Posted on 08/10/2008 4:21:37 AM PDT by Soliton
Nothing against fossils, but when it comes to tracing the story of human evolution theyre taking a back seat lately to everything from DNA to lice, and even the DNA of lice. A few years ago scientists compared the DNA of body lice (which are misnamed: they live in clothing, not the human body) to that of head lice, from which they evolved, and concluded that the younger lineage split off from the older no more than 114,000 years ago, as I described in a cover story last year. Since body lice probably arose when a new habitat did, and since that habitat was clothing, thats when our ancestors first needed a haberdasher. The Y chromosome has been an even greater source of clues to human evolution, showing among other things that the most recent common ancestor of all men alive today lived 89,000 years ago in Africa, and that the first modern humans walked out of Africa about 66,000 years ago and became the ancestors of everyone outside that natal continent.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.newsweek.com ...
Every competent and honest scientist who has ever examined the situation is on record to the effect that there ARE NO intermediate species, e.g.
"I just cannot believe that everything developed by random mutations.........".
(Dr Dennis Gabor, winner of 1971 Noble peace prize in Science)."Nine-tenths of the talk on Evolution is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species".
(Dr Etheridge, world famous paleontologist of the British museum)."To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and so readily, by so many scientist without a murmur of protest".
(Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of 1945 Nobel prize for developing penicillin)."May not a future generation well ask how any Scientist, in full possesion of his faculties and with adequate knowledge of information theory, could execute the feat of cognitive acrobatics necessary to sincerely believe that a (supremely complex) machine of information, storage and retrieval servicing millions of cells, diagnosing defects and then repairing them in a teleonomic Von Newman machine manner, arose in randomness - the antipole of information".
(Dr A. E. Wilder-Smith, deliverer of the Huxley Memorial lecture at the Oxford Union, Oxford University, 1986).The Fossils In General "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..." David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology) Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467 "The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." Francis Hitching The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong Penguin Books, 1982, p.19 "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University "Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127 "...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems 4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89 "We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history and has been conservative in habitat." G. S. Carter, Professor & author Fellow of Corpus Christi College Cambridge, England Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution University of Washington Press, 1967 "The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977 "But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (p. 206) "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 gravest objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution)." (p. 292) Charles Robert Darwin The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint Avenel Books, 1979 The Abundance of Fossils "Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." David M. Raup, Curator of Geology Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology" Field Museum of Natural History Vol. 50, No. 1, (Jan, 1979), p. 25 "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100-million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist) Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9 "My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." Prof N. Heribert Nilsson Lund University, Sweden Famous botanist and evolutionist As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51 Evidence for Creation ? "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" Dr.. Tom Kemp, Curator University Museum of Oxford University " A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record" New Scientist, Dec 5, 1985, p. 66 "Much evidence can be advanced in favour of the theory of evolution -- from biology, biogeography and paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. ... Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition." E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Quadrangle Books, 1971, p. 97 "At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose Emeritus Prof of Cell Biology, University of London The Nature and Origin of the Biological World John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164
I’m not looking for a rhetorical game. I’m not looking to be asked a question in return. I’m looking for an answer to the question I asked.
Obviously you don't have to "see" something in order for it to be real. We don't see gravity. We call it a real thing because we can describe it in useful, mathematical terms.
The same can be said for evolution, by the way. Because of the time scale, it is difficult to catch it in the act, but it can be described in useful measurable terms.
And if you have 20 years to spare for a laboratory experiment, you can catch it in the act.
Lots of opinions in that article but no science at all. I will post a list of the transitional forms if you like. I’ve done it many times before. You could of course google them yourself.
I require evidence. Seeing isn't necessary. Truth is consistant with other truths. They do not stand alone. If you study you will build a great base of facts that you can use to your advantage in evaluating later ones.
On another thread, we have been arguing about the shroud of Turin. I assume it is a fake not just based on the evidence, but also based on the fact that magic has never been showned to exist scientifically. If someone can provide evidence that the shroud was created in a supernatural way, I'll change my mind.
No, we don't know how life began so we don't know how rare an event it might be. We do know that all life on earth uses similar coding for DNA and therefore is of a single lineage. Other forms may have arisen and died out, but I am unaware of any evidence for that.
The use of DNA by all living organisms provides evidence that a organism utilizing DNA was the common ancestor of all.
It appears that probably before DNA evolved RNA was utilized for information storage. The evolution of the ability to synthesize DNA enabled a transition from RNA to DNA. RNA use is retained by some viruses.
