Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinists Wrong Again on Human Evolution
The Christian Diarist ^ | August 16, 2012 | JP

Posted on 08/16/2012 9:41:05 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST

Paging Nicholas Wade. He’s the New York Times science writer who worships at the altar of Darwinism.

Two years ago, he reported that biologists, led by Svante Paabo of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, had determined that Neanderthals mated with modern humans.

That “scientific” finding provided a convenient explanation for what happened to humanity’s supposed ancestor: We interbred with them until they disappeared.

Now comes a new study, reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that the finding reported by Wade, were wrong. There was no mating, no “hybridization,” between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (us).

The study’s authors, Andrea Manica and Anders Eriksson, scientists with the Evolutionary Ecology Group at Britain’s Cambridge University, say that modern humans have no Neanderthal DNA.

Whatever DNA modern humans and Neanderthals share in common came not from interbreeding, the scientists concluded, but from a common, unknown ancestor (a chimpanzee, maybe?).

This is a stunning scientific turnabout in the prevailing wisdom about human evolution. Yet Wade has yet to weigh in on what it all means.

Are we never to know what happened to Neanderthals? Shall we never discover the “missing link,” proving that man evolved from monkey?

Could the proponents of “intelligent design” actually be right, that man did not begin existence as a simple, one-cell organism in this planet’s primordial ooze, but as the fully-formed creation of Almighty God?

Of course, Wade is not going to concede anything to those of us who dare to question his god, Darwin.

He sneers, “To many biologists and others (meaning enlightened journalists like Wade himself), it is a source of amazement and embarrassment that many Americans repudiate Darwin’s theory and that some even espouse counter-theories like creationism or intelligent design.”

“How,” he asks, “can such willful ignorance thrive in today’s seas of knowledge?”

Wade’s attack on evolution doubters, like yours truly, is nothing new for the New York Times.

All the way back in 1906, the “Gray Lady,” as the Times is affectionately known in some quarters, published an editorial supporting a decision by the Bronx Zoo to put an African pygmy named Ota Benga on display in its Monkey House – a putative live exhibit of human evolution..

“We do not quite understand all the emotion which others are expressing in the matter,” the Times harrumphed. “It is absurd to make moan over the imagined humiliation and degradation Benga is suffering. The pygmies … are very low in the human scale.”

The Times was wrong on human evolution then. And its pro-Darwin reporting is no less wrong today.


TOPICS: History; Miscellaneous; Religion; Science
KEYWORDS: evolution; intelligentdesign; media; neanderthal; notasciencetopic; ntsa; realscience; truescience
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last
Whether one believes in human evolution is a metter of faith. Pro-Darwin journos, like the Times' Nick Wade, believe that ape somehow transmogrified into man. That requires at least as much faith as the belief of most Americans that man was created by God.
1 posted on 08/16/2012 9:41:14 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

I have no problem with the idea that God created the universe and evolution is part of that plan. What I have a problem with is shoddy or just plain bad science that tries to use evolution to somehow prove there is no God.


2 posted on 08/16/2012 9:44:59 AM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

Couldn’t agree more.


3 posted on 08/16/2012 9:46:55 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel
Good afternoon.

just plain bad science that tries to use evolution to somehow prove there is no God.

That is the definition of a "fools errand."

5.56mm

4 posted on 08/16/2012 9:51:02 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST
This is a stunning scientific turnabout in the prevailing wisdom about human evolution.

Which seems to happen a few times per year these days.

5 posted on 08/16/2012 9:52:39 AM PDT by dartuser ("If you are ... what you were ... then you're not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

Yep. The whole point of science is that new evidence introduces refined understandings. That is a strength, not a weakness.


6 posted on 08/16/2012 10:00:17 AM PDT by Inconvenient Truthteller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST
I have never gotten a cogent response from a Darwinian to this statement...

