Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: olderbutnowiser @ 07/02/2008 3:59:34 PM

    I'm no mafma,,,,mafamatish,,,,,mafomatish,,,,,,,, oh, never mind !

  • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 3:06:34 PM

    If you read the eye article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye) carefully, you'll notice the amount of conjecture and lack of mechanism for the evolution of the eye. Coveniently though that scientists expect to find no answer to the question of the evolution of the eye. "The division of layers MAY have originated with the shedding of skin; intracellular fluid MAY infill naturally depending on layer depth. Note that this optical layout has NOT been found, NOR is it expected to be found. Fossilization rarely preserves soft tissues, and even if it did, the new humour would almost certainly close as the remains desiccated, or as sediment overburden forced the layers together, making the fossilized eye resemble the previous layout." - Wikipedia Evolution of the Eye (capital emphasis- Metastasio)

    • Posted By: Ale.Ale @ 07/02/2008 3:13:31 PM

      Ah. So god of the gaps, right?

      Science is advancing by addressing knowledge gaps all the time. This question is far from solved, however. See, for instance:

      http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/contents.php?vol=48&issue=8-9&doi=041900wg

      • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 3:59:22 PM

        Ale, I agree with your two points here. Science is the search for knowledge to fill the gaps, and this question is not solved. While http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/ addresses the anti-evolution reasoning quite well, its counter-arguments are weak. The argument that silent beneficial mutations exist and therefore non-classifiable is silly. The whole argument for evolution is precisely that a mutation must have an implication in the physical world that would increase an organism's chance of survival. "Dormant" genetic mutations are hardly the grounds for science as they are almost entirely un-testable by the scientific process. I wouldn't want to base a theory on the success of life attached to mutation which in as your article states: "While it is true that most mutations are either harmful, ... or neutral, beneficial mutations do occur, though they are very rare." Would anyone ever wish a mutation on his child? When this improbably mechanism is left to do its "magic" in short periods of time (Cambrian explosion) one has to be highly skeptical- and of course this is an understatement. Unless your just a die-hard faith-based evolutionist.

        I must point out also that the author of you link, Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D., neglects to mention any beneficial human mutations. And his admission to the almost entire lack of beneficial mutation plays right into the hands of statistical argument against evolution which I???m sure you???ve read and agree is quite strong.

      • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 3:50:44 PM

        Ale, I agree with your two points here. Science is the search for knowledge to fill the gaps, and this question is not solved. While http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/ addresses the anti-evolution reasoning quite well, its counter-arguments are weak. The argument that silent beneficial mutations exist and therefore non-classifiable is silly. The whole argument for evolution is precisely that a mutation must have an implication in the physical world that would increase an organism's chance of survival. "Dormant" genetic mutations are hardly the grounds for science as they are almost entirely un-testable by the scientific process. I wouldn't want to base a theory on the success of life attached to mutation which in as your article states: "While it is true that most mutations are either harmful, ... or neutral, beneficial mutations do occur, though they are very rare." Would anyone ever wish a mutation on his child? When this improbably mechanism is left to do its "magic" in short periods of time (Cambrian explosion) one has to be highly skeptical- and of course this is an understatement. Unless your just a die-hard faith-based evolutionist.

        I must point out also that the author of you link, Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D., neglects to mention any beneficial human mutations. And his admission to the almost entire lack of beneficial mutation plays right into the hands of statistical argument against evolution which I???m sure you???ve read and agree is quite strong.

      • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 3:48:03 PM

        Ale, I agree with your two points here. Science is the search for knowledge to fill the gaps, and this question is not solved. While http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/ addresses the anti-evolution reasoning quite well, its counter-arguments are weak. The argument that silent beneficial mutations exist and therefore non-classifiable is silly. The whole argument for evolution is precisely that a mutation must have an implication in the physical world that would increase an organism's chance of survival. "Dormant" genetic mutations are hardly the grounds for science as they are almost entirely un-testable by the scientific process. I wouldn't want to base a theory on the success of life attached to mutation which in as your article states: "While it is true that most mutations are either harmful, ... or neutral, beneficial mutations do occur, though they are very rare." Would anyone ever wish a mutation on his child? When this improbably mechanism is left to do its "magic" in short periods of time (Cambrian explosion) one has to be highly skeptical- and of course this is an understatement. Unless your just a die-hard faith-based evolutionist.

