> And it’s taught as more than a theory.
*sigh* for some reason very few of the general public understand what a “theory” is in scientific terms. Theory in the scientific sense usually means a fairly well established, coherent explanation. The public often uses “only a theory” to mean “vague at best, and with a high likelihood of being wrong.” This is like the word “hacker”, the general public doesn’t usually correctly use the technical definition.

BTW, keep in mind the fact that very few scientists nowadays actually believe that massive numbers of transitional forms are necessary for evolution – opinion is heading more and more towards the punctuated equilibrium variants of evolution. So, the fact that Darwin thought there ought to be lots of transitional forms means very little anymore. Actually, the theory has changed quite a lot since Darwin’s version, so in many ways what Darwin said about such-and-such is somewhat irrelevant.

A general comment about the article: Duh, or course transitional forms look microevolution-ey (is that a real word?) – they’re transitional. That means (comparatively) small change. Small change = microevolution-ey. I’m simplifying here, but the basic thing that struck me was that talking about transitional forms in the context of micro/macroevolution is kind of pointless. Anyway, just a thought.

Speaking of which: the examples you gave. Giraffe = probably macroevolution, since the short-necked giraffes they talked about were more like horses and would probably count as a separate species today. Sinornis = probably macroevolution, since from what I recall it really was sort of part-bird, part-reptile. Turtle = macroevolution again (seriously, it’s a transitional form between a shell-less blob thing and a turtle.) This is what I see, anyway.

(By the way, Darwin taught both microevolution AND macroevolution in some form.)

Something I would really like to see a good creationist rebuttal to: genetic mutational markers. For example, where random harmless mutations build up in unused portions of the genetic code, so you can see where different lines in the evolutionary tree diverged by what random harmless mutations they have in common. That this happens is pretty undeniable from a genetic standpoint, and statistically common descent is more or less the only way to explain it. It’s even empirically verifiable on a shorter timescale. I’ve yet to see any good creationist rebuttal.

(random: For some reason, as I type this, I keep wanting to express relationships using PHP expressions. LOL. I guess I’ve been doing too much coding recently.)

Darwin (as a good scientist) devoted a whole chapter to the problems with his theory.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all the species of the same group together, must assuredly have existed; but the very process of natural selection constantly tends, as has been so often remarked, to exterminate the parent forms and the intermediate links. Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains, which are preserved, as we shall in a future chapter attempt to show, in an extremely imperfect and intermittent record.”

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

So, yeah. To date, most of these “difficulties” have not yet been resolved. And it’s taught as more than a theory… yeah.

> Brian

*bursts into tears and sobs on her DT’s shoulder*

Nevermind the scrollbar. It’s just the smallness of the comment box that does it, but now I have discovered how to stretch it it’s sweet. Funny thing, a stretchy comment box. You can make it go right off the page forever and ever until your comment is three lines long and you can hardly see any of it. How useful.

Oh, and no one wears suits and jackets for school and conferences and stuff, only for… well, just weddings and balls and funerals, pretty much. Probably no one wears them anywhere else apart from the Prime Minister. People go to conferences and camps in shorts and t-shirts, and they wear shorts and t-shirts to work, and executives and business owners just wear more expensive shorts and t-shirts. Suits and Jackets are a very American thing… truly quaint indeed.

Now, look what you’ve done, DT. You have corrupted my personal morals and standards and lowered me to the point of leaving two whole comments on this abomination. Despite the fact that you haven’t even left me one. It’s disgusting. With italics.

And whatever to the shortness dig. I’ve still easily given you the longest comment here yet, without even trying. This horrible new blog just kills people’s talkativeness, I tell you. You’ll see.

Yes, someday you’ll see, and you’ll regret this decision, DT.

I expect y’all are having a ridiculous amount of fun in NM without me!

I must say I’m very proud of you, twin. Even though your comment didn’t live up to your usual standards as far as length goes, it was a nice gesture.

So…tell me more about this business with the scrollbar in Safari?

Oh. And the debater in me keeps permanent residence online.

I have to say that this is fantastic. Reading the except, I actually didn’t consider it at all, and your post has both shamed and inspired as well as impressed me. Grammatically incorrect as that may be.

Secondly I have to say that the scrollbar on the side of this thing doesn’t work on Safari. This is simply another sign of how badly this whole site sucks. *glares* Even though your wiles might have lured me here against my will, you will still taste my wrath at having abandoned the ranks of HSBers, quaint as we may be. We are loyal to each other, and never forget such betrayal from one in our ranks… sit in your tech-savvy blog with the cool people and tremble, traitor.

Mwahahahaha.

That was, of course, the best note on which to end this, but being me, I could not resist one more comment. I forgot to stop your page loading when I opened it and therefore had it loading pictures in the background for half an hour and slowing my dial-up to a crawl. Which meant that at last I got to see your tournament photos, and envy you Grace… And I have to say that all of you look so absurdly, hilariously American in your suits and jackets and shirts that I sat and giggled over it all for ages, which made me happy. Which just goes to show that some good can come out of stupid new blogs after all…