I won't go into all the well-known weaknesses of Darwin's theory. This book is a rather desperate attempt to "re-introduce" the theory to a public that is mostly skeptical of its claims. The book abounds with logical fallacies. One is that a change in the proportion of certain individuals within a population (e.g. bacteria resistant to antibiotics) is somehow PROOF of that population evolving into another species. Yet the actual PROOF is conspicuously missing. The bacteria remain bacteria.
35 comments
"The book abounds with logical fallacies. One is that a change in the proportion of certain individuals within a population (e.g. bacteria resistant to antibiotics) is somehow PROOF of that population evolving into another species"
How is it a logical fallacy to assume that small scale changes can add up to large scale ones? And what magical barriers prevent one species from becoming a separate species if it has distinct DNA, distinct traits, and cannot mate with the original population? The problem is that you are expecting a level of evidence that is impossible to produce by the theory's own admission and calling that a failing.
"The bacteria remain bacteria. "
In other words, "Your science is too logical and not impressive, call me when it breaks the laws of nature."
No it's not proof of speciation, it's proof of natural selection at work which is the mechanism that works evolution.
Proof of speciation would be genes or molecular clocks.
"I won't go into all the well-known weaknesses of Darwin's theory."
Not enough straw for that particular man, eh?
"This book is a rather desperate attempt to "re-introduce" the theory to a public that is mostly skeptical of its claims."
Only the uneducated, uninterested or ignorant are "mostly skeptical" of it's claims.
"One is that a change in the proportion of certain individuals within a population (e.g. bacteria resistant to antibiotics) is somehow PROOF of that population evolving into another species."
Not directly it's not but it does lead to that conclusion. Many, many, many such changes over enough time will create something completely different than the original organism. Why that's so hard to understand astounds me.
"Yet the actual PROOF is conspicuously missing. The bacteria remain bacteria."
Not shit. Wait around a few billion years and you may see it evolve into something else. Like a large colony of bacteria or, if you're really lucky, you might see a sponge like creature. What, you thought it would evolve right from a bacteria to an elephant or something?
"I won't go into all the well-known weaknesses of Darwin's theory."
Ask me any question and I know the answer. I won't tell you, but I know it.
Bacteria is not a species, it's a Kingdom, like animals or plants. After kingdom comes
Phylum
So as you can see, one bacteria changing into another is actually on the same level as a dog turning into an elephant. Actually dogs and elephants are the same class (mammals) so your still two levels below bacteria. Maybe it would be more like a dog turning into a crocodile. They'd still be an animal, wouldn't they.
Er... What?
1. There are more bacteria within us than there are humans on this earth.
2. They are the most successful life form.
3. The ability to gain resistance to antibiotics is the equivalent of us being able to drink cyanide without ill effect. MRSA is pretty much the equivalent of being nigh on invulnerable.
4. Bacteria can be seen evolving in endosymbiotic theory. Bacteria "evolved" into mitochondria...
"Bacteria" is a KINGDOM, not a species. We see new species of bacteria ALL THE TIME. Every single time you hear about a new bacterial illness spreading, it means that that species has evolved from another one.
Basically, under your logic, if a new species came forth from human beings, it still wouldn't prove evolution since "The animal is still an animal". Dipshit.
Fundies wouldn't be convinced until we can make a bacteria re-differentiate into a man in the lab.
Funny thing is, groundbreaking as that would be it wouldn't prove evolution.
Even if Darwin's theory doesn't work, that doesn't mean the Bible is right. There are other possibilities, and if you insist on a divine approach, there are thousands of creation myths.
Sofia and Antichrist: Make that two kingdoms. The moneran kingdom was split into archaebacteria and eubacteria. Heck, the two kingdoms are even in separate domains (one level higher than kingdom). The third domain is eukaryota, which includes all of the other kingdoms. So, Avid Reader here is expecting a domain-level change here.
Priestling: Not a problem. I'll admit that both domains and the splitting of monera seem to be recent changes. I learned that information in high school biology. Just to give you an idea of how recently I had it, biology is a freshman class, and I just finished my sophomore year of high school just over a week ago.
Please, by all means,do go into all the well-known weaknesses of Darwin's theory, as they are only well-known to cretinists.
Scientific theories concern scientists, not the public, silly. No-one, who has an adequate education in biology, is skeptical of basic biology.
Evolution and speciation are not the same thing, silly. Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is definite PROOF of bacteria evolving.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
