Posted on 12/15/2005 9:10:41 AM PST by flevit
Simon Schama appears to have little understanding of biology (Opinion, September 4). With an ostrich mindset that tries to ignore reality, pseudo-scientists continue in the vain hope that if they shout loud and long enough they can perpetuate the fairy story and bad science that is evolution.
You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to question evolution theory - you just have to have an open and enquiring mind and not be afraid of challenging dogma. But you must be able to discern and dodge the effusion of evolutionary landmines that are bluster and non sequiturs.
No one denies the reality of variation and natural selection. For example, chihuahuas and Great Danes can be derived from a wolf by selective breeding. Therefore, a chihuahua is a wolf, in the same way that people of short stature and small brain capacity are fully human beings.
However, there is no evidence (fossil, anatomical, biochemical or genetic) that any creature did give rise, or could have given rise, to a different creature. In addition, by their absence in the fossil record for (supposed) millions of years along with the fact of their existence during the same time period, many animals such as the coelacanth demonstrate the principle that all creatures could have lived contemporaneously in the past.
No evidence supports the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs, nor that whales evolved from terrestrial quadrupeds, nor that the human knee joint evolved from a fish pelvic fin. And the critically-positioned amino acids at the active sites within enzymes and structural proteins show that the origination of complex proteins by step-wise modifications of supposed ancestral peptides is impossible. In other words, birds have always been birds, whales have always been whales, apes did not evolve into humans, and humans have always been humans.
But you might protest that it has been proved that we evolved from apes. In fact, the answer is a categorical No. Australopithecines, for example, were simply extinct apes that in a few anatomical areas differed from living apes. If some of them walked bipedally to a greater degree than living apes, this does not constitute evidence that apes evolved into humans - it just means that some ancient apes were different from living apes.
Show me some of their ant-Christian propaganda. thanks
I'm sorry but your post is lunacy.
If the flood was local, there would be no need to spend 120 years building a giant ark. Instead you spend 1 month walking out of the way of the local flood. If God can direct animals to the ark, He could certainly direct animals out of the area. And certainly God could open a path through the mountains if that was a real issues.
Scientific evidence against the flood is not "clear and compelling". Since we don't know what the topography of the land was prior to the flood, we don't know how much water was required. We know that mountains rose and valleys fell during the flood. So the land and the rivers may have been completely different after the flood.
The ark didn't have to carry every species of animals, only a pair of every kind with enough built in genetic variation for speciation to occur later. For example you don't need every species of dog. It appears you only need one pair of canines. We know that many species of dog were specifically bred by man for various purposes after the flood. Same with horses.
The presumption that God destroyed man for failing to procreate and spread beyond Mesopotamian is totally basis and contrary to scripture. God says he destroyed man because the earth was filled with violence and nobody gave any thought to the ways of God. Do you really believe that any sizeable population of humans would not have ventured beyond the mountains?
www.icr.org has conducted consideral research on plausible flood models.
Somewhat agree there...Science class should pass along what has been measured, proven, etc. Problem occurs when scientific theories, unproven and sometimes unfounded, are taught in science class.
I'm actually an electronic techno-geek...love science, but also think spiritual knowledge should be taught in some fashion to help round out a person. Unfortunately, that is banned in public schools.
With some justification, schools say this is available outside the classroom. Problem is, many kids never get the chance to experience it due to family situations.
Perhaps someday, spiritual studies can be offered in public schools as an option. Right now, thats left for the private ones.
But in fact it doesn't need to. Horses and donkeys have different chromosome counts. They produce viable offspring, mules. It's a little-known fact, but a small percentage of mules are actually fertile as well. Just google "fertile mule".
I'm not sure why you would make it seem as if I said that the two animals with different chromosome counts could never produce an offspring. The sentence immediately following the one you chose to quote begins, "And if it doesn't ..."
I did as you suggested and Googled "Fertile Mule." This was the first link given. I hope that is not the best example of how evolutionists think new species arise as these furtile mules do not exactly seem to give hope to future generations.
ML/NJ
Is that what you are reduced to, ad hominem attacks?.
I made up nothing. I cited and quoted Britannica and some college professor to back up my statement that each species has a characterisic chromosome number.
ML/NJ
Well, there's no point in worrying about science at all then. Just as well, as you and Dr. Wally are making quite a botch of it. Why do you care what's taught in science classes?
Anyway, you clearly accept a model in which, pre-flood, there were no mountains. (Thus, it didn't take that much water to get all the Earth underwater.) But that means all of the Earth's mountains should look about the same age, which is far from what we see. Far, far. I won't bother you with a lot of stuff you wouldn't try to understand--would in fact only try to misunderstand--but your model makes a clear prediction and it's wrong. Really wrong.
