Darwinists Wrong Again on Human Evolution

The Christian Diarist ^ | August 16, 2012 | JP

[muawiyah]

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

[HeadOn]

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.

[jonno]

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^)

[allmendream]

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.

[allmendream]

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.

[aruanan]

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).

[allmendream]

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.

[allmendream]

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.

[SwankyC]

Just because you are apparently unable to understand

I think he just Alinsky'd you.

[SwankyC]

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?

[SwankyC]

Actually I can do better than my last question.

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 ... The nature of science is extrapolation."

Your implication is that the evidence is the existence of the books on evolution. So may I extrapolate the existence of 100s of thousands of books in the library make them evidence of their fact too?

[allmendream]

According to the system it could be predicted that each would fall at the same rate as the other, but slower than on earth. F=ma^2.

[allmendream]

Wrong. My implications is that if he thinks we are not “drowning “ in information on the subject it is because he has FAILED to look.

[allmendream]

Wrong. My implications is that if he thinks we are not “drowning “ in information on the subject it is because he has FAILED to look.

[SwankyC]

Wrong. My implications is that if he thinks we are not “drowning “ in information on the subject it is because he has FAILED to look.

I was trying to more eloquently say that the existence of the information doesn't automatically mean it's worth more than the paper it's printed on. In the end, macroevolution is nothing beyong hypothesis, theory and extrapolation buried under a bunch of fabulous word play. Just go read all the religious based books we're drowing in that say so.

[SwankyC]

Wrong. My implications is that if he thinks we are not “drowning “ in information on the subject it is because he has FAILED to look.

I was trying to more eloquently say that the existence of the information doesn't automatically mean it's worth more than the paper it's printed on. In the end, macroevolution is nothing beyong hypothesis, theory and extrapolation buried under a bunch of fabulous word play. Just go read all the religious based books we're drowing in that say so. :)

[allmendream]

Sure nothing beyond a well supported theory that explains billions of facts. That you think ‘just a theory’ is a slam only shows your ignorance of science.

[SwankyC]

*yawn* A well supported theory, absent the proof is still just a plain ol theory. I guess that's 'science' enuf for you and I guess I'll just be ignorant, Alinsky.

[allmendream]

There is no “proof” in science - only evidence. Gravity is not a “proven” theory - it is still just a theory - albeit a very well supported theory that explains (mostly -see “dark matter”) the evidence.

If something had “proof” then it would no longer be subject to debate and refinement - which is one of the hallmarks of the scientific method you so clearly do not understand.

[SwankyC]

There is no “proof” in science

uuhhkay, utter BS. You already lost the argument Alinsky.