by metatron 135 Replies latest jw friends
My personal trigger in this area concerned a trip to an aquarium when I was young. There was a sign that said something like ' across millions of years of evolution, sharks have barely changed at all'.
At the time, I took this sentence to be nonsense because it seemed to be a non-sequitor - that 'evolution' somehow took place but no real change was involved. Even though I rejected evolution, it seemed to be the very epitome of change in concept.
Yet, sharks have evolved.
metatron
Totally understandable Met, don't be too hard on yourself
Snare - Great point. Dawkins discusses the influence of Platonic essentialism on evolution in "The Greatest Show".
It really helped me understand one of the biggest obstacles in popular thinking.
Thanks for posting Metatron
Was it something about rabbits cofty? He said it better, I remember he discussed a bell shaped curve and that the average appearance for a species over its time on earth. I believe he offered this as the best we could argue in setting a 'blueprint' or 'gold standard'. It is a very, very potent point as it proves Genesis & the Noah account as pure hogwash.
If god made animals as kinds in their form.... then what the hell are all those other kinds buried under us that change in charachter as we dig further and further back in time, until the species at the end of the spectrum is totally different from the one we began with..... otherwise known as.... TA DA...
E V O L U T I O N
cofty - "Dawkins discusses the influence of Platonic essentialism on evolution in 'The Greatest Show'. It really helped me understand one of the biggest obstacles in popular thinking."
I remember that bit (good book, too).
I still think guys like him haven't yet fully grasped (what I feel is) the most significant reason evolution is rejected by fundy Christians (i.e., the ransom sactrifice/substitutionary atonement doctrine), but whatever...
Yes I think the chapter or sub-heading was "The Dead Hand of Plato".
I could stand up and walk 2 paces and check I suppose.... (hold on)
Chapter 2 "Dogs Cows and Cabbages" sub-heading "The Dead Hand of Plato".
"If there is a 'standard rabbit' the accolade denotes no more than the centre of a bell-shaped distribution of real, scurrying, leaping variable bunnies. And the distribution shifts with time. As generations go by there may gradually come a point, not clearly defined, when the norm of what we call rabbits will have departed so far as to deserve a different name. There is no permanent rabbitness, no essence of rabbit hanging in the sky, just populations of furry, long-eared, coprophagous, whisker-twitching individuals, showing a statistical distribution of variation in size, colour and proclivities"
Beautifully put ! I really owe that man much. Does anyone remember the Telegraph and Guardian giving away little books on topics such as philosophy, quantum physics etc about 5 years ago. That little book on philosophy explained Plato's concept with a table and it made no sense as I could not think of a real world application of people having such a perspective, then Dawkins hit the nail on the head...boom.
Thank you Cofty xxxx
The mere existence of the huge divergence and variety of the shark family is a beautiful example of evolution's power.
Apart from that, the very structure of, let's say the Great White, is an argument against a Creator, at least such as the WTS imagines Him.
I mean, just look at those creatures. Unstoppable apex predators, with every inch of their body specifically 'designed' to produce an effective killer. How could this be the work of a 'Garden of Eden'-like creator?
Sharks are one of evolution's mastepieces.
Interesting discovery. Before this discovery, fundamnetalist evolutionists thought they knew that all things are equally evolved, except for the shark and a few other species. Now, since this discovery, they again think that they know all species are equally evolved (except for a few species). Kinda makes ya wonder why some species appear to be so unevolved, eh? But, fundamentalist evolutionists don't wonder. They know.
S