        I must point out also that the author of you link, Edward E. Max, M.D., Ph.D., neglects to mention any beneficial human mutations. And his admission to the almost entire lack of beneficial mutation plays right into the hands of statistical argument against evolution which I???m sure you???ve read and agree is quite strong.

  • Posted By: scotticusvii @ 07/02/2008 3:59:11 PM

    The most astonishing evidence against evolution is the fact that the missing link's are missing. It takes more faith to believe Darwin than it does to believe Jesus. But people don't want to believe that they might be accountable for their actions.

  • Posted By: matt2373 @ 07/02/2008 3:52:35 PM

    ???To think the human eye came about by natural selection is I freely confess absurd in the highest
    degree.?????? Darwin???s Origin of Species.

    • Posted By: Enterprise-E @ 07/02/2008 3:55:43 PM

      WHOA, wait a second, are you trying to suggest that just because darwin was wrong about one thing that his entire theory is wrong?

  • Posted By: shiers2 @ 07/02/2008 3:31:07 PM

    Most pointless comparison I have ever seen attepted.

    • Posted By: MorsDei @ 07/02/2008 3:55:00 PM

      Most pointless comment I have ever seen attempted.

  • Posted By: matt2373 @ 07/02/2008 3:52:57 PM

    ???To think the human eye came about by natural selection is I freely confess absurd in the highest
    degree.?????? Darwin???s Origin of Species.

  • Posted By: ca_boy69 @ 07/02/2008 3:51:02 PM

    Without Lincoln, the U.S. is not one nation and not strong enough to make the difference in WWI and WWII. The world would be far more different than if we hadn't figured out the evolution of animals during Darwin's day. Does anyone really believe that we wouldn't have come up with that theory? Please. I completely agree with elmer on this.

  • Posted By: shiers2 @ 07/02/2008 3:49:07 PM

    To hyper-extend Darwin's theory to the "goo in the slough that became you" as equatable to Lincoln's position in history is absurd and defies logic. .

  • Posted By: emtbunny_11@hotmail.com @ 07/02/2008 3:48:53 PM

    There is really no reason for anyone to become so mean and condescending over this article. It is everyone's right to believe what they want. As for proving that theory ( and yes both beliefs are theories), letting your emotions get in the way of the answer you have come to never allows it to be respected- wrong or right! As a Christian I am going to reach for a verse " Study to Show thy SELF approved" It God wanted anyone to blindly follow then free will would have never been granted. This also applies to the ones who are not Christians. Everyone-state YOUR fact not your disdain. Malice never helps anyone come to a conclusion other than indifference.

  • Posted By: pblack @ 07/02/2008 3:48:23 PM

    Oh by the way I am very happy I go and worship as often as I can.

  • Posted By: Avenger442 @ 07/02/2008 2:57:09 PM

    Who was more important?
    Evolution of man from other primates; an unproven failed theory of the past.
    Slavery made unacceptable in most of the world by a commitment to man's inalienable right to freedom.
    You figure it out.

    • Posted By: bbmj @ 07/02/2008 3:06:42 PM

      unproven, like the god you believe in

      • Posted By: Avenger442 @ 07/02/2008 3:48:03 PM

        So you will concede that the answer to the question is Lincoln.

  • Posted By: olderbutnowiser @ 07/02/2008 3:46:08 PM

    I think Lincoln could have taken Darwin, as Lincoln had superior upper body strength.
    Also, Darwin had the chin of a lower level reptile.

  • Posted By: wildbilparnell1066 @ 07/02/2008 3:42:52 PM

    The anger, resentment, and hostile responses tell the story. Maybe he was on to something that reminds people what it means to be human, and some people are just to high, mighty and good to buy it.