“when you wake up in the morning look at yourself in the mirror and you must make a decision.... The human being looking back at you came from a single cell entity from some mud hole or was created in the image of God with muscles, bone, ligaments, eyes, ears, blood, a brain that has almost unlimited capacity to invent, innovate, that loves to the point that will pay the ultimate sacrifice

7 posted on 08/16/2012 10:05:28 AM PDT by Popman (In a place you only dream of Where your soul is always free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST
"Whatever DNA modern humans and Neanderthals share in common came not from interbreeding, the scientists concluded, but from a common, unknown ancestor (a chimpanzee, maybe?)."

Or maybe is just the result of a common maker and designer?

8 posted on 08/16/2012 10:14:47 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel

The problem with ‘evolution’ is that it was a 19th century literary idea that was able to impregnate itself into the intuitions of many materialists and anti-creationists.

After The Origin of Species was published, there was a massive torrent of darwinic writing that was able to sweep away the fragile edifices of the worldviews of many technically minded people, but at its core, there was no proof to the fable of evolution, only a slippery slope of faulty logic.

The narrative of evolution is larger and stronger than the discredited fiction of anthropogenic global warming, but its logical substructure is no less flawed.


9 posted on 08/16/2012 10:19:37 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Popman

Maybe they know better than to answer loaded false dichotomy questions.


10 posted on 08/16/2012 10:21:27 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
When I see videos like this (all credit to another Freeper), I am quite ready to believe that we are 98% chimpanzee -- and some more than others.
11 posted on 08/16/2012 10:30:00 AM PDT by PUGACHEV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST
“How,” he asks, “can such willful ignorance thrive in today’s seas of knowledge?”

Seems to me that this can be applied to either side of the argument.

The difference is, that while we are all "ignorant" when it comes to origins, at least those coming from the Christian perspective (or even ID) admit that their position requires a modicum of faith.

No such admission from evos (in my experience...).

12 posted on 08/16/2012 10:36:47 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

If the first group of “Darwinists” was wrong - it logically follows that this second group of “Darwinists” must be correct.

The fact that science changes based upon new evidence is only proffered up as a weakness of the scientific method by idiots who don’t understand the way science works and why it is useful.


13 posted on 08/16/2012 10:40:55 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

It is neither false or dichotomy question but rather a simple one....easily answered....from your heart and even your brain

Did I develop from a single cell organism that must not have had a beginning to the incredible mind boggling complex human being or was I created by a creator....

There is not a lot of wiggle room because the cruel truth of the matter is there is no real evidence we macro evolved...New species from old species.....micro evolved ... yes....that is found in nature...


14 posted on 08/16/2012 10:43:22 AM PDT by Popman (In a place you only dream of Where your soul is always free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jonno
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Heberews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Science isn't based upon faith - but upon evidence. I have faith that God is; I have a lot of evidence that natural selection is the mechanism whereby living things evolve.

15 posted on 08/16/2012 10:45:13 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV
You're also about 85% chicken, and maybe 92% cow or pig.

All you have there is a comparison of genes. Our livestock have essentially the same package of genes that we have, and for the most part the exact same variations in the very same numbers.

Where we differ most are in the way our chromosomes are linked together ~ ours are opposite the way they are linked among the Great Apes for example. Then, there's epigenetics ~ that's where chemicals external to the genes short circuit them, or link quite disparate genes together in some novel fashion. Finally, there are places in the DNA where we have "spaces" rather than copies of genes.

The complexity of life occurs at a higher level than the genes.

Two ways to look at that ~ (1) evolution, to the degree it exists, probably doesn't work very fast when it comes to the genes ~ and may have no effect at all on them. (2) The fellow taking down the parts off the shelf used a basic mix ~ Cosmic Standard Number 1. Then he welded in some other stuff.

16 posted on 08/16/2012 10:46:32 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV
You're also about 85% chicken, and maybe 92% cow or pig.

All you have there is a comparison of genes. Our livestock have essentially the same package of genes that we have, and for the most part the exact same variations in the very same numbers.