There may have been alternative nucleic acids (different sugars, different bases) that also were present at the earliest stages of the evolution of life, but first RNA and then DNA out-competed these.
Fred Williams
April 2000*
(Featured in Creation Digest, Autumn 2002)
[An abridged and updated version is available here (April 2003)]
Abstract
Evidence continues to mount contradicting the evolutionist's claim that man and ape share a common ancestry. Over the last 20 years, studies have shown that the human mutation rate is inexplicably too high1,2. A recent study published in Nature has solidified this3. These rates are simply too high for man to have evolved from anything, and if true would show that man must in fact be regressing (a position very consistent with a recent creation of man). Most evolutionists ignore this problem, and those who do attempt to address it leave us with just-so stories void of any supporting evidence.
Exposing the cards
Let's first consider the recent Eyre-Walker & Keightley article in Nature magazine3. By comparing human and chimp differences in protein-coding DNA, they arrived at a deleterious (harmful) mutation rate for humans of U=1.6 per individual per generation. They acknowledge that this seems too high, but quickly invoke something called "synergistic epistasis" as a just-so explanation (I'll address this later).
What is not adequately conveyed to the reader is just how bad this problem is for evolution. It is related to the renowned geneticist J.B.S. Haldane's reproductive cost problem that Walter Remine so eloquently elucidated in "The Biotic Message"4. What we will determine is how many offspring are needed to produce one that does not receive a new harmful mutation during the reproduction process. This is important since evolution requires "beneficial" mutations to build up such that new features and organs can arise (I say "beneficial" loosely, since there are no known examples where a mutation added information to the genome, though there are some that under certain circumstances can provide a temporary or superficial advantage to a species5). If over time harmful mutations outpace "beneficial" ones to fixation, evolution from molecules-to-man surely cannot occur. This would be like expecting to get rich despite consistently spending more money than you make.
So, to determine the reproductive impact, let
p = probability an individual's genome does not receive a new defect this generation
A female is required to produce two offspring, one to replace herself and her mate. So, she needs to produce at least 2/p to pay this cost and maintain the population. Let B represent the birth threshold:
B = 2/p
The probability p of an offspring escaping error-free is given by e^-U6. Therefore, making the substitution,
B = 2e^U. For U=1.6, B = 9.9 births per female!
What pray tell does this mean? What are the authors failing to make crystal clear? It says that females need to produce over 10 offspring just to keep genetic deterioration near equilibrium! A rate less than 10 means certain genetic deterioration over time, because even the evolutionist's magic wand of natural selection cannot help (in fact Eyre-Walker & Keightley had already factored in natural selection when they arrived at a rate of 1.6)
Now consider that extremely favorable assumptions for evolution were used in the Eyre-Walker & Keightley article. If more realistic assumptions are used the problem gets much worse. First, they estimate that insertions/deletions and some functional non-genic sequences would each independently add 10% to the rate. Second, and more importantly, they assume a functional genome size of only 2.25% (60K genes). When they assume a more widely accepted 3% functional genome (80K genes), they cite U = 3.1, which they admit is "remarkably high" (even this may be a favorable assumption, considering Maynard Smith estimates the genic area to be between 9 - 27%7).
Widely recognized geneticist James Crow in an article in the same Nature issue agrees that the deleterious rate is more likely twice the rate cited by Eyre-Walker and Keightley8. So if we use Crow's revised rate of U=3, we get:
B = 2e^3 = 40 births before we get one offspring that escapes a new defect!
The evolutionist's just-so explanation
So are we to believe that upward evolution can overcome what is obviously an insurmountable reproductive barrier? Let's check the evolutionist's explanation and see if it holds water. Crow acknowledges that given these mutation rates and a conventional elimination of mutations, a species with limited reproductive capacity will face "inevitable extinction."8 He then adds: "a way out is for mutations to be eliminated in bunches". This is sometimes called truncation selection, a completely speculative process that you will have a very difficult time finding in any college text book on genetics or biology. One possible reason you won't find this in the text books is because there is absolutely no evidence to support that it occurs in nature.
This brings us back to Eyre-Walker & Keightley's invocation of "synergistic epistasis", which is really a co-star in the "truncation selection" story (the terms are virtually synonymous). This process basically says that each new harmful mutation interacts with prior harmful mutations such that fitness is decreased more than it would have if the new mutation were acting by itself. This allows organisms to push below a fitness threshold where they can more readily be recognized by selection and eliminated from the population. Thus, harmful mutations are eliminated "in bunches". Here again we have pure speculation with no real, tangible evidence to support it.
