Garden Variety Evolution Wilts
Fazale Rana writes in the March/April 2008 edition of the Reasons to Believe Newsletter that evolutionists and creationists agree that the earth’s “garden” (plant life) has changed dramatically over time. The questions is on the “how.” Darwinists propose that it happened slowly in spontaneous response to external and internal environment changes via natural selection and mutations. But this theory doesn’t seem to fit with what we now know from the fossil record.
Scientists like Stephen J. Gould have modified the theory to propose a “punctuated equilibrium” theory to better fit the fossil record. This view states that life changed in sudden spurts, followed by long periods of little or no change. These proponents say that small groups of species became isolated and that change occurred rapidly as they responded to their new environments and conditions.
The University of Oregon challenged this notion by doing theoretical work that showed the isolation and adaptation process at the core of “punctuated equilibrium” leads to extinction, not evolution. Field workers from Washington University have more recently confirmed this conclusion by studying collared lizards in the Missouri Ozarks. They found that an isolated group is more likely to die off than adapt and survive.
In conclusion, the evolutionary view faces two major problems. It lacks corroboration from the fossil record, and the punctuated equilibrium version lacks a legitimate mechanism. In light of the absence of naturalistic explanations, it seems only reasonable that science should consider all options, including the possibility of an “intelligent designer.” The “scientific method” is by definition based on gathering evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. It pursues the “truth” without bias, no matter where it leads.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Evolution happens. The theory of evolution is very well supported by the evidence. Please, don’t spend your time reading apologetics documents if you want to learn about science. They will mislead you each time.
The theory of evolution is not facing problems and, as was shown in Dover, there is no science in Intelligent Design.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:35 am
You claim that the fossil record does not corroborate evolution. Not so. Transitional fossils have been found in dozens of cases at this time including jaw bones arrangement into ear bones in mammals and leg reduction in cetaceans, just to name a couple.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:38 am
While it may very well be true that a species that is isolated is more likely to die off than change, that does not mean that it always will die off. Some small fraction of them will adapt and, over time, evolve into something that can no longer breed back to the parent population. They will have become a new species. It does not happen every time. But it does happen enough times to give us the diversity that we see.
Your idea is that, what, God changed his mind about animals and just re-designed them and popped them into existence? How could an all knowing, all seeing being get it wrong the first time around?
May 12th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Wow, Randal, do you really claim to know anything about this field? Read up a little on a few basic facts and concepts before you embarrass yourself like this again.
Then, rather than whining about evolutionary models, do something constructive. Come up with an alternative, lay out the hypotheses your model suggests, then test them. That’s science. That’s useful to the rest of humanity…as opposed to the bloviation in this post, which is useful only to your own sense of self-importance.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Scientific method has been applied to Intelligent Design, there was no evidence, and Intelligent Design proponents must consider all other options, including evolution.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:32 am
This response is also only one of many I received after posting a simple question on PZ Meyers blog “Pharyngula.” Most responses were vicious, and uncivil. I can accept a response like the one above because at least it attempts to respond to the content of the post, and with normal emotions. Most responses were emotional and failed to address the point of the post. Again, I think the point of the movie “Expelled” about freedom, open intellectual exploration, dialog and pursuit of truth is being made by the type of responses to the movie.