 |
 |
 |
The Angry Evolutionist |
||
 |
 |
 |
lunes, noviembre 9, 2009, 05:26 AM Transcription of an article titled “The Angry Evolutionist”, written by Richard Dawkins, published in Internet on Sep 25, 2009 From the Newsweek magazine issue dated Oct 5, 2009.. You will find my commentaries to it in the following 3 articles.The Angry Evolutionist More Americans believe in angels than in evolution—and Richard Dawkins isn't going to take it anymore. Creationists are deeply enamored of the fossil record, because they have been taught (by each other) to repeat, over and over, the mantra that it is full of "gaps": "Show me your 'intermediates!' " They fondly (very fondly) imagine that these "gaps" are an embarrassment to evolutionists. Actually, we are lucky to have any fossils at all, let alone the massive numbers that we now do have to document evolutionary history—large numbers of which, by any standards, constitute beautiful "intermediates." We don't need fossils in order to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution would be entirely secure even if not a single corpse had ever fossilized. It is a bonus that we do actually have rich seams of fossils to mine, and more are discovered every day. The fossil evidence for evolution in many major animal groups is wonderfully strong. Nevertheless there are, of course, gaps, and creationists love them obsessively. Leer más... [ 2 comentarios ] ( 7 visualizaciones ) | enlace permanente |    ( 2.7 / 32 ) |
||
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, First part |
||
|
|
|
lunes, noviembre 9, 2009, 05:13 AM After the transcription of the complete article The Angry Evolutionist by Richard Dawkins in Newsweek, published in Internet in September 25, 2009 and in the magazine in the issue dated October 5, please find my Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, first part Evolution, yes; Charles Darwin, no way My theory says: Evolution is repeated in the development (what goes on in testicles, ovaries and spawn, and in gestation (what goes on in the womb), each species according to its own. Therefore, I do not need fossils to demonstrate that evolución is a fact. The different stages of gestation are, of course, the intermediate stages of evolution. Neither do I need to waste so much time clarifying the reason for the so called “Cambrian Explosion”. In my theory, naturally throughout all the evolution, the “suddenly” is integral part of the theory. Neither do I need to clarify if we are brothers or far cousins or shared descendants with others beings, given that my theory is very clear to say that each species is according to its own. Neither do I need to waste my time dealing with lost links. If evolution is repeated in the processes in the testicles, ovaries and spawn and in gestation, I will feel disappointed if those who know more about it do not point it out and let it be known. Leer más... [ añadir comentario ] ( 1 visualización ) | enlace permanente | ( 3.1 / 36 ) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, second part |
||
|
|
|
lunes, noviembre 9, 2009, 04:51 AM Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, second partEvolution, yes; Charles Darwin, no way From my article “The Extinct Human Species That Was Smarter Than Us” (and second response to the Aquatic Ape Theory) I take the following thoughts: If a base concept is wrong, everything built upon it will be wrong. The essence of the book: “Big Brain: The Origins and Future of Human Intelligence” by Gary Lynch and Richard Granger (Palgrave Macmillan, $26.95). Leer más... [ añadir comentario ] | enlace permanente | ( 3.2 / 36 ) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, third part |
||
|
|
|
lunes, noviembre 9, 2009, 04:39 AM Response to “The Angry Evolutionist”, third partEvolution, yes; Charles Darwin, no way The Bible and this theory One day I faced the biblical passage of the Creation (Genesis 1:26). God created a man, so says the Bible. But I asked myself: a man as he is today? That is impossible! A man is structured to reproduce himself through a woman and if there is no such woman, that structure would be useless. How would he reproduce himself? If there was no solution to this problem, the species would end right there and then, at the time of his death. Leer más... [ añadir comentario ] | enlace permanente | ( 3.2 / 44 ) |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Un evolucionista enojado |
||
|
|
|
sábado, noviembre 7, 2009, 04:48 AM Traducción de Félix Rocha Martínez del artículo titulado "The Angry Evolutionist" escrito por Richard Dawkins, publicado en Internet el 25 de septiembre del 2009. Y por escrito en la edición de la revista Newsweek de octubre 5 de 2009. Mis comentarios los encontrará en los siguientes 3 artículos.Un evolucionista enojado Más estadounidenses creen en los ángeles que en la evolución –y Richard Dawkins no lo va a aceptar más. Los creacionistas están profundamente enamorados del registro fósil, debido a que han sido enseñados (uno al otro) a repetir, una y otra vez, el mantra de que está lleno de “vacíos”: “muéstrame tus pasos intermedios”. Con gusto (con mucho gusto) imaginan que estos “vacíos” son una vergüenza para los evolucionistas. En realidad, tenemos suerte de tener fósiles, aunque no sean las cantidades masivas que ahora sí tenemos para documentar la historia evolutiva –grandes números de los cuales, por cualquier medición, constituyen hermosos “intermedios”. No necesitamos fósiles para poder demostrar que la evolución es un hecho. La evidencia de la evolución estaría totalmente segura aun cuando ni un solo cadáver se hubiera fosilizado. Es un bono que en realidad tenemos de que haya canteras de fósiles de donde proveernos y más son descubiertos cada día. La evidencia fósil para la evolución en muchos grupos importantes de animales es maravillosamente fuerte. Sin embargo existen, por supuesto, los vacíos, y los creacionsitas los aman de manera obsesiva. Leer más... [ añadir comentario ] | enlace permanente | ( 2.9 / 38 ) |
||
|
|
|
Siguiente
