Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RUFFLED FEATHERS.

Expand Messages
  • Laurie Appleton
    LA An evolutionist writes and admits the following; ... It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once evolved, assumed additional functions, but how they
    Message 1 of 194 , Mar 19, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      LA> An evolutionist writes and admits the following;
      --------------------------

      "It is not difficult to imagine how feathers, once
      evolved, assumed additional functions, but how they
      arose initially, presumably from reptilian scales,
      defies analysis."....

      "The problem has been set aside, not for want of interest,
      but for lack of evidence. No fossil stucture transitional
      between scale and feather is known, and recent
      investigators are unwilling to found a theory on pure
      speculation."....

      "It seems, from the complex construction of feathers,
      that their evolution from reptilian scales would have
      required an immense period of time and involved a series
      of intermediate stuctures. So far, the fossil record does
      not bear out that supposition."

      (Barbara J.Stahl (St Anselm's College, USA) in Vertebrate
      History: Problems in Evolution, McGraw-Hill, New York,
      1974, pp.349 and 350.)
      ==================


      Laurie.

      No wonder that various evolutionists have admitted at various times and
      in various ways that the Creation scientists regularly "routed" their
      evolutionary opponents in that decade of all those hundreds of open,
      public, scientific debates!

      ..



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gluadys
      ... Which means you really don t agree. You speak of Darwinian morality as you might speak of the morality of con artists swindling elderly widows. You
      Message 194 of 194 , May 20, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "JamesG" <JamesGoff_960@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > gluadys: "There is no such thing as 'Darwinian morality'."
        >
        > I agree. The Darwinian explanation of morality is quite distant from what most people (especially theists) think morality is.
        >
        >

        Which means you really don't agree. You speak of "Darwinian morality" as you might speak of the morality of con artists swindling elderly widows. You would agree their morality is abysmal and not at all like the morality you uphold.

        But abysmal as it may be, it is still a morality of sorts.

        When I say "there is no such thing as 'Darwinian morality' " I mean that literally. There is no moral system at all which can be called "Darwinian": neither a moral system I might approve of, nor one I wholeheartedly condemn.

        The theory of evolution gives us no idea at all how humans "ought" to behave. It prescribes no moral behaviour that would meet the standard of the Ten Commandments. Nor does it prescribe any moral behaviour that would condone murder, rape, promiscuity or any of the other immoral behaviours people like to attribute to it.

        It simply does not follow from anything we have learned about evolution, including human evolution, that there is any such thing at all as "Darwinian morality."




        As Darwinian philosopher of science Michael Ruse wrote:
        >
        > "The scientific claim is that morality is natural. It is an adaptation produced by natural selection to make us good cooperators."
        >
        > http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/evolutionary-ethics-part-two/37836?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en
        >


        Ruse may well be right. A level of awareness that allows the formation of moral codes is probably an adaptation produced by natural selection. But beyond that all we can say is that some behaviours we approve of have adaptive value and some behaviours we disapprove of also seem to have adaptive value, depending on the circumstances. Much depends on the species. It is apparently of adaptive value that female preying mantises bite the head off the male who is cohabiting them at the moment.

        There is no more reason we "should" behave altruistically because it has adaptive value than to say we "should" behave selfishly because it has adaptive value. "Is" is not "ought".

        Historically, the competitive instincts have gotten the lion's share of attention in evolutionary studies. The best competitor passed on the adaptive genes which allowed it to survive and reproduce. This led to the misconception that evolution promoted immoral behaviour. Now more recent research is showing many cases in which altruistic behaviour is adaptive, especially as groups compete with groups. But to say this means that evolution promotes altruistic behaviour as anything but a survival strategy is just as much a misconception as the opposite error.

        Better to say that evolution promotes behaviours, both individual and group behaviours, that maximise the ability to survive and reproduce. From our anthropocentric perspective we pass judgment on these as "moral" and "immoral". But that tells us there is a human standard of morality not that there is a Darwinian morality.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.