For the sake of argument, even if synergistic epistasis/truncation selection occurs to sufficiently mitigate the deterioration problem, you still need beneficial mutation fixation to outpace harmful mutation fixation in the eventual survivors. This is unfathomable considering that 40 conceptions are needed just to get an offspring without one of these incremental deteriorating steps. You simply cannot evolve new organs and features when negative hits are outpacing positive ones with such force.
Crow concludes by stating that the high mutation rate helps explain the advantage of sex to evolution. Sure, sex will certainly slow the propagation of harmful mutations (a conservation property completely consistent with a creationist viewpoint). But Crow is forgetting the other side of the coin, that sex will also slow the propagation of beneficial mutations! Recombination has long been considered a paradox among evolutionists9, since it greatly hinders the spread of those crucial "beneficial" mutations needed to make a man out of a monkey. Right out of the gate the mutation must overcome the 50% recombination barrier. Sex is especially a problem in small populations due to the affect of genetic drift (punctuationists claim that the spawning ground of large-scale evolution occurs in small populations). Regardless, sex certainly doesn't solve, let alone address the reproductive cost problem discussed above.
High rate supports recent creation of man
If the deleterious mutation rate is indeed as high as 3 per individual, not only would it thwart the evolutionary scenario of chimp/man common ancestry, it would clearly argue for a recent creation of man. To illustrate this, let's start with a simple model where we will assume heterozygosity10 throughout the generations (this essentially means no inbreeding), using the rate of 3 harmful mutations per individual. Each generation, offspring will inherit on average 3 harmful mutations from the parents (half of 3 from the mother, half of 3 from the father), plus 3 new mutations during the reproduction process. The number of mutations in each offspring after x generations is U * x, where U is the mutation rate. Using the standard population genetics assumption of 25 years per generation, there are 240 generations in 6000 years. So, 3 * 240 = 720 mutations per individual after 6000 years. This isn't too severe considering the size of the active genome, where we have an estimated 80,000 genes, averaging about 1500 base pairs per gene. So 720 mutations spread over the genome amounts to about one mutation per 111 genes11. However, if we use the evolutionist's estimated time since the split between ape and man of 6 million years, we get 720,000 bad mutations, or about 9 mutations per gene!12 We would more resemble a snail than a human! (it should probably come as no surprise that some evolutionists actually posit that apes de-evolved from humans!13)
Note that more than 50% of these mutations will be recessive, and therefore not expressed. However, as we introduce inbreeding and homozygous fixation of genes into this model, the numbers will obviously get worse. Fixed dominant genes won't have to contend with a good copy on the other chromosome, and recessive genes will have a chance to express themselves (one in four if both parents have the defect). If we take all this into consideration, the evolutionary timescale numbers get exponentially worse compared to a trivial decline in the recent creation numbers.
Mitochondrial-DNA rates offer some collaboration. Consider this article from the journal Science:
"Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events. ...Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old."14
The evolutionary squeeze
The evolutionists are in a squeeze, and it's devastating. We have seen from the analysis above that it is implausible for evolution to occur at such a high deleterious mutation rate. But what if you lower the rate? Well, then all kinds of new problems pop up for the evolutionist! A slower rate means a smaller portion dedicated for those rare "beneficial" mutations, so there will be fewer substitutions of new traits over time. Consider that population geneticists typically estimate that only 1 in 50 beneficial mutations have a chance to even reach fixation15. This problem is aggravated by the fact that a cost must be incurred to spread any new trait through the population (those without the trait must eventually die off). The famous geneticist J.B.S. Haldane showed that under favorable assumptions only one new, beneficial substitution could be completely substituted in a population every 300 generations. So in 10 million years, twice the time since the alleged chimp/human split from a common ancestor, only 1667 beneficial substitutions could occur.16 That's only a 0.001% difference between human and chimp genomes. The entire number of substitution differences between man & chimp, ranging from harmful to neutral to beneficial, is estimated to be between 1-3%, or 30-90 million substitutions. Surely 1667 is not enough to make a man out of a hairy, armpit-scratchin, dung throwin' ancestor! Evolutionists need to add about another 1000 trillion years to their cake mix just to get an ape with manners!
Some evolutionists try to "fix" this problem by lowering the amount of functional genome. But as this is lowered, they remove space for new genes that are absolutely essential for their theory. Evolutionists who are aware of the information problem try to solve it by claiming that beneficial random mutations to duplicated genes, under the guidance of natural selection, is what gets upward evolution rolling. But a smaller functional genome obviously means less chance for a duplicated gene to be mutated (all this assuming increased information by random mutation can even occur, which information theory says it can't). Some evolutionists dispute this small of a functional genome. As mentioned earlier, Maynard Smith estimates it to be between 9-27%7. If further evidence expands the functional genome toward 10%, then the mutation rate/reproductive cost problem gets much worse, requiring evolutionists to "fruitfully multiply", and now, if they want a self-fulfilling theory!
