Macroevolution Quotes
Quotes tagged as "macroevolution"
Showing 1-30 of 47
![Michael Crichton](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1359042651i/5194._UX200_CR0,16,200,200_.jpg)
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
―
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
―
![Charles Darwin](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1398693802i/12793._UX200_CR0,49,200,200_.jpg)
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case.”
― The Origin of Species
― The Origin of Species
![Richard Weikart](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1299089072i/30709._UX200_CR0,46,200,200_.jpg)
“Darwinism by itself did not produce the Holocaust, but without Darwinism... neither Hitler nor his Nazi followers would have had the necessary scientific underpinnings to convince themselves and their collaborators that one of the worlds greatest atrocities was really morally praiseworthy.”
― From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany
― From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany
![Michael J. Behe](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1283241835i/27523._UY200_CR29,0,200,200_.jpg)
“In the abstract, it might be tempting to imagine that irreducible complexity simply requires multiple simultaneous mutations - that evolution might be far chancier than we thought, but still possible. Such an appeal to brute luck can never be refuted... Luck is metaphysical speculation; scientific explanations invoke causes.”
― Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
― Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
![Robert J. Sawyer](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1543370297i/25883._UX200_CR0,50,200,200_.jpg)
“There is no indisputable proof for the big bang," said Hollus. "And there is none for evolution. And yet you accept those. Why hold the question of whether there is a creator to a higher standard?”
― Calculating God
― Calculating God
![Isaac Newton](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1221013125i/135106._UX200_CR0,37,200,200_.jpg)
“God without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature. Blind metaphysical necessity, which is certainly the same always and everywhere, could produce no variety of things. All that diversity of natural things which we find suited to different times and places could arise from nothing but the ideas and will of a Being necessarily existing.”
― The Principia : Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
― The Principia : Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy
![Charles Darwin](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1398693802i/12793._UX200_CR0,49,200,200_.jpg)
“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 confess, absurd in the highest degree...The difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection , though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered subversive of the theory.”
―
―
![Charles Darwin](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1398693802i/12793._UX200_CR0,49,200,200_.jpg)
“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?
[To William Graham 3 July 1881]”
―
[To William Graham 3 July 1881]”
―
![Michael Crichton](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1359042651i/5194._UX200_CR0,16,200,200_.jpg)
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
―
―
![Michael J. Behe](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1283241835i/27523._UY200_CR29,0,200,200_.jpg)
“Random mutations much more easily debilitate genes than improve them, and that this is true even of the helpful mutations. Let me emphasize, our experience with malaria’s effects on humans (arguably our most highly studied genetic system) shows that most helpful mutations degrade genes. What’s more, as a group the mutations are incoherent, meaning that they are not adding up to some new system. They are just small changes - mostly degradative - in pre-existing, unrelated genes. The take-home lesson is that this is certainly not the kind of process we would expect to build the astonishingly elegant machinery of the cell. If random mutation plus selective pressure substantially trashes the human genome, why should we think that it would be a constructive force in the long term? There is no reason to think so.”
―
―
![Jerry A. Coyne](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1263127393i/647715.jpg)
“These mysteries about how we evolved should not distract us from the indisputable fact that we did evolve.”
― Why Evolution Is True
― Why Evolution Is True
![David Berlinski](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1389215436i/72837.jpg)
“Before you can ask 'Is Darwinian theory correct or not?', You have to ask the preliminary question 'Is it clear enough so that it could be correct?'. That's a very different question. One of my prevailing doctrines about Darwinian theory is 'Man, that thing is just a mess. It's like looking into a room full of smoke.' Nothing in the theory is precisely, clearly, carefully defined or delineated. It lacks all of the rigor one expects from mathematical physics, and mathematical physics lacks all the rigor one expects from mathematics. So we're talking about a gradual descent down the level of intelligibility until we reach evolutionary biology.”
―
―
![Michael J. Behe](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1283241835i/27523._UY200_CR29,0,200,200_.jpg)
“The most essential prediction of Darwinism is that, given an astronomical number of chances, unintelligent processes can make seemingly-designed systems, ones of the complexity of those found in the cell. ID specifically denies this, predicting that in the absence of intelligent input no such systems would develop. So Darwinism and ID make clear, opposite predictions of what we should find when we examine genetic results from a stupendous number of organisms that are under relentless pressure from natural selection. The recent genetic results are a stringent test. The results: 1) Darwinism’s prediction is falsified; 2) Design’s prediction is confirmed.”
―
―
![Charles Darwin](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1398693802i/12793._UX200_CR0,49,200,200_.jpg)
“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”
― The Origin of Species
― The Origin of Species
![Jonathan Wells](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1281923004i/52728._UX200_CR0,51,200,200_.jpg)
“The controversy between Darwinism and intelligent design has the characteristics of major scientific revolutions in the past. Darwinists are losing power because they treat with contempt the very people on whom they depend the most: American taxpayers. The outcome of this scientific revolution will be decided by young people who have the courage to question dogmatism and follow the evidence wherever it leads.”