Where we differ most are in the way our chromosomes are linked together ~ ours are opposite the way they are linked among the Great Apes for example. Then, there's epigenetics ~ that's where chemicals external to the genes short circuit them, or link quite disparate genes together in some novel fashion. Finally, there are places in the DNA where we have "spaces" rather than copies of genes.

The complexity of life occurs at a higher level than the genes.

Two ways to look at that ~ (1) evolution, to the degree it exists, probably doesn't work very fast when it comes to the genes ~ and may have no effect at all on them. (2) The fellow taking down the parts off the shelf used a basic mix ~ Cosmic Standard Number 1. Then he welded in some other stuff.

17 posted on 08/16/2012 10:46:56 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Popman
It is neither false or dichotomy question

Thay never are, according to the person asking them.

18 posted on 08/16/2012 10:48:56 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jdsteel
"I have no problem with the idea that God created the universe and evolution is part of that plan. "

By definition, "God" and "plan" are incompatible with evolution.

19 posted on 08/16/2012 10:57:12 AM PDT by cookcounty (Kagan and Sotomayor side with Joe Wilson: -------Obama DID lie!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
I don't know about “opposite” - our chromosomes are almost exactly like those of the Great Apes - our chromosome #2 looks like a fusion of two Ape chromosomes - leading us to have 23 pairs instead of 24 pairs.

The same genes in chromosome #2 are lined up in the same order as in the Ape chromosomes - and there are even telomere sequences in the middle of Chromosome #2 where one would find them at the ends of the Ape chromosomes.

Epigenetics is just another way of regulating genes - it is done through methylation modifications right there on the DNA molecule - not external to it. This modification tends to wrap up a gene that is not going to be used in ‘chromatin’ where it will not be available to RNA polymerase that would express the gene.

For example there is a sequence outside the gene for the lactase enzyme used to digest the milk sugar lactose. In almost all mammals (and most humans) this sequence is epigenetically modified so that after weening from mother's milk - the gene is wrapped up in chromatin and no longer used - making them “lactose intolerant”.

This sequence is mutated in many European populations - and in some African populations that herd cattle - so that the normal epigenetic change doesn't happen and the gene for lactase is expressed throughout life.

What do you mean by “spaces” in DNA?

20 posted on 08/16/2012 11:00:10 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

Why? Because mutations appear to us as being random? Many things in nature appear to us as random - that doesn’t mean that they are not part of God’s plan.

The power of God doesn’t stop at the casino door, so why would it stop at DNA mutation?

Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap, but every result is from the Lord.


21 posted on 08/16/2012 11:03:47 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
HOT SPOTS ~ allmendream ~ look at discussions of what are called HOT SPOTS ~ the points where the chromosome from your father hooks up with the same chromosome from your mother.

Humans do it different.

Actually that whole field has gotten rather exciting in recent months after that finding was reported and now you get such incredible articles as the one at "http://genomewiki.ucsc.edu/index.php/PRDM9:_meiosis_and_recombination" which is one of the clearer versions I've seen ~ most these guys can't write of course, but eventually professional science writers will eventually straighten all this out.

Personally I have been amazed mostly with the fact these guys can look at linking processes involving specific sites on DNA.

22 posted on 08/16/2012 11:17:25 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
It has to do with the expected array ~ sometimes something you would think should be there is "deleted" ~ hence they are called "deletions". If critter A needs 10 copies of a specific gene, and critter B has 9 copies at that location on a chromosome, then critter B has a deletion, or maybe critter A has an insertion.

Reversals are fun ~ love reading about them since they are currently under intense study by folks who think schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are mediated by the same area of the same chromosome. I gather reversals have survival value, but why? What is the advantage of schizophrenia to the species?

23 posted on 08/16/2012 11:21:45 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Legit science isn’t based on faith. But we’re talking about the theory of evolution, not legit science.

Science = systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation or experimentation.

Microevolution (relatively small variations that can cause the formation of a new subspecies) is observable so it’s science. Macroevolution (formations of entirely new species) is not observable so it’s not science. If it was, we’d be drowning in evidence. The missing evidence is replaced with extrapolation, air and sometimes outright fraud.


