"A century after Darwin’s death, we still have not the slightest demonstrable or even plausible idea of how evolution really took place - and in recent years this has led to an extraordinary series of battles over the whole question. . . . a state of almost open war exists among the evolutionists themselves, with every kind of sect urging some new modification. . . . As to how and why it really happened, we have not the slightest idea and probably never shall." The Star, Johannesburg, "The Evolution of a Theory," by Christopher Booker, April 20, 1982, p. 19.
-
Features
The Evolution Of A Theory
- Thread starter DLH
- Start date
We have plausible explanations of many mechanisms which drive evolution, but there are an estimated 8,000,000+ extant species on the planet, a large number of which we've never even encountered let alone studied. And across the history of the planet, there are bound to be millions more species which we cannot observe directly. We are not easily going to form an accurate map of how they all evolved their various traits. Even if we limit ourselves to human evolution, we don't even fully understand our biology in it's present form let alone exactly how it evolved.
Given the nature of the puzzle we're trying to solve here, disagreements aplenty are expected, no?
Given the nature of the puzzle we're trying to solve here, disagreements aplenty are expected, no?
One would think so. Real boats rock. That there are disagreements in theology certainly never dissuaded me.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
So, a British writer who thinks that no one has yet established enough evidence to prove the dangers of asbestos or second-hand-smoke, and thinks there's no scientific consensus on global warming, thinks that evolutionists don't have a leg to stand on.
Film at eleven....
Film at eleven....
Second hand smoke? Seriously? You know there is no evidence, aside from an admittedly and obviously bogus politically motivated study by the government in retaliation for a lack of support of star wars technology? You work for the U.S. military industrial complex? Ha! There is no scientific evidence that secondhand smoke is harmful and you use it to vilify someone who simply points out there is disagreement in science about evolution because your alternate spirituality is desperately clung to. That's cute.
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
I don't see where I vilified anyone. So attempts to describe my motives in doing so would have to have come straight out of your ass, nu?
Yeah. I think that your motive, was pretty apparent, dude. And pulled out of your own ass.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Really? Still? People skeptical of evolution? Claiming there's not enough evidence? Really?
I thought this was the 21st century, not the 19th century. What's next, questioning whether the earth is flat?
I thought this was the 21st century, not the 19th century. What's next, questioning whether the earth is flat?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Well, the article was, what, 1982? So, 1 1/2 generations ago...
Really? Still? People skeptical of evolution? Claiming there's not enough evidence? Really?
I thought this was the 21st century, not the 19th century. What's next, questioning whether the earth is flat?
Get used to it, because its going to get a lot worse.
I know, right? Science couldn't have changed so much in such a little time, eh? It was true then and its true now. Though completely different. I think back on all the bullshit propaganda my arrogant ass wipe science teachers taught me in school back then and think - I was right. They were idiots. You know what they say. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Metric system! Ha!
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,252
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
There, fixed it for you.
Calling these people "skeptical" is a disservice to the word.
How dogmatic of you! Sort of rolling with the theme, then, I see. Running with the pack?
dystopian
Veteran Member
Really? Still? People skeptical of evolution? Claiming there's not enough evidence? Really?
I thought this was the 21st century, not the 19th century. What's next, questioning whether the earth is flat?
Get used to it, because its going to get a lot worse.
If by worse you mean you're going to dazzle us with more of your ignorance, then sure; saw that coming.
If by worse you mean pretty much anything else, then; no, it's not.
Yeah. I'm pretty ignorant on the failed metaphysical experiment called the theory of evolution. Maybe I should present an argument based upon Kent Hovind's 100 reasons why evolution is stupid. That is always a blast.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,252
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
The resident free[from]thought censor, ladies and gentlemen, give him a big sloppy pat on the back!
No. I'm not being sarcastic.
skepticalbip
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2004
- Messages
- 7,304
- Basic Beliefs
- Everything we know is wrong (to some degree)
I haven't read Christopher Booker but if he has any idea what he is talking about then he can not say that scientists are arguing about whether there was evolution. He could be saying that they have disagreements over some of the details of specific chain of ancestors or some specific details but not if there is evolution. OTOH he could be talking about the disagreement over how abiogenesis happened.