|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 09/24/2005 : 11:12:25
|
Many folks seem to take it for granted that there really are 'gaps' in the theory of evolution.
No there aren't.
Genetic science has filled them all in.
Unless you want to argue that each and every life form on the planet has not had its genetic history mapped, just what pray tell are these so called gaps in the theory?
I propose none of the gaps are significant anymore. (I think that also holds true for the origin of life but let's leave that out of this thread for now.)
Do who has a gap to share? I'd sure like to hear of one that actually cannot be explained.
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/24/2005 : 16:39:01 [Permalink]
|
To a creationist, any lack of precision knowledge is a "gap." Don't forget that they compare science to their revelation, in which there is nothing unknown, and Truth-with-a-capital-T rules. So, because we don't have a fossil of every single genetic step of the transition between reptiles and birds, science is just wrong, and a huge "hole" exists in "Darwinism."
For example, Behe now asks for a complete, step-by-step list of the specific mutations it takes to make a flagellum. A plausible explanation is no longer enough, he moved the goalposts back once his previous challenge was met. Anything less than a completely accurate description of base-pair changes is a "gap" in scientific knowledge to him.
But don't dispute the gaps, Beskeptigal. That's where the creationist God lives. As the gaps get smaller, so does he. The creationists do us a favor by making sure that their God gets less and less relevant to these discussions as time goes by (for them - I know that God isn't relevant to science). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 00:54:24 [Permalink]
|
A picture is worth 1000 words: Above is the real Devonian Bunny; creatures so obviously in transition that it can only be denied by the figuritive ostrich.
But Dr. Sarfati, et al, does not want to hear what the thecodonts have to say. I brought it up with him once, on another forum, and the results were amusing. Ill-tempered lad, our Jonathon.
As Dave has so well stated, the gaps continue to shrink, but there will always be a few. In another generation or so, what with genetics and new fossil finds, those gaps will be so narrow that the creationists will be elbowing each other for space in them.
Which will not matter to them in the least. They have one book and a lot of words, and that's all the myopicly fixated need.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 09/25/2005 00:55:59 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 10:22:48 [Permalink]
|
I know the Bible thumpers believe there are gaps. What I'm asking is where are the actual scientific gaps in the theory, short of not having mapped each and every organism's history?
Before genetic research, and before closer exam of such things as complex organ evolutionary steps there may very well have been 'gaps'. But those gaps in the theory have been filled. We know how individual mutations lead to big changes. We know how segregated gene function allows a limb to change without affecting an eye. We know how redundancy allows mutations that don't kill the organism. So what is in the theory that is still truly unaccounted for?
Interesting comment about the shrinking God, Dave. Too bad it isn't reflected in shrinking numbers of believers. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 09/25/2005 10:26:25 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 11:44:17 [Permalink]
|
Beskeptigal, where the "actual" gaps are depends entirely upon your definition of "gap." And it's not so much what's "in the theory that is still unaccounted for" which makes a "gap" (to me), but what observations there are which aren't satisfactorally explained by the theory. For example, what caused the Cambrian "explosion" might be considered a "gap" in our knowledge.
And the shrinking relevance of the fundamentalist god to science won't be reflected in a shrinking number of believers. It'll be reflected in either a shrinking number of believers who send their kids to public schools (already happening) and/or an increased political push to teach creationism as science in public schools (already happening). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 12:46:26 [Permalink]
|
My definition of gap would be something in the theory for which there is not yet definitive evidence to support.
For example, in the theory of gravity, we really don't know whether the force is actualized by gravitons and whether they function as a particle or a wave or both as in photons. There are experiments going on trying to provide evidence if gravity has a speed with which it distorts space. That would add to our knowledge of whether it is a particle or wave or neither.
The Cambrian explosion is a separate issue from evolution. That question would be how does evolution go this direction or that direction. But the basics of DNA and mutation and selection pressures, the core concepts of evolution, would remain as the basis of change.
I think the reason my question is hard to answer is exactly why I asked it. The answer is there are no gaps. The gaps were resolved with the genetic science revolution. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 09/25/2005 12:46:55 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 09/25/2005 : 22:39:14 [Permalink]
|
My point which is being missed here is when folks respond to the IDers they seem to take it for granted that there are gaps. No one ever says, there are no gaps. But, there are no gaps in the theory.
IDers claim one gap is irreducibility. There is no gap of irreducibility. That gap had been filled.
I see an analogy between the Republican propaganda machine and the mousy Democrat response. It makes me want to scream. So here we have the IDers' and religious fanatics' propaganda machine and instead of making a firm stand that their science is just plain wrong, the vast majority politely talk all around this and that. Only rarely do I hear a good scientist just come out and say ID is simply nonsense.
There are no gaps! |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