24 posted on 08/16/2012 11:22:16 AM PDT by Hayride
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
Why? Aren't we men; don't we define the words?n We can treat the terms as we wish.

Just a few years back I began referring to Democrats as "fascist pigs". Currently the popular press has caught up with me and it's a common thing to see Democrats described as fascistic people.

But, of course, they are still fascist pigs.

25 posted on 08/16/2012 11:24:32 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

While of interest that can only determine where on the chromosome parental DNA is shuffled together - it doesn’t create or determine anything new. Grandma’s genes are usually just as good as Grandpa’s; and the resulting child will end up with a 50-50 split regardless.


26 posted on 08/16/2012 11:28:33 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hayride

Just because you are apparently unable to understand or haven’t looked at or for the evidence doesn’t make it nonexistent or missing or fraudulent.

Look at the university library at the volumes of the publication “Evolution” alone - or of the many journals dealing almost exclusively with evolution - if pages were water one would most certainly drown (if unable to swim).

The nature of science is extrapolation. The weights dropped by Galileo off the tower of Pisa were not said to be relevant only to those weights at that location - but extrapolated into a system whereby one could accurately predict the rate at which ANY object would fall at ANY location.

Just because we didn’t see our own Sun form through gravity and nuclear fusion doesn’t mean that the theory of stellar formation is in any way lacking and not applicable to our own Sun.


27 posted on 08/16/2012 11:34:34 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV

“We interbred with them (Neanderthals) until they disappeared.”

Apparently they resurfaced in Blair House.


28 posted on 08/16/2012 11:44:15 AM PDT by DPMD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty
By definition, "God" and "plan" are incompatible with evolution.

I don't see it that way. Perhaps you think that you know what God's plan is and how it will work out in all respects, but I don't pretend to. Oh, the big picture, sure. The battle has already been won. But the technical details, from quantum physics to the size of the universe...IMHO those are things that we mere mortals should be amazed by and eager to learn of his wonders. Could evolution be part of that? I think so, but not the way Darwinists are determined to "prove". Kind of like the idea that the Earth need not be the center of the universe in order to prove there is a God and he sent his only Son to die for our sins.

29 posted on 08/16/2012 12:02:35 PM PDT by jdsteel (Give me freedom, not more government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Sometimes you get a sequence shuffled backwards ~ but the points where the chromosome stands connect ~ the Hot Spots ~ make it impossible to breed a Chimp/Human combo.


30 posted on 08/16/2012 12:17:23 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

How would that work? The chimp swaps it’s mother and father’s DNA at its ‘hot spots’ and the human swaps it’s mother and father’s DNA at its ‘hot spots’.

The fact that the hot spots were different would have zero effect on the viability of the combined gametes in the hybrid.

It would only cause problems once a viable hybrid attempted to produce gametes - and it’s mother and father’s DNA didn’t match up.

This is the reason why mules are (mostly) sterile - because its mother (horse) and father (donkey) DNA will not usually match up well enough to produce viable gametes. This makes a mule (mostly) infertile - but it doesn’t stop the mule itself from being viable.

So I ask, how would THAT work?


31 posted on 08/16/2012 12:30:57 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
There are some popular articles on the net about the phenomenon, but the idea is you simply cannot get two chromosome strands with different "hot spots" to link up well enough to create an embryo.

The "species barrier" begins at that point rather than with some other process like different shaped sex organs (common in insects and readily created by infection with a bacteria ~ the name of which escapes me at the moment - I think it's a genus name ~ Wolbachia, but there are others that also affect insect sex organs)

32 posted on 08/16/2012 12:44:41 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DPMD
Neanderthals were hardly a different species than our own. They were simply a different race. There are yet other versions that lived over the last 1/4 million years.

Look at today's situation ~ humans come in only two colors ~ RED/YELLOW PIGMENT and BLACK/BROWN PIGMENT.

Currently the redheads are barely 4% of the world's population but their superior coloration will someday SWAMP the others.