  • Posted By: gmak1 @ 07/02/2008 2:13:39 PM

    The Theory of Evolution is just that...a theory. It is the most unscientific, unsubstantiated bunch on nonsense one could ever imagine. The complex universe, the intricacy of just a single cell, the great variety of life on this planet...all of it happened by chance? The earth just "happened" to find itself at just the right distance from the sun so that we don't burn or freeze? The atmosphere that makes life possible just "happened" to have the right components and in the right quantities...by chance? Everything that has ever been made by man, any structure, any machine, anything at all, has required a designer and builder. Nothing created by humans can remotely approach the complexity of all life around us. Yet somehow, while we readily accept the truth that a building, a simple structure made of stone and steel, must have an architect and builder, the universe and all life "just happened" out of nothing, from blind chance. How scientific is that?

    • Posted By: Ale.Ale @ 07/02/2008 2:17:51 PM

      The fact that you are clueless as to how evolution works does not disprove it. It only means that you need to revisit secondary school.

      • Posted By: ChrisRosendin @ 07/02/2008 2:26:22 PM

        Your comment about "chance" betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about how the theory works. Mutations are random, Evolution is not. I suggest you study the subject further. "God did it" is not an answer that is satisfying to those in the reality-based community.
        http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/02/random-or-nonrandom.html

        • Posted By: gmak1 @ 07/02/2008 2:34:00 PM

          Chris...I'm going back just a "bit" before we get to mutations. Where did all the complex "stuff" that eventually mutated come from? For something to mutate it had to be alive, no? Where did it come from? Go back as far as you like and explain to me how a "Big Bang", a massive explosion, somehow created the perfect environment for life to begin from nothing. Anytime I've seen an explosion (just check the news on a daily basis), the aftermath is utter chaos. How then could this "Bang" create this marvelous planet and all its diversity? I realize the though that "God did it" is repulsive to you, a spokesperson for the reality-based community. But is it realistic to believe this unscientific foolishness simply because we don't want to consider the possibility that there is a God?

          • Posted By: ChrisRosendin @ 07/02/2008 3:40:23 PM

            Not a spokesman, only a member. Science doesn't know how abiogenesis happened but that in no way admits of some supernatural cause. This same argument works the other way too: Please explain how god did this and provide proof of his existence. And no, books written by bronze age primitives do not constitute scientifically testable proof.

      • Posted By: gmak1 @ 07/02/2008 2:24:46 PM

        How DOES evolution work? Scientists don't seem to know...they fight amongst themselves trying to explain it. Please tell me all knowing one. Enlighten me with your vast knowledge.

        • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 2:35:57 PM

          Here you go. Its not something that can be answered in this short format. No matter what strawman version the creationist want to present.
          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/index.shtml
          Plus please do some research on how science works. Your idea of "fighting" shows your ignorance.

          • Posted By: gmak1 @ 07/02/2008 3:01:06 PM

            Big Rev: perhaps "fighting" is too strong a word. i hope I didn't offend you. I take no offense at your calling me ignorant. It's what folks do when they can't come up with logical explanations and reasonable positions. How about scientists vehemently disagreeing? Engaging in heated debates? Calling one another names? Better? Good. Now then, please answer me this: scientists have been unable to recreate life in laboratories, under ideal circumstances, when they have all the raw materials they need readily available. Yet, this complex process, which learned, well-educated, all knowing scientists cannot duplicate, happened all by itself after a massive explosion in outer space. Is this plausible?

            • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 3:26:21 PM

              Ok disagreeing is better, and also, Ignorant is not an insult unless you chose to remain that way. ;) Now to your last point, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life. It is the explanation of the biodiveristy on this planet and how it got there. Yes it is plausible. I freely admit that we don't have an explanation for it, but that doesn't mean that we won't and some point. But when you chose to say "God did it", it stops the scientific process. No more searching or learning needs to be done. Yet there is no evidence of any creator's hand.

        • Posted By: ChrisRosendin @ 07/02/2008 2:31:42 PM

          That is the way science works. Consensus is not automatic and disputes are common. You won't find a reputable scientist with a scientifically testable alternative to Evolution. There are plenty of places you can educate yourself, as I had to do.

