Posted on 08/12/2014 8:09:40 PM PDT by JimSEA
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
>>you do realize there are many, many evolutionists who do not agree with you.<<
1. What in the heck is an “evolutionist?”
2. TToE is no more dependent on Abiogenesis (if you don;t know what that means post and I will explain it) than geology is. To suggest that TToE must explain Abiogenesis is the same as expecting physics, biology, cosmology, geology to explain and incorporate it as well.
If you look at all of the babies of the world, foals, calves, fawns, puppies, kittens, chicks, piglets, cubs, etc., they are all up and moving on their own within hours, or at most days, of being born. They follow the mother for nurture immediately, but are otherwise mobile, and to an extent, able.
The human baby, however, cannot focus its eyesight more than 12 inches or lift its head for more than a few seconds for about a month. A human baby doesn't begin to crawl until at least 6 months, usually longer. First steps don't start until 9 months. Feeding is slow, too, with solid foods being eaten after 6 months. And don't forget about pooping, and the need to be cleaned by others.
So how did the "first" human baby survive in a world where all of the other animals are functional within days of being born, but a human cannot take care of itself for at least two years? How was it not devoured as food by the other animals that are up and roaming much faster?
-PJ
i believe that species have variety in their genes that can be activated or deactivated based on environmental factors. variation within a species or type of animal.
i do not believe that you can get an entirely different type of species/animal from another. neither long-term theories support it, which drtove people to short-burst of lts of changes, and these hopeful-monster theories don’t pan out either. never observed in the lab or natural world, ever.
>>So how did the “first” human baby survive in a world where all of the other animals are functional within days of being born, but a human cannot take care of itself for at least two years? How was it not devoured as food by the other animals that are up and roaming much faster?<<
Other than the obvious answer — humans taste terrible — we can chalk it up to stochasticism. All mammals have a protection mechanism that would be in play when “Eve” was born in mid Africa (per DNA backtracking).
Umm, because his mother, Eve, took care of him. The bible teaches Adam and Eve were created as adults.
I really don’t get your point.
>>i do not believe that you can get an entirely different type of species/animal from another. neither long-term theories support it, which drtove people to short-burst of lts of changes, and these hopeful-monster theories don’t pan out either. never observed in the lab or natural world, ever.<
The existence of liberals belies your hypothesis.
Uh oh.
It came before the first human baby. The brain size of the child does no allow for full prenatal development so a long childhood is required. The brain has to grow and develop, something most human parents understand and take joy in. We need two parents to develop. That’s something that has us in big trouble now. We need a mother and a father as caregivers.
Which explains why it's still called the theory of evolution.
Scientific American is published by a company that also prints many many textbooks for our public school system. I seriously doubt if intelligent design or other religious viewpoints fit into their world view.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_von_Holtzbrinck_Publishing_Group
-PJ
Sincere attempts, yes. Political ones based in paganism, that’s fighting God.
I can’t really answer that. Species derived from other species will be greatly similar. Look at cats, separated from dogs and others some 25 million years ago. They have a lot of similarities but are definably different. My house cat isn’t a lion or tiger but it is clearly a relative.
Beyond reasonable doubt is the operative phrase.
So, if it is an observed phenomenon, where does that put evolution, which is unobserved?
Gravity at least is observed, has physical laws that describe it and equations that predict what happens when its effect is exerted on a physical body; theoretically, everything that has mass exerts some measure of gravitational pull, with large bodies having sufficient mass to warp time and space around them (the theoretical explanation for orbits).
My college major was chemistry, btw.
I suggest you get ahold of two books by Stephen Meyer - “Signature in the Cell” and “Darwin’s Doubt”.
I started out believing that Darwin’s theory was more or less acceptable, though there were always some lingering doubts in the back of my head.
In those two books, Stephen Meyer, takes a wrecking ball at Darwin’s theory (and all the recent patches, such as punctuated equilibrium, and others). He does so in the most scientific, rational, thorough and respectful way using available data and scientific reasoning. He never brings up the bible, creationism or religion as an explanation or subterfuge - Truly an intellectually honest tour-de-force.
He basically tries to do two things - dismantle Darwin’s theory and its derivatives, and two, make a case for intelligent design. I feel he succeeds quite convincingly in the first. He also makes quite a good case for intelligent design, but not as convincingly for me... not yet, at least.
In “Signature in the cell” he addresses not so much evolution as the origin of life, or the first cell, and again dismantles the current accidental, strictly “materialistic” theories, and makes a strong case that, of all the available theories, intelligent design offers by far the best explanation available thus far.
Just so you know where I’m coming from, I’m agnostic, and an engineer by training, and like I said I was an evolutionist before reading these books - no more.
(Actually Meyer doesn’t dismiss evolution completely, he believes (and I do too) that micro-evolution does occur to some extent, but that evolution is incapable of explaining macro-changes.)
Again, if you’re open minded at all, I think you would gain a lot by reading these books. If you do, I’d like to hear back from you and see if it has shaken your faith in Darwin, or perhaps it may strengthen it and that you can easily answer the objections posed by Meyer - either way you win.
>>Speak for yourself. Piltdown Man is a perfect example of how wishful thinking overcomes science in the public arena every time. The only reason Piltdown Man was ultimately exposed was because other more sophisticated hoaxes (Neanderthals, for one) took its place. The Scientific Method hasn’t yet overcome anthropogenic global warming, the gay gene, or—yes—spontaneous generation, because all of these hoaxes serve the wishful thinking of vested interests, the same as evolution.<<
LOL — the expose of Piltown Man was triumph of science and your attempt to muddy the waters with AGW (a complete fabrication) is low-hanging straw man for the weak of mind.
>>Incidentally, you who “know things” evidently don’t understand your own delusion as well as you pretend: spontaneous generation is a necessary part of your evolutionary mythology. At some point, you have to believe that life formed from non-life in order for there to be any life to evolve at all. Therefore, by referring to spontaneous generation as “nonsense” you’ve discredited your own belief in evolution already and exposed your ignorance.<<
Ah, the old abiogenesis canard. I have a one word answer: stochastisism. Learn it then you can maybe understand why your bald assertion is ignorant nonsense.
When you go in public, you should keep your skirt below your knees. Else you will once again show your ignorance in so many ways as you have in your attempt to pretend you know things you don’t. Like your post.
But thanks for providing me the opportunity to teach many.
Speak for yourself ... I serve Galactus! :)
As a computer engineer, I can assure you very simple processes can support and expand to very complex behavior.
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.