These are not different species!

33 posted on 08/16/2012 12:51:40 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Crossing over of Chromosomes “meiosis” ONLY takes place in reproductive cells.

The failure of meiosis to occur means sterility not non-viability.

Meiosis is not necessary to create a viable embryo - only to create a viable gamete - and both chimps and humans are able to create viable gametes.

The inability to reproduce may be due to any number of genetic factors - but meiosis hot spots ARE NOT ONE OF THEM.

If you have an actual source that says different - please provide it.

However your inability to explain how it would work (and your inability to provide a source that would explain it) makes it likely that you were just confused about the subject.

Failure of meiosis causes sterility, not non-viability.

34 posted on 08/16/2012 1:03:37 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
I don't disagree with you.

However, I think you would admit that having "a lot of evidence" does not necessarily mean having ALL the evidence - the whole story (hence my tagline).

I admit that I muddied the waters of discussion by moving from evolution to origins. However, the point remains.

Certainly we can make extrapolations - even broad assumptions - from the evidence at hand. However, if we accept the idea of a creator, by default then, it behoves us to explore the idea that things may not be as they seem.

In this world, we see a finished product (creation). How we arrived at this product is of course the debate. How would our DNA appear if we were plunked down in the Garden vis-a-vis Eden instead of having been the product of natural selection?

What parameters can we put on the creator? What process does a creator use in the formation of a body, a planet - or the universe. The question really is: what does creation look like?! Must the creator conform to our requirements - or must we discover his?

35 posted on 08/16/2012 1:17:16 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: jonno
Science never claims to have ALL the evidence - however a good theory has to deal with all the evidence that there currently is and explain it. The theory of evolution through natural selection, and the theory of common descent of species both are quite satisfactory in this regard.

Last Thursdayism is of no use to science. Sure everything could have been created last Thursday - with false memories and a false history. But such a supposition is of absolutely no use - because going on the assumption that (for example) World War II actually happened - will yield results in terms of knowing and predicting reality.

As to what our DNA looks like - it looks exactly like one would suppose a ‘whatever worked at the time’ collection of some useful and some discarded genetic programs with ‘families’ of similar genes looking exactly like they were duplicates ‘retrofitted’ and adapted to a new use rather than a new ‘perfect’ design de novo.

The Bible says I am created “from dust” and “to dust” I will return. But I was also created via cellular processes involving DNA. That apparently was how God created me “from dust”. Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam from dust?

36 posted on 08/16/2012 1:29:40 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Horses and men are both able to produce viable gametes. That doesn't mean you can cross breed them to get a viable embryo.

Obviously that could be interpreted as sterility ~ NO VIABLE EMBRYO ~ which is, of course, just that.

You can also have Viable Embryos that themselves are unable to produce useful gametes.

I think you slipped a cog here.

Or, you and I may be reading the same scientific language version of the same material differently. To dispel doubts here's a POP SCIENCE version: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/339172/title/Geneticists_go_ape_for_better_primate_family_tree

37 posted on 08/16/2012 1:34:24 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2858858/posts
and http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2895057/posts are both recent threads related to this one. We do it different and they are not real recent relatives anyway! I assumed you had read them.


38 posted on 08/16/2012 1:42:36 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Way to not understand my point.

Meiosis is necessary to create viable gametes. Both horses and men produce viable gametes because meiosis isn't a problem when their parents are the same species - but those viable gametes cannot, when combined, produce a viable embryo.

A horse and a donkey produce viable gametes - AND they produce a viable embryo - but when that embryo grows into a mule and attempts to undergo meiosis to produce viable gametes - it runs into difficulty.

Follow?

Meiosis isn't a problem in the mule, and doesn't stop it from becoming an ADULT - it stops it from being fertile (usually).

Even if meiosis between a donkey chromosome and a horse chromosome was COMPLETELY unable to happen - horse and donkey cross breeds would still be sterile mules.

Your source doesn't claim what you claim.

