David Kitts, in "Paleontology and Evolutionary Thought" magazine, said, "Evolution, at least in the sense that Darwin speaks of it, cannot be detected within the life time of a single observer." It cannot be detected. It is not part of science. It is just a religion.
47 comments
Dumbass! Evolution is the change over generations. Of course it can't be observed in just one lifetime.
You have a VERY young country, barely 300 years old. When you can trace observable facts in your country, back at least as long as 900 years, then we'll get back to you.
Evolution can easily be directly observed within one's own lifetime in species with a much shorter time between successive generations. It can still be observed, in a more limited way across one or two generations, within our own species, as the average time between subsequent human generations is, thanks to modern medicine, much less than the average human lifespan.
In any case, thanks to the invention of spoken language, writing and other recording media (which you'd really think that, by now, first-world inhabitants like Hovind might have noticed exist), not to mention things like radioisotope dating, one is no longer constrained to base ones deductions about the universe one finds oneself in entirely on events directly observed within one's own lifespan, although the possibility of fraud in the others one must rely on to produce those records means this can be somewhat less accurate and, very strictly speaking (i.e. to the point of total impracticality) this does actually violate the personal reproducibility requirement of the scientific method (though a coordinated group of people working across the generations could, at least, reproduce the work of earlier groups and still drastically reduce the likelihood of fraud or error, if not entirely eliminate it the way an individual reproducing everything for himself might, from his point of view).
Apparently you missed the "within the life time of a single observer" part. That means that if it can be detected, then it'll take several generations, so there will be multiple observers. Who says that scientific studies have to be observed by one single observer?
In short, like #1074785 said, go pick up the fucking soap, you lying bitch.
I think this quote from MR Hovind's "dissertation" pretty much sums him up as well as his supporters:
"I can't explain it, because I don't understand it."
I believe this came from page 87, as there is a handwritten "88" on the next page.
I teach EFL in Japan, and my students can pretty quickly grasp you don't write academic papers in the 1st/2nd person, use contractions, contain basic errors like the "6 colors of the rainbow", etc... I really don't see how anyone could actually read the entire thing, it is that poorly written.
WTF?!?
If you are going to quote mine, don't give the full quote. Try something like "Evolution... cannot be detected...."
For example: "It can... be detected. It is... part of science. It is just...."
Kent Hovind quote confirming evolution!
Next time, just buy a $20 doctorate somewhere. I didn't even have to write a crappy dissertation.
@swede: "You have a VERY young country, barely 300 years old. When you can trace observable facts in your country, back at least as long as 900 years, then we'll get back to you."
I'll see your 900 and raise you another 182. Oops, it was your ancestors who helped consolidate ours. In that case, thank you (if only for providing a timely bit of population pressure a few years earlier).
But one generation takes notes and passes it on to the next generation. Why is this so fucking hard for someone who believes in a 2,000 year old text to understand.
And yeah, Darwins evolution is only a building block of the way we understand evolution today.
Who is David Kitts when he's not pretending to know how it works. We can witness human changes as we'll only witness 2 to 3 in our lifetime.
Insects however will go through thousands of generations a decade (under the right (laboratory, (artificial enviroment) conditions)
But then why would Kent know about science?
This David Kitts sure has a thin web presence for one whose opinion I'm supposed take seriously. I mean, I can't even find a wiki entry on the guy. Are you proposing that he has ever been a major actor in the biology/anthropology world?
Is anyone familiar with this man and his place in academia or pertinent research?
LeoKnox
Let's face it, the entire dissertation is an FSTDT goldmine. All you need are the words "Kent Hovind's Dissertation" and a link, and you'll get an index of 100 within a week.
That said, I wonder why Hovind isn't denying he ever wrote this piece of crap, especially since the RR crowd insists we just made it up. Could it be that he both wrote it himself and is, somehow, actually proud of it?
I say in reply: "God, at least in the sense idiots like you speak of, can not be detected within the lifetime of a single observer.' It can not be detected. It is not a part of science. It is a religion.
That said, I do believe in a God, but such is an act of personal faith. NOT SCIENCE.
I don't know who Kitts is, but I can sort of see his point. Evolution from one species to another is not detectable to a casual observer (face it we all don't follow the life and times of bacteria). But again with the coyotes (great little creatures) in 300 years they've developed into 19 sub-species, I wonder what we're going to have in another 300 years.
So, a man can never be convicted of murder unless he has been witnessed committing the act? We'd better get this information to the courts and the police. Think of the money we'll save on all those crime scene investigation units we can close. After all, volumes of circumstantial evidence mean nothing if no one saw anything.
Just out of curiosity, who witness god creating the world and wrote it in Genesis?
Hovind's dissertation is a gold-mine of stupidity. I stopped reading after he said "The idea that evolutionists try to get across is that there is a continual upward progression. They claim that everything is getting better, improving, all by itself as if there is an inner-drive toward more perfection and order." (p. 11). This is completely false and naive. It shows that he really has no understanding of the theory of evolution beyond what he read in some evangelical diatribe.
Hilariously enough, this quote, though out of context, still disagrees with Hovind. The author makes it clear that it cannot be detected within the lifetime of a SINGLE observer. Not that it cannot be detected period. Seriously, the guy is just saying that it is not in a very short period of time (unless you talk about microbiology) that you will see evolutionary changes.
"It cannot be detected."
Which is exactly why we've observed it? See, you missed an important part of that quote. No, what you (actually, you wouldn't, if I recall, but yeah) call "macroevolution" is not observable in one lifetime, we'll have to wait for that. Evolution by the simplest definition (change in allele frequency over time) has been observed in the lab over and over again. Speciation (another step in evolution) has been observed. It CAN be detected, it IS science, and it ISN'T religion.
"It cannot be detected within the lifetime of a single observer" does not mean the same as "it cannot be detected."
Oh wait, it's Kent Hovind's 5th grade essay.
Hey wow! They finally found a citation in Kent Hovind's dissertation! All of the people who said it had no citations were obviously lying! Kent Hovind for pope!
...though, seriously - year, issue and page are missing. What the hell kind of a citation is that?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.