Conclusion
The high mutation rate from the Eyre-Walker & Keightley study was determined under the assumption of common ancestry between chimps and man. Since the rate is clearly too high, there are only two realistic explanations:
1) there is a mistake in their data or analysis (doubtful), or
2) the base assumption that man and chimp share a common ancestor is flawed (most likely).
The problem of high mutation rates and its cost on reproduction goes away if comparison between simian and man DNA is not used to determine the mutation rate. Remove the flawed assumption that simian and man share a common ancestor, and the problem is solved!
The concepts of "synergistic epistasis" and "truncation selection" would never be brought up if it were not for the high mutation rate problem. These stories were invented to attempt to lessen a clearly serious problem for the modern evolutionary theory. Moreover, even if such forces were at work in nature, they would at best only serve to keep the genetic load in check (that is, slow or bring deterioration to a standstill). What's lost in all this wild speculation by the evolutionists regarding a high deleterious mutation rate is the fate of beneficial mutations, the mechanism that is supposed to bring about new organs and improved functions over time. In the long run you must have more beneficial mutations accumulating than harmful ones for molecules-to-man evolution to be true. The above analysis shows just how implausible this is. You can't save pennies and spend dollars and expect to get rich.
Finally, a double-edged sword shows that while high rates of mutation cause harmful mutations to overwhelm any beneficial ones, lower rates slow evolution to a crawl. But regardless of the rate of mutation, what we've learned from information theory is that information can only originate from an information Giver. Random mutations occur, and without new information being fed into an organism by an information Giver, these random changes will certainly cause the organism to slowly deteriorate over time. Other studies showing high mutation rates that do not rely on man/chimp ancestry confirm that deterioration may indeed be occurring.
Addendum
Dr. James Crow, whom I cited in the article, graciously commented on the article soon after I wrote it. Via personal email he replied "Yours is a serious letter and it deserves a serious answer". He acknowledged it was a "serious problem" for the theory, but not "fatal" (for the record, he made it clear he still believes evolution has overwhelming evidence from other sources). He presented "quasi-truncation selection" as a possible "partial solution" to the problem.
Other vindication for my article comes from a paper in the science journal Genetics published 5 months after I wrote this article. They write
"For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size." [emphasis mine]
They also acknowledge that this number is probably an underestimate!
"This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher." [emphasis mine]
Their ultimate explanation is the same used by Eyre-Walker, Keightley, Crow, et al, truncation selection. Again, there is NO evidence to support that such strict truncation selection occurs in nature, and even if it did would not solve the problem. The Genetics authors admit that truncation selection "seems unrealistic", but submit this view simply because the alternative explanation is unacceptable to them - that men and apes do not share a common ancestor.
3/22/2002 - Yet more support comes from the recent article in Genetics titled '"Positive and Negative Selection on the Human Genome" (Justin C. Fay,* Gerald J. Wyckoff* ,1 and Chung-I Wu*. Genetics 158, 1227-1234. 2001.). This article was unwittingly brought to my attention by evolutionist Dr Scott Page (see our debate on this matter). The authors of the Genetics article write:
"The genomic deleterious mutation rate is likely much larger given our estimate that 80% of amino acid mutations are deleterious and given that it does not include deleterious mutations in noncoding regions, which may be quite common. [emphasis mine]."
Using their estimates, the required offspring number rises to at least 60 offspring per breeding couple! (for explanation, see my opening comments in my debate with Dr Page.)
* Article updated 12/09/2001 to improve the explanation of synergistic epistasis, and to add 'Addendum' section.
* Article updated 3/2/2002 to better emphasize in the conclusion the flawed assumption of man/chimp ancestry as the reason for the high mutation rate.
1. A. S. Kondrashov, Contamination of the genomes by very slightly deleterious mutations. Why have we not died 100 times over? J Theor Biol 1995 Aug 21;175(4):583-94. Abstract
2. J. Crow, The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1997 Aug 5;94(16):8380-6.
3. Eyre-Walker & Keightley, High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids, Nature 397, 344 - 347 (1999) Abstract
4. W. Remine, The Biotic Message, St. Paul Science, 1993, p. 228-229
5. L. Spetner, Not by Chance, The Judaica Press, 1998, p. 138 (particularly all of Chapter 5)
6. This equation is a derivation of the Poisson Distribution where the probability of no events is calculated.
7. Maynard Smith, Evolutionary Genetics, Oxford University Press, p. 204
8. J. Crow, The odds of losing at genetic roulette, Nature 397, p 293 - 294. (1999)
9. See Walter Remine's The Biotic Message, page 196-200 for a full list of evolutionist=s comments on the paradox of sex (recombination) to evolution.