39 posted on 08/16/2012 1:45:02 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jonno
"And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden"

So, to plant a garden you already need seeds, or maybe cuttings, or could be a nursery somewhere depending on what you are planting.

No doubt God has something like a Tardis (in Dr. Who) which is bigger on the inside than out, with a myriad of rooms with all sorts of things ~ like greenhouses, maybe some studios to cut and paste genomes ~ all that stuff.

40 posted on 08/16/2012 1:47:39 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

My sources says YES, in recently divergent species, this works (they believe) exceptionally well to keep species separated. Read more closely.


41 posted on 08/16/2012 1:52:26 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

Horses and donkeys produce mules. Mules do not reproduce, but they are useful animals and men keep breeding them. Let’s imagine that, thousands of years from now, no one remembers how mules were made, and all the records were lost from our glorious technological age.

Mules appear to have been around for quite a while, and then, for some reason, disappeared.... Will scientists of that time say that mules look to be the common ancestor of horses and donkeys in the evolutionary chain?

I’m just wondering if Neanderthals were “mules” of a sort. I know, I know. It’s a stretch, but I’ve always wondered if man and apes got together at some point.

“When all logical possibilities have been eliminated, whatever remains, no matter how illogical, must be the truth.” - Spock

I hate to light a fire and run, but I’m going on vacation in an hour - gotta go.


42 posted on 08/16/2012 1:57:21 PM PDT by HeadOn (With my last breath, I will pull the lever against the liberals. NEVER GIVE UP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The theory of evolution through natural selection, and the theory of common descent of species both are quite satisfactory in this regard.

Indeed - but not necessarily the answer - eh?
8^)

43 posted on 08/16/2012 2:07:12 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jonno

They are currently the ONLY useful scientific answer.

Until a more useful model replaces them - they are the ‘working model’; and they explain and help to predict a ton of useful information.


44 posted on 08/16/2012 2:50:13 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
They would help keep the species separated, just as the fact that mules are (usually) infertile helps to keep donkey and horse species separate.

But it would NOT in ANY way shape or form - prevent the production of a hybrid ‘mule’ between the species. A sterile mule is a dead end that cannot ‘blend’ the two species (like coyote and wolf hybrids can and do blend the two species).

In a male - meiosis doesn't even take place until adulthood - so how could a barrier to successful meiosis in a hybrid prevent the production of a viable hybrid? Answer - it could not.

45 posted on 08/16/2012 2:55:20 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; jonno
Until a more useful model replaces them - they are the ‘working model’; and they explain and help to predict a ton of useful information.

Ha ha ha ha. Look at virtually any paper in molecular biology and you'll find only the merest genuflection toward evolution. It's function is mostly that of the shibboleth or a commonplace reference point one uses to assure oneself that one is in the proper orientation with the rest of the community, even though such references points back through the past 150 years are so radically different that anyone in previous times would regard those of later eras to be fanciful and even heretical and those of the current era to claim that there is no way real scientists believed anything so ludicrous in times past and that bringing it up now is just a lame attempt to discredit the general idea which has been such a cornerstone, not just of biology, but of all science (and that's pretty funny, too).
46 posted on 08/16/2012 3:05:13 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

The papers I read in molecular biology use evolution to explain and predict useful information all the time. They are the ONLY useful and scientific explanations for the data.


47 posted on 08/16/2012 4:09:05 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

The papers I read in molecular biology use evolution to explain and predict useful information all the time. They are the ONLY useful and scientific explanations for the data.


48 posted on 08/16/2012 4:09:52 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Hayride
Just because you are apparently unable to understand

I think he just Alinsky'd you.

49 posted on 08/16/2012 5:30:54 PM PDT by SwankyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
The nature of science is extrapolation. The weights dropped by Galileo off the tower of Pisa were not said to be relevant only to those weights at that location - but extrapolated into a system whereby one could accurately predict the rate at which ANY object would fall at ANY location

The extrapolation to "ANY location" includes the moon and Mars right?

50 posted on 08/16/2012 5:34:15 PM PDT by SwankyC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson