tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post114056566475529356..comments2024-02-18T12:18:45.788-05:00Comments on Sun and Shield: Is evolution "unguided?"Martin LaBarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1143123932881673262006-03-23T09:25:00.000-05:002006-03-23T09:25:00.000-05:00I can see now why "selection" was the better choic...I can see now why "selection" was the better choice.<BR/><BR/>My comment on the "inexplicable gap" stems primarily from a book I read years ago entitled Darwin's Enigma (and I'm sorry, but the author's name escapes me). His thesis basically rested on the assumption that reptile-to-bird type transitions would be confirmed by copious examples in the fossil record. His conclusion? There aren't even a few examples, ergo, that type of evolutionary change rests on something akin to blind faith. It sounded plausible to me at the time, a non-scientist, but as you say, proving that by the apparent non-existence of fossil evidence may not be so straightforward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1143069312509744492006-03-22T18:15:00.000-05:002006-03-22T18:15:00.000-05:00Perhaps I should have said "natural selection," bu...Perhaps I should have said "natural selection," but I wanted to include artificial selection, too. That is, changes in a population due to selection by humans, such as for higher milk production in cows. It does work.<BR/><BR/>Whether natural selection is responsible for reptiles becoming birds is, indeed, more questionable, and I did not say, in my post, that selection was responsible for that. Maybe not. Maybe so. If so, it was God-guided.<BR/><BR/>As to whether there is an inexplicable gap in the fossil record, it depends on who is doing the explaining, I guess. I'm not a paleontologist, so claim no expertise in this area, but I'm sure that some are convinced that there is a gap, and they may be right, although, if there is, I don't see how you could <B>prove</B> that there could <B>never</B> be fossils discovered that would "fill" that gap. I'm pretty sure that there are some scientists who are convinced that there is no gap, or convinced that they can explain it if there is one.<BR/><BR/>One's presuppositions often determine what one believes, as much as the evidence does, in this and other areas of thought.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for commenting!Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1143065194579938432006-03-22T17:06:00.000-05:002006-03-22T17:06:00.000-05:00Your reference to "selection" states something obv...Your reference to "selection" states something obvious that a lot of people seem to have overlooked. What I call "natural selection," the process of incremental change within a species which is observable, is an entirely different process from, say, reptilian dinosaurs turning into birds, for which there is an inexplicable gap in the fossil record (according to the sources I've read). A friend of mine, then a grad student in chemistry at Cornell, stated this all to me twenty-five years ago, but I saw a reference to it in a recent Doonesbury comic strip that made it sound like Garry Trudeau had just uncovered this news.<BR/><BR/>(Please pardon--and feel free to point out--any mistakes in terminology. I was an English major in college, and that was 27 years ago.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1142966942043993372006-03-21T13:49:00.000-05:002006-03-21T13:49:00.000-05:00If I knew a solution to this, I'd patent it and se...If I knew a solution to this, I'd patent it and sell it. (Just kidding)<BR/><BR/>I wish I had one.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1142878216253539622006-03-20T13:10:00.000-05:002006-03-20T13:10:00.000-05:00(this is long, sorry)The problems that I see, and ...(this is long, sorry)<BR/><BR/>The problems that I see, and the reason I get so personally involved in the debate at times, is that both sides (athiest scientists and conservative christians) are using science - something I hold dear as a resource given to humans by God - as a bludgeon to coerce and manipulate the 'masses' to take up arms against each other.<BR/><BR/>Whether or not molecules-to-man Macroevolution is true or not, the worldview it has been used to proliferate is, in my opinion, patentlly false and purposely blind. Tearing down people of faith and wielding as a bludgeon the recently exalted word "Science" to insult their intelligence is selfish and irresponsible.<BR/><BR/>Whether or not ID/Young Earth Creation is true, it is being used to rile up Christians into a state of distrust and dislike, turning their focus away from Christ and into protecting ourselves from the world - which is God's job as He promised us.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe that evolution precludes God anymore than I think that the appearance of design in life points definitively to the Christian God as creator.<BR/><BR/>Is it possible to work for compromise in this battle? Is it beneficial? Or would the energy be misplaced and better spent on reaching the world around us? If you have any answers for me, Dr. LaBar, I'd love to hear them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1142767014399053692006-03-19T06:16:00.000-05:002006-03-19T06:16:00.000-05:00From my memory, I'd say that your memory is pretty...From my memory, I'd say that your memory is pretty good.<BR/><BR/>I guess the major problem with this debate (and a lot of others) is that people (on more than one side) jump to pre-held conclusions from facts that don't necessarily lead to them.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for reading, and your comment.Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9661811.post-1142760708693592552006-03-19T04:31:00.000-05:002006-03-19T04:31:00.000-05:00Interesting post Martin! I must admit I tend to st...Interesting post Martin! I must admit I tend to stay out of the ID debate because it goes outside the limits of science I think - more into the philosophy of science or metaphysical considerations. I think you made some good points here about certain things not directly leading to certain conclusions, e.g. species relatedness not directly leading to an atheistic conclusion.<BR/><BR/>You got me recalling two lecturers from my University days. One said God puts things where they are for a reason, and the other said there is no God. It is something that we "see" by faith I think. Hebrews says that doesn't it - "by faith we understand the worlds were framed by the word of God" (I'm quoting from memory).<BR/><BR/>Enjoyed your post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13441809988487585009noreply@blogger.com