Evolutionary Catechism (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 13, 2010, 04:55 (5427 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,-A few observations before I get to the meat:-Who is it really, that is engaging in an agenda push? If David is right and (60%) of life-scientists are religous believers of some sort--then why is ID such a castigated philosophy among scientists at large? Peer pressure doesn't work as an explanation if greater than 50% of scientists support some kind of theism. Look at American politics, where the religious right control only 30% of the population at large, yet are so predominant in American politics that you can't go one day without hearing from them. Either 60% of life scientists are enormously quiet--or there's something wrong with ID in America. -MEAT:-1) Do I believe that all life is descended from one form (or a few forms)?
(If so, there must be a line from those early forms to all species, including ourselves.)-This is difficult for me: I think that the chemistry behind life stands reason to be very ubiquitous, so I think possibilities exist where life appeared in multiple places at once, and of course, it's possible that life occurred once and all things descended from one organism. I know all life has DNA, and I accept whatever implications that has. 

2) If the answer to 1) is yes, do I believe that the line from early forms to ourselves has been gradual and continuous, or a "punctuated equilibrium"?-Belief for me here is irrelevant; this is an area of contention within modern biology. In either case, changes in organisms are only passed on by reproduction alone making it very difficult to argue that punctuated equilibrium isn't simply a ramping up of the pace of natural selection over time. 

3) Do I believe that all complex organs have come into existence through random
mutations followed by successive modifications?-Most biologists here would ask, "What's the difference?"-4) Do I believe that organisms can be changed by their environment?-This is tricky, do you mean to ask whether or not organisms respond to change, or that something in the environment forces them to change? It's subtle but there's a difference. If it's the former, there is clear evidence of this. If its the latter, than how would we differentiate it from the former? -5) Do I believe that natural selection results in the preservation and improvement of advantageous characteristics?-I have seen nothing that refutes this. -6) Do I believe that natural selection gives rise to new species?-Whatever the driver behind change; epigenetics, etc, there is no way to refute the role natural selection would still play. It would still explain how *many* species came to be. -7) Do I believe that the gaps in the fossil record are caused by "the extreme imperfection of the geological record" (Darwin) or by imperfections in Darwin's theory?-I think the former stands more to reason; natural selection is used actively by scientists conducting all sorts of experiments. An argument based on the fossil record alone is weak simply because of the chances of intact fossils being recovered; though Darwin's theory was based on the fossil record, the modern uses of natural selection far outstrip the evidence for evolution based on the fossil record. In short, Watson and Crick have done more to verify natural selection than Darwin.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"