in a single generation) or wether the evolutionary iterations simply come faster and faster until the new species (the 'destined' species) comes to be by force of numbers and time. Or if it's some combination thereof.
First part is strawman, second part seems to be just stupid.
Here's what really happens:
Usually, when a large group of animals mate and reproduce the differences between them are slight, and while natural selection still operates, there is not much in the way of change because everyone is mating with everyone still, and the differences between the members of the species is averaged out for the most part. Following your standard Gaussian distribution.
However, change in a species can occur for several reasons. The most common is isolation from the rest of the breeding population. When the genes of one group and the genes of another group can no longer intermingle genetic drift can occur.
This isn't drastic or quick though. I believe what you were attempting to refer to was that species under a high mortality rate. Under normal conditions a large percentage of the population survives to mate, and more fit members of the species die before mating, if not just as often than less fit members, then very close. As what they die from are more or less random and not indicitive of fitness as a member of the species.
e.g, a swift deer breaking his leg on a root, a bear with an extra good nose is sniffing outside of a person's house, an intelligent human who just happened to be near a suicide bomber when he decided to go off. etc. etc.
However, when a species is under a high amount of selective pressure (the most common reason is limited resources), far fewer members survive to mate, and these are generally *more* related to the member's fitness. So evolution occurs swiftly.
Quote:
I find it quite strange that no one actually sees the difference, when it seems quite evident to me. One kind of evolution (and older kind) proved false. The newer kinds not. Simple statement, honest, backed by science and history.
The problem I have with it is your referring to it as "Darwinian Evolution," "Neo Darwinian Evolution," and "Post Neo Darwinian Evolution." Just call it "evolution." Or if you want to be specific, be specific, say "evolutionary theory circa 1850."
I've never heard of it referred to as "Post-Neo-PseudoDarwo-Super-Evolutionary-Theory of the Ages." By saying "Neo Darwinian Evolution" you are saying it's new and current (or that it's related somehow to The One.) Which seems to be untrue with the naming schema you seem to have invented(?)
It's confusing. Stop it.
Quote:
Strangely, it seems to be a debate more about what I said than what we believe. At least on my part. Huh, guess I should work on my communication skills! They're pretty bad!
I'm not about to put words in your mouth, so stop me if I'm wrong. You disagree with the old theories of evolution, but you agree with the newer ones.
You have found yourself forced to defend a position you do not believe in (evo i stotly worng k?! lol juzus rox!)
You are apparently a Christian of some sort, but it is unclear whether or not you believe in God creating the universe via the Big Bang, or somesuch. Which I have no beef with anyway. Because science doesn't seek to explain why things are the way they are. Just how.
So it's less of "tacticslion is an idiot because he's debating the validity of modern evolution." And more of "tacticslion is an idiot because even though he writes incredibly long posts he doesn't really say anything. And the little that he does say is unintended or unclear. So he needs to take a writing course or two."