Posted on 02/02/2005 6:19:41 PM PST by curiosity
The sun is a source of energy. Is it a pump?
Can I call you names too? Or do you way too have that kind of fun all by yourself... A masterdebator?
It is exactly what the fossil record looks like. Simple organisms buried lowest. No transitional forms and sudden appearance of species. That's why Gould needed punctuated equilibrium..there is no gradual transformations such as Darwin expected.
I'm sorry, but you are basing your premises on a false understanding of science.
Those points I mentioned are all false. You have to base your interpretation of evidence on facts that you already know. Those few that I listed are not simply 'different interpretations' unless you decide that all previous science is groundless. If that were the case, we would not be able to make predictions on what will happen given certain circumstances and have them come to pass. This affirmation of 'interpretation' happens frequently in all fields of science, including evolution.
Science has enabled us to cure diseases, land a man on the moon, create computers, track hurricanes, find lost travelers, talk to friends on the other side of the globe and countless other accomplishments that are not possible without science as we know it. What has your group of creation 'scientists' contributed to the world with their corruption of evidence?
As a matter of fact there is a group of computer programs that are designed to 'mutate' to develop more productive software.
You seem to believe that all mutations are deleterious. That is simply wrong. The vast majority are neutral in the environment they develop in, some few are deleterious and some few are beneficial. However, those that are neutral at time of occurrence have an equal probability of either becoming deleterious or beneficial to the organism as the environment changes enough for the mutation to have any effect.
I realize that you have been convinced by the creation 'scientists' that all mutations are deleterious and that they could not be otherwise, however this is not reflected in observations of extant organisms. There are many mutations that are beneficial to the organism in the environment in which they develop.
Why couldn't the Grand Canyon form in a short time given enough rushing water?
uuh...what's angular uncorfmitiies?
What are you questioning here, abiogenesis or the big bang? It's hard to tell with the way you have worded it. I'll have to assume you meant abiogenesis since that is what I referred to.
Atoms combine into more complex atoms through fusion; hydrogen to helium to lithium, boron, and/or beryllium and so on. The sun is doing it this minute. Atoms combine into simple molecules through natural (normally covalent) bonding processes. Molecules combine into more complex molecules through similar processes (a combination of covalent and ionic bonds). Chemicals created this way can and do *in nature* replicate or form complex structures. Polymers will not only continue to 'grow' as in crystals, but will divide along a cleavage with each new polymer now independently growing.
Have you ever considered what a prion is? It reproduces. Is it alive?
How about the Archaea?
[quote]
"The entire genome or genetic blueprint of the microbe has now been chemically sequenced indicating that the Archaea is neither plant nor animal, yet is related to both -- and likewise related to humans"
[/quote] [ Text from humanism.net. ]
By the way, here is a common definition of life.
It is self-replicating.
It is self-sustaining.
It is capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution.
If you believe scientists work of faith you have an odd idea of how a scientist thinks. You also have no idea of the scientific process.
What you have described is not science but is basic human learning. Science is both a subset of that and goes well beyond that.
"Academic accreditation doesn't impress me. What degrees did Darwin have?"
A more appropriate question to ask is what degrees and *experience* in their field of expertise do current scientists have. Experience is the most important aspect of any scientist's training. In Darwin's day, many were generalists in comparison to today's scientists, and Darwin's credentials were not just based on his education.
His theory is a valid starting point for modern evolution, it is not the end result. Today's science has gone far beyond what Darwin even imagined.
That is the nice thing about science, it builds on what has gone before. Through it, our knowledge always increases.
You have changed the conversation from consideration of a naturally occurring pump to a human use of that pump. This is simply redirection to avoid answering the question about the natural pump.
Why does that preclude it from being a pump? It moves many types of material, not just water.
An elegant theory that has no basis in physics. That is not how hydro sorting works. Especially in the turbulent waters that would be the result of a global flood.
You are evidently making your judgement from a position of almost complete ignorance. I suggest that you talk to a geologist, or read a basic geology primer before you start trying to judge which hypotheses conform better with the observed world, those of the creation scientists (who try to explain everything, but predict nothing) or those of the mainstream scientists (who are for example employed by mineral companies to find minerals).
So I need to know angular conformities before we continue....ok...if you say so..
Yes, you need to know the absolute basics of geology before you discuss it, or make comments about one hypothesis of sediment formation being more attractive than another.
You really put your ignorance on display here. First, it makes no difference whether the motion is vertical or horizontal. The definition of a pump includes both actions. But the water (rather than the wave) moves up and down. Real work is done.
If you are going to freely throw around terms like simple and complex do you mind defining them? Are you talking genotypic or phenotypic complexity? Is an insect less complex than a human? Is a dinosaur less complex than a duck?
You misunderstand Gould's reason for developing Punc Ek. You also misunderstand how it has been proposed to work. The 'sudden' appearance of species takes hundreds of thousands of years to go from a parent to daughter species. It is not instantaneous
The lack of transitional forms has been over stated. You are aware that just one transitional fossil will belie your claim of no transitionals? First I'll present an easy to understand and very limited off the cuff definition of transitional.
A transitional fossil will be one that has one or more features similar to two limiting fossils showing the change in those features from one fossil to the other. The features evident may or may not change function. It should also be found relatively sequentially in the geologic column. There may be overlaps with one or both of the limit fossils but it should not be found lower than both limit fossils.
At least one fossil shows these features - the archeopteryx - which shows features of both reptiles and birds. It shows up well after reptiles and dinosaurs. It is, by the above definition, a transitional fossil. There are also at least 12 transitional fossils between land animals - mesonychids - and cetacea.
Although we can all be considered transitional from one species to another there are many extant obvious transitionals such as seals, walrus, lungfish, manatees, otters and so on. We have also observed speciation in nature.
A seal is 'obviously transitional'? This is preposterous.
Maybe I'll feel like silly talk another day.
Depth vs. width. Hoodoos. Wall angle. Observed and measured erosion rates. Stratigraphic deposition. Meanders.
"Maybe I'll feel like silly talk another day"
A transitional between a land based mammal and a water based mammal.
I notice you didn't address any of the other points I made or transitionals I listed.
I am always bemused when YEC come out with this one. They can never have spent 10 seconds thinking about how water interacts with material it is flowing over/through if they think that the Grand Canyon could be formed quickly, regardless of the properties of the eroded material or the volume/velocity of water. The wall angle in particular ought to make the impossibility obvious to the most casual observer. Only immensely strong rock can support the 1000ft+ sheer drops, but a rapid huge dam-burst of water over rock that strong would simply spread out over the surface and not form a mile-deep canyon. What's the betting that we'll be shown those risible photos of relatively tiny canyons on a steep slope in new ash at Mt St Helens next?
Why do you consider the notion that a seal is transitional preposterous?
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.