[…]neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Ann Coulter on the “gaps” in evolution[…]…

To extrapolate without being encumbered by the facts suits many needs.

Obviously, reality failed to conform to the needs of propaganda.

This way the truth is not what it is but what it is pretended to be.

[…]neo-neocon » Blog Archive » Ann Coulter on the “gaps” in evolution[…]…

There is something you have to dissuade yourself in your arguments. Evolution is not, and has never been, about perfection. Never. Period.

It’s about an imperfect best fit to environmental niches, because the morphology has antecedents. We, as bipeds with muscles that are strained by bipedalism because our ancestors weren’t (really, why should bipeds suffer constant back trauma, shouldn’t those small, short, numerous muscles be larger, longer, and less numerous for perfection’s sake?), are a perfect example.

Hope you get this.

Wolfgang Smith Cosmos and Transcdence

Mitochondrial DNA is passed overwhelmingly through the female (no male product of a female passes it statistically). Get the drift? A few females would be expected (whether you use 40K or 80K for H. Sapiens Sapiens, because of the variability of female menarche and first pregnancy, use 16 then 30 in the calc), and at this point it’s only one (as best as can be determined, if it becomes two, damn Genesis is really screwed). So, Eve becomes a chimera…because, genetically, there were a bunch of Eves but only one genetically survived to this point.

I’m still working on the transgendered Eve (that rib was male) as well all the incest (you know, brother and sister, first cousins, etc. and if it wasn’t then no Adam and Eve)….Do any of you who take the Bible literally think of any of this? It’s a powerful philosophical document to me as an atheist (I obviously neglect G*d as the source), with all sorts of insight to the human condition, but really, incest?

If you really want perspective, the two Genesis myths (nothing pejorative) are guesses, ID is a hypothesis (with logical problems of “argument from incredulity” and “god of the gaps”) that has only offered argument but no research and falsifiability (and assumes that disproving Evolution proves ID, another logical fallacy), and the theory called “Evolution”. This is an ordered degree of probability, with Genesis (both myths) as the lowest and Evolution as the highest. ID does not fall in the middle. All from evidence, and Sergey notwithstanding, buttressed by genetics. BTW, statistically, you start off with over 100 mutations (expected by cell divisions, each one having a very, very slight mistake). Not to worry, you’re still homo sapiens sapiens, but a long time ago…

So, after reading I find Sergey is a “believer” in Evolution, just not the current mechanisms. I’m simplifying for brevity.

I’ll give kudos to Richard Aubrey for skepticism but still with an open mind.

And jpintx, theory doesn’t mean what you think it does. In science, it’s a hypothesis (I use “a” because I pronounce the “h”) that has stood test after test to the point of having a very, very low probability of being wrong (in normal lay parlance it’s a law, though in science that’s usually a concept expressed easily in a formula, think Newton, Einstein, or Planck). Lay parlance on guess, hypothesis, theory, and law is one step down from the meaning in science. However, evolution is fact (no elephants, rhinos, or great apes in the Cretaceous for example), the mechanisms of Evolution are still under review. As Sergey would argue.