> >I can't believe people still cite the peppered moth's as the ultimate
> >example, as if evolutionists haven't done anything better during the last
> >decades. I see the same criticisms over and over again. People just
> >don't get it. Yes, there are many cases of speciation events during
> >historical time. Yes, natural selection has been observed in the lab and
> >in the field.
>
> I can't believe it either. But it never stops. Either evolutionists know
> there is no other widely believed "just so" story equivalent to or better
> than the peppered moth story in explanatory value, or they are just plain
> ignorant.
I guess you missed the whole point of my former post. There are HUNDREDS
of examples in the literature. I gave you the reference of a classic book
in the field of natural selection. You simply ignored it. Who is being
ignorant? Why haven't you addressed the rest of my post?
"Yes, there are many cases of speciation events during historical time.
...
Take kin-selection theory, one of the most successful areas in
evolutionary biology for more than 30 years, both in terms of amount of
research carried out and in predictive power. NO metion. Take modern
molecular systematics, establishing the fact of common descent using many
independent sources of evidence. Take the current revolution in
developmental biology, the discovery of HOX genes, congruence between
species diversification patterns and geological evidence, etc. Common
descent is a fact. As christians we should seek the truth, not our own
preconceptions of what truth should look like."
This is really meaningless to you? Nothing even to consider? Who is being
ignorant here? Who is ignoring the evidence?
> Such evolutionists are taking a beating in my classes, and I
> presume in the classes of other informed scientists. I cite from the
> latest edition of the most popular college biology textbook, Solomon, Davis
> and Martin "General Biology" 1999 edition, p. 9 and 10. This story serves
> as the only cited evidence in the introductory chapter for their contention
> that "Evolution is the primary unifying concept in Biology". If this were
> not so sad it would truly be laughableHere is the text from p9 and 10 of
> chapter 1:
...
Has it ever occurred to you that a book called "General Biology" is not
the best place to look for current important topics, or a good treatment
of the reason why evolution is "the primary unifying concept in
Biology"? Anyway, I understand that a basic book has constraits of space,
and therefore the authors try to stick to examples that make intuitive
sense to help the students get the idea. If there are problems with
Kettlewell's experiments, I agree that they shoudn't be included in such a
book. But I think the authors are not "forced" to include that example
just because that is everything they got. Even Behe agrees that
microevolution is a fact, as your recent post showed us. I guess the
"informed scientists" should know what they are trying to criticize before
saying that everything is just bogus.
Also, I'm a little bit curious. Could you develop a little bit further on
the points about Kettlewell's experiments which are laughable? Please,
don't do this before addressing the rest of my message.
Marcio