Characteristic means something like "average." Doesn't mean there are no uncharacteristic numbers or that the "characteristic" number can't change over time. It doesn't make any of Ichneumon's data go away. Confronted with hard data that flat-out belies his claims, only a creationist would go throught the sequence you have done here. First, pretend the answer given was not given. Second, come back with a lawyerly quote mine which has to be stretched beyond imagining to create a contradiction with the hard facts.
As if the hard facts would go away in any event. Here's a clue. If your dumb quote mine actually were in conflict with multiply confirmed observations like the existence of multiple simultaneous chromosome counts in various species, your quoted source would simply be wrong.
You really do have a problem, don't you.
Find me a definition of "characteristic" somewhere that means anything close to average and I'll go away. The first one at mw.com is, "a distinguishing trait, quality, or property," but what do they know?
If you continue with your ad hominem attacks, I shall report you for abuse.
ML/NJ
Thank you. I'll see if I can get it through inter-library loan. In the interest of fairness, balance, and the best neutrality I can muster, I will try to find an Evolution for Dummies book as well.
I'm really interested in trying to absorb as much as I can about genetics, but the two subjects kind of go hand in hand.
Furthermore, as I pointed out already, if the Britannica were disagreeing with the clear hard evidence of nature the Britannica would be wrong.
If you continue with your ad hominem attacks, I shall report you for abuse.
In pretending for post after post now to understand that your quotes contradict Ichneumon's data even after it is explained to you in detail that they do not, and in failing to respond to the actual text of my arguments, you are being brazenly dishonest. This is not abuse. This is me dissecting your misstatements and illogic. BTW, you're an abject coward.
You obviously haven't kept up with the latest research but here is one link from UNC to help you get a head's up on the very real Biblical flood event.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html
As for the testability of ID, it is impossible to test evolution. A main premise of evolutionists is that a single-cell became a human (accepted theory by mainstream science)... that is untestable and obviously never observed.
It isn't a premise - it's an inference based on the theory of common descent. If common descent is true then if you trace it back far enough then you eventually end up at a first lifeform. Various lines of evidence suggest this would be single celled.
inference based on the theory of common descent
_____________________________________________________
Makes no diffrence if the word premise or inference is used. In either case it is impossible to test and observe. Therefore Darwin's hallucinations cannot be accepted as a theory either.
Common descent isn't based on the specific path of a single celled organism turning into a human. It is based on the explaination of new species decending from existing species. That a specific path cannot be tested does not mean common descent (and via that the theory of evolution) cannot be tested.
It's like saying a basic premise of gravity is that tennis balls would fall downwards on neptune, and then claiming that because we cannot test that then therefore gravity is untestable.
This is a red herring. None of the mammals synthesizes ascorbic acid; they all get it from primarily vegetable sources. Felines and bovines for example, get theirs from green grass, while primates (and fowel) tend to get theirs mostly from fruits. We actually can get ascorbic acid from beef that has grazed only on green grass, and it is also present in raw whole milk, but pasteurization destroys it.
You'd think Nutrition Boy would at least know the rudimentary facts of Vitamin C biosynthesis.
In a nutshell, Lies corrupt peoples minds and affect their hope for a sound spiritual life. The idea that evolution has anything to do with biology is one of the ugliest lies of all time.
"But that means all of the Earth's mountains should look about the same age..."
No, it means that all the mountains should be from the flood era. What something 'looks' like is so subjective that it cannot even be debated logically. That there are rock formations that are from the original creation, and rock that reformed during or immediately after the flood, is an obvious assumption of the flood model. Those formations that pre-dated the flood formed more jagged mountains when they ruptured than rock (cemented by dissolved limestone) that formed during and after the flood. This is where your appearance of difference of age comes from, in all likelihood.
Only for people who are determined to recognize nothing that contradicts their Bronze Age myths. When you do that, it means nothing when you claim to be unaware of any evidence that contradicts what you say.
The Appalachian Mountains where I live have no dinosaur fossils. The rocks are too old to contain any such thing. These mountains are far older than the dinosaurs. They were doing nothing but erode for all the time dinosaurs were living and dying there. They are very rounded and relatively low.
The Rockies, by contrast, have later fossils. They are more spectacularly high and less eroded.
The Himalayas, by further contrast, have whale ancestor fossils of 50 million years old and even younger. Furthermore, they are the highest mountains on Earth and still measurably growing from the plate tectonic collision of India with Asia.
Appearances mean plenty when they match other lines of evidence like the fossils they contain and the ages of the sediments and the geologic processes clearly operating. Unless, that is, you just don't see appearances that don't match your predetermined answers.
Those-funny-gods-of-the-Bronze-Age-goatherders placemarker.
ances to you are twisted by your insistance in clinging to the completely disproven religion of evolution (otherwise known as the "I-can-have-any-kind-of-sex-I-want-to" faith.
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.