10 - Heterozygous means there is another version of the gene (presumably a good copy, for this model) on its peer-chromosome.
11 - mutations per gene = (120 mil base pairs / 720) / 1500. Base pair number is based on 3% typically cited on the internet.
12 - Years since split = 6 mil, generation time = 25 years, mutation rate = 3 per generation, giving (6*10^6 / 25) * 3 = 720,000. Mutations per gene = (120 mil / 720000) / 1500 = .11
13 - D. Gish, Evolution: the Fossils STILL say NO!, 1995, p. 308-310
14 - A. Gibbons, Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock, Science, Vol 279, No. 5347, Jan 1998, pp. 28 - 29.
15. This assumes a favorable selection advantage of 1%. See Maynard Smith, p. 161-162
16 - For a great discussion of Haldane's Dilemma, see Walter Remine's "The Biotic Message", St. Paul Science, 1993, p. 208-236. Some of this is discussed here.
You're an ill-tempered a-hole who thinks they're very special. You're not.
Have a nice day.
Oh, please. People who have had a 150 years to be corrected and have rejected innumerable corrections are fools. I understand that some people consider this to be an honor.
You're an ill-tempered a-hole who thinks they're very special. You're not.
Have a nice day.
Here are a couple of links that might prove useful:
Debating Creationists: Ted HoldenAnd you have a nice day as well.Ted Holden's Frequent Questions Answered
Ted Holden's views on Neanderthals
Sure they can. They just probably require a little logistical assistance.
We had a neighbor's miniature poodle get into the pen with our in-heat Rottie.
Funniest thing I ever saw. Despite active cooperation on her part, the mechanics of the thing just weren't working out.
Kind of a dope when you think about it. When I'm really just jerking somebody I try to make it obvious enough that nobody would take it seriously or get offended and I'd normally figure that talking about Hitler travelling to Nebraska for some sort of a redneck yote-shoot in the 20s would satisfy the requirement (for obviousness). In yote-man's case it didn't seem to.
No, it really doesn't...otherwise the need to say it isn't necessary now wouldn't be expressed. But your faith in the "new frontier" of genetics is noted.
Fellow FREEPers, I frankly think the cat is out of the bag on this issue...more and more information is being distributed by respectable scientists and organizations. The ideas of ID are being boosted by organizations like the Discovery Institue, Premise Media, etc.
The population as a whole is becoming more aware of the presence of ID. Ben Stein’s “Expelled” movie comes out on DVD on October 21 (I started a thread on this fact earlier today) Essentially, the distribution of information is allowing ID-proponents to show the kinks in the ideas of Darwinism while also showing the strengths of ID.
As this happens, we can expect to see Darwinists try to shift the playing field...”fossils aren’t necessary”...so a new realm is given as “proof” of their idea. Kind of like the anti-war crowd...they shifted their arguments against the war as conditions on the ground changed.
No big deal—we just need to be prepared for the silliness. :)
And the strengths of ID are...
The trouble is, we never hear about the strengths of ID; actually, there are none. ID is religion lite, skulking about in disguise since the Edwards decision of the US Supreme Court banned the teaching of creation "science" in schools. ID is the religious belief that can't utter its name, nor that of its ultimate field of study.
If you aren't aware of the close connection between creation and design, and how one morphed into the other immediately after the Edwards decision, take a look at this: Missing link: cdesign proponentsists.
As far as ID science is concerned, that's a joke. Tell me, those of you who saw Expelled--what evidence is included in that "documentary" for ID? Or is it just the usual religiously-inspired evolution bashing that we see daily on these threads?
Aseveryone already knows, “Expelled” contains no evidence for ID at all.
You proved my point
I won't engage in a tit for tat with your closed mind. I've recognized the tactic before--engagement in a long, drawn out bitter argument; this would be a clear waste of time.
Strengths of ID are purported and shown clearly by organizations like the Discovery Institute and in easy-to-understand films like "The Priviliged Planet", etc.
All are easily available for anyone with an open mind, which is why I posted what I did. :)
Note: this topic is from . Thanks Soliton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.