― The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
― The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
![Jonathan Wells](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1281923004i/52728._UX200_CR0,51,200,200_.jpg)
“Ewww... intelligent design people! They're just buck-toothed, Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who're trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads. There. I just saved you the trouble of reading 90 percent of the responses to the ID position... This is how losers act just before they lose: arrogant, self-satisfied, too important to be bothered with substantive refutation, and disdainful of their own faults... The only remaining question is whether Darwinism will exit gracefully, or whether it will go down biting, screaming, censoring, and denouncing to the bitter end.
— Tech Central Station contributor Douglas Kern, 2005”
― The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
— Tech Central Station contributor Douglas Kern, 2005”
― The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
![Michael J. Behe](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1283241835i/27523._UY200_CR29,0,200,200_.jpg)
“Real arms races are run by highly intelligent, bespectacled engineers in glass offices thoughtfully designing shiny weapons on modern computers. But there's no thinking in the mud and cold of nature's trenches. At best, weapons thrown together amidst the explosions and confusion of smoky battlefields are tiny variations on old ones, held together by chewing gum. If they don't work, then something else is thrown at the enemy, including the kitchen sink - there's nothing "progressive" about that. At its usual worst, trench warfare is fought by attrition. If the enemy can be stopped or slowed by burning your own bridges and bombing your own radio towers and oil refineries, then away they go. Darwinian trench warfare does not lead to progress - it leads back to the Stone Age.”
― The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
― The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
![Charles Darwin](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1398693802i/12793._UX200_CR0,49,200,200_.jpg)
“But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?”
―
―
![Jonathan Wells](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1281923004i/52728._UX200_CR0,51,200,200_.jpg)
“Teaching students the evidence for and against Darwinism is not the same as teaching intelligent design. The U.S. Congress has officially endorsed teaching students 'the full range of scientific views' about Darwinian evolution.”
― The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
― The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
![Scott F. Gilbert](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1684342062i/354030._UX200_CR0,37,200,200_.jpg)
“Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest... The origin of species — Darwin’s problem — remains unsolved.”
―
―
![Jonathan Wells](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1281923004i/52728._UX200_CR0,51,200,200_.jpg)
“If Darwinists are opposed to mentioning scientific problems with their view, you would think they would be even more opposed to mentioning intelligent design. Yet Darwinists have been discussing ID in public school science classes for years... Biology textbooks have been mentioning intelligent design since the late 1990s—but only to misrepresent and disparage it.”
― The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
― The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design
![Henry Gee](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1515330727i/125632._UX200_CR0,35,200,200_.jpg)
“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― In Search of Deep Time
― In Search of Deep Time
“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”
―
―
“In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America, you can criticize the government, but not Darwin!”
―
―
“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
―
―
![Jerry A. Coyne](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1263127393i/647715.jpg)
“In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.”
―
―
![Jerry A. Coyne](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1263127393i/647715.jpg)
“[...] if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
[review of The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life, Nature 442, 983-984 (31 August 2006)]”
―
[review of The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life, Nature 442, 983-984 (31 August 2006)]”
―
![William A. Dembski](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/authors/1294248849i/101108._UY200_CR49,0,200,200_.jpg)
“Regardless of one's point of view, it's quite easy to see that Darwinism is not in the same league as the hard sciences. For instance, Darwinists will often compare their theory favorably to Einsteinian physics, claiming that Darwinism is just as well established as general relativity. Yet how many physicists, while arguing for the truth of Einsteinian physics, will claim that general relativity is as well established as Darwin’s theory? Zero.”
― Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
― Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing
“The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems.”
―
―
“The phrase 'the fossil record' sounds impressive and authoritative. As used by some persons it becomes, as intended, intimidating, taking on the aura of esoteric truth as expounded by an elite class of specialists. But what is it, really, this fossil record? Only data in search of interpretation. All claims to the contrary that I know, and I know of several, are so much superstition.”
―
―
All Quotes
|
My Quotes
|
Add A Quote
Browse By Tag
- Love Quotes 97k
- Life Quotes 75.5k
- Inspirational Quotes 72.5k
- Humor Quotes 43.5k
- Philosophy Quotes 29.5k
- Inspirational Quotes Quotes 27k
- God Quotes 26k
- Truth Quotes 23.5k
- Wisdom Quotes 23.5k
- Romance Quotes 23k
- Poetry Quotes 22k
- Death Quotes 20k
- Happiness Quotes 18.5k
- Life Lessons Quotes 18.5k
- Hope Quotes 18k
- Faith Quotes 18k
- Quotes Quotes 16.5k
- Inspiration Quotes 16.5k
- Spirituality Quotes 15k
- Religion Quotes 15k
- Motivational Quotes 15k
- Writing Quotes 14.5k
- Relationships Quotes 14.5k
- Life Quotes Quotes 14k
- Love Quotes Quotes 13.5k
- Success Quotes 13.5k
- Time Quotes 12.5k
- Motivation Quotes 12k
- Science Quotes 11.5k
- Knowledge Quotes 11k