      • Posted By: ldyson @ 07/02/2008 2:26:26 PM

        Obviously a response of ultimate wisdom from Ale. LOL
        Ale, you don't have to get mad that you don't have to get that evolution is wrong, just go away.

  • Posted By: donharagan @ 07/02/2008 3:31:40 PM

    This comparison only makes sense from the point of view of someone from the US. To the rest of the world it is possible that Darwin's name is much more familiar, hinting a larger universal importance. Dismissing Darwin simply because someone else was coming up with a similar theory is not enough. You could do the same to Lincoln: slavery was already abolished almost everywhere in the West, including the rest of the Americas. If anything, the question is why did the US took so long to ban it? Lincoln's place in US history is certain, it helped forge a nation but Darwin's theory challenged man's perceived place in God's creation. Which do you deem more relevant?

  • Posted By: donharagan @ 07/02/2008 3:30:42 PM

    This comparison only makes sense from the point of view of someone from the US. To the rest of the world it is possible that Darwin's name is much more familiar, hinting a larger universal importance. Dismissing Darwin simply because someone else was coming up with a similar theory is not enough. You could do the same to Lincoln: slavery was already abolished almost everywhere in the West, including the rest of the Americas. If anything, the question is why did the US took so long to ban it? Lincoln's place in US history is certain, it helped forge a nation but Darwin's theory challenged man's perceived place in God's creation. Which do you deem more relevant?

  • Posted By: wildbilparnell1066 @ 07/02/2008 3:28:57 PM

    Lincoln had guts and audacity, retained tax revenues to retain power, but not sure how to help the whole without injuring all. Darwin had courage to communicate in a way all can see that God may have created varieties of life forms through natural selection in an evolutionary-long term way. I myself was not there when he might have done it. So i myself will not be arrogant enough to question Him, His ways, and i do not see where life forms being connected and/or related hurts any of us. Wake Up! Thanks for letting me comment

  • Posted By: prenhill @ 07/02/2008 3:19:18 PM

    How the hell does THAT become a question? Darwin was just a nut trying to attack religion.

    • Posted By: Rev. BigDumbChimp @ 07/02/2008 3:27:15 PM

      Wow. Even with all the ignorance (willful and innocent) displayed here, I think this comment takes the cake.

  • Posted By: DarkMatter @ 07/02/2008 3:25:09 PM

    Darwin wasn't a nut, trying to attack religion. He was a Christian himself who had the good sense to look at science as a separate thing entirely, but he didn't think the two were mutually exclusive. Stop being stupid!

  • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 2:33:26 PM

    Enlighten me, please, evolutionists. Since it's so obvious we evolve gradually, please explain how a legless snake like creature may have evolved arms. Seems to me you couldn't do it gradually (stumps first) because all the intermediate changes wouldn't create any benefit for survival- actually, stumps on an animal would be a detriment to movement. Perhaps, the legs came first and the body evolved afterwards. Apparently this is obvious there must be an explanation.

    • Posted By: Ale.Ale @ 07/02/2008 2:42:29 PM

      "how a legless snake like creature may have evolved arms"
      What are you talking about?Which legged organism that you refer to evolved from a snake?

      • Posted By: Metastasio @ 07/02/2008 2:58:28 PM

        Read more carefully. I said snake LIKE. Obviously, I am talking of an hypothetical common ancestor. Of say the snake and the lizard. The snake and lizard must have had an ancestor? Why don't you share you hypothesis. To clarify, the question. Where, when and how did legs originate?

        • Posted By: Ale.Ale @ 07/02/2008 3:18:08 PM

          Ok, start with this:

          http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=getting-a-leg-up-on-land

    • Posted By: Weapon "X" @ 07/02/2008 2:44:27 PM

      meatastasio, it's the other way around. To me ( and I will admit it is open for debate ) it's the other way around. Certain species of Boiids display evidence of "feet". And I believe legless lizards are examples of evidence of a transistional species.....but like I said, "evidence".

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse