4 ms·
>Criticism of evolution isn't sensible, it's ignorant I am not criticising evolution. I'm not qualified to do that. It seems like it is the best explanation y
by barking 10y ago
>Criticism of evolution isn't sensible, it's ignorant
I am not criticising evolution. I'm not qualified to do that.
It seems like it is the best explanation yet to explain the diversity of life on this planet.
Personally, I attach no credibility whatsoever to the creationists' explanations.
I do think that people, even those of us who do not know a lot about it, should be entitled to ask questions without having our motives questioned.
Indeed I thought that scientific theories should always be open to criticism.
To say that one theory should not be, would be to elevate it to the status of dogma.
And if people are 'very sensitive' to criticism about a particular theory, there is more than one possible explanation for that.
Another might be a frustrating lack of evidence. For example, in this thread 2 posters mentioned the existence of ring species and linked to the wikipedia page for that. That page has four examples but then goes on to suggest that there is doubt as to whether these are actually examples of ring species.
To re-iterate, I would bet that evolution is probably correct, however a degree of humility, not always evident, from its adherents would do no harm. The sun, it turned out, didn't orbit the earth.
- mikeash 10y agoYou clearly are criticizing the theory. You state that there is an absence of intermediate forms, give an example of an intermediate between apes and chimpanzees, and conclude by stating that you'd expect a continuum. These aren't qualified with any of the humility you demand from others, they're just stated as bare "facts." This is typical, though. State a bunch of nonsense, then when called on it say you're just asking questions, people shouldn't be so harsh, and would it kill evolutionists to be a little more humble? It takes a lot more effort to refute bullshit than to spew it. People naturally and rightfully get frustrated when people spew it.
- barking 10y agoAre you sure that you actually read what i wrote?
- mikeash 10y agoQuite sure. What do you think I got wrong, exactly?
- barking 10y agoThe lack of intermediate species was something that i had thought was a big flaw in the theory of evolution. In my question, I don't think that I stated that as a fact but certainly suggested that I thought it was true. As a result of reading the answers on this thread and other internet readings I still believe that there is a lack of intermediate species but I no longer consider that to be evidence against evolution. If you consider my musings and questions as a bunch of nonsense and that I was stating them as facts and without humility, well I wouldn't agree with you.
- splawn 10y agoeverything alive falls into an "intermediate species" so, no, there is no lack of them.
- mikeash 10y agoYour concluding statement of "All the species seem very well defined when you'd expect a continuum." reads to me as an unqualified factual statement that happens to be quite wrong. (Depending on how you look at it, either the first or the second part is wrong.) That contrasted with the call for humility from people who actually understand this stuff really does not sound at all like "musings and questions" to me.
- barking 10y agoYou and I appear to ascribe very different meanings to the word 'seem'.
- tremon 10y agoI thought that scientific theories should always be open to criticism. They should be open to valid criticism, yes. But when their results are constantly under attack with baseless and unverifiable arguments, scientists grow weary and distrustful. That page has four examples but then goes on to suggest that there is doubt as to whether these are actually examples of ring species. This is an example of the kind of disingenuous arguments that evolution has to deal with; the page actually lists five examples, of which only two are disputed: - The Larus gull, which may not fit the definition because there are subspecies that are not part of the ring (not because the existence of the ring itself is disputed). - The Greenish warbler, which is not disputed. - The Ensatina salamander, which is disputed. The page on the Ensatina itself suggests that there is interbreeding between all subspecies except for one, which suggests that it may actually be two separate species instead of a ring. - The song sparrow, which is not disputed. - The Tithymaloid splurge, which is not disputed.
- barking 10y agoWell this author says that there are no ring species https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-species/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/07/16/there-ar...
- tremon 10y agoBut that was not your original statement, now was it? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts