LOL! The hominid tree is from Science Made Stupid. More:
Posted on 11/01/2003 4:14:09 AM PST by I Am Not A Mod
LOL! The hominid tree is from Science Made Stupid. More:
Well I looked at the website, but I'm not impressed. While being far from an expert, I understand that the whale ancestor is based on a fossil fragment that is disputed as a bonified evolutionary fossil. So how many other of those "predictions" are either bogus or made to fit the facts?
ID makes predictions too. I posted that table in the last thread and at least 3 or the 4 predictions, the theory of Design fit better than the theory of evolution.
For part of his life, he was. But he abandonded special creation some time in his mid-thirties, and the idea of mediated creation some time later during middle age.
No, they (there are a number of ancestral whales showing gradual adaptation from land to sea) are not disputed as "bonified" whales (or proto-whales) by qualified experts. What you may be thinking of is a fit of what can only be described as panic-induced-extreme-stupidity by creationist Duane Gish, following the discovery that the long known archaeoceticean (early whale) Basilosaurus isis had rear limbs. Gish suggested not only that Basilosaurus wasn't really a whale, but that it wasn't even a mammal! Apparently this made him feel better as marine reptiles with rear limbs were already known. However Basilosaurus was unquestionably both a mammal and a whale, and several other fossil whales have since been discovered that have even better developed legs.
The falsifiable part of ID is where someone says that a specific organ (or whatever) cannot have evolved. That claim is falsified whenever an evolutionary path is demonstrated. If it could have evolved, than it can't be irreducibly complex. Otherwise, when we say that ID isn't falsifiable, we mean that every species one can point to will be said to be just what the designer had in mind. What kind of theory is that? Everything fits. Nothing is excluded. So in that sense it has no scientific value at all. Unlike evolution, where (to use the commonly given example) a mammal fossil in the pre-Cambrian period would definitely falsify the theory.
"Take a look at this website" Well I looked at the website, but I'm not impressed.
I figured that.
While being far from an expert, I understand that the whale ancestor is based on a fossil fragment that is disputed as a bonified evolutionary fossil. So how many other of those "predictions" are either bogus or made to fit the facts?
You tell me. I don't think that one is bogus. But scientists make mistakes. And admit them. If there's confusion about whale ancestry, and there may be, it will get sorted out. This doesn't affect evolution. It's a detail. There are many such that haven't yet been worked out.
ID makes predictions too. I posted that table in the last thread and at least 3 or the 4 predictions, the theory of Design fit better than the theory of evolution.
I missed that. If you could re-post it, I'll comment.
It appears that columns 2 and 3 in the last row are reversed and that row should probably go to descent, although descent is losing ground in that row with more functionality being ascribed to DNA previously labeled as "junk".
Line of Evidence |
Prediction of descent |
Prediction from design |
Data |
Best explaining theory: |
1. Biochemical complexity |
High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found. |
High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found. |
High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. |
Design. |
2. Fossil Record |
Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series. |
Forms will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors. |
Forms tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors. |
Design. |
3. Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics |
Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms. |
Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms. |
Genes and functional parts often are not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. |
Design. |
4. Genetic Code |
The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA." |
The genetic code will contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA." |
Increased knowledge of genetices has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA"; examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but function can be expected or explained under a design pardigm. |
Design. |
Obviously your request cannot be fulfilled exactly as stated. It would always be possible to surmise, after the fact, that some discovery might have been reached by an entirely different route than it actually was. However they are innumerable discoveries that were, in fact, made in the context of evolutionary assumptions.
As one example, consider the recent, but rapidly advancing, theory of "fragile breakage". It has long been known that chromosomes have frequently been "rearranged" in the past (pieces of them moved around from place to place, as well as instances of one chromosome being split into two, or two being fused into one) but it was long assumed that the chromosomes broke at more or less random points along their length. The fragile breakage theory asserts that this in not the case, but that chromosomes instead tend to break at specific places.
Fragile breakage was initially suggested by comparing genome sequences of humans, mice and other species. Note that you would only infer such a theory if you believed these species were related by common descent. If you assume they are seperately created, or that their DNA code is specifically "designed," then the best you would find is that the "designer," for reasons unknown, happened to arrange different chromosomes by shifting around more-or-less descrete blocks of code. It's only if you assume that actual rearrangements occured historically that you get the "fragile breakage" theory.
Of course, once you have such a theory you might look to see if chromosomal mutations that occur in living organisms today might fit this pattern, and it was only subsequently discovered, after the evolutionary theory was constructed, that they do. In fact fragile breakage even has medical significance, as it (currently appears that) it may help to explain chromosomal mutations that cause cancer by lengthening teleomeres (structures at the ends of chromosomes that normally gradually "wear away" as the cell divides) thereby interferring with programmed cell death.
Number 2 is simply false. I believe 3 is false also. Number 4 makes no sense at all. You need a bio-chemistry expert to develop this further. For now, please be a bit skeptical of that chart. I think it's wildly misleading. Where does it come from? Surely not from an academic source. Sorry, but that's the best I can do. Gotta wait for a genuine expert to show up and clarify things a bit better.
Really, or would that fossil simply be regarded as "misplaced".
You may be sure that it would be studied to death. Well-established theories that have been useful for generations aren't lightly discarded. In the end, the evidence would prevail. It always does. (I'm talking about science, not other things.)
Then eventually design will win out over descent. In the meantime, well established theories aren't lightly discarded.
That's not the point. I don't see where they are required to have much publications in scientific journals.
They are merely pointing out that portions of the so-called "science" being taught in the current high school biology books is false, and is known to be false by the scientific community.
So why are we allowing faked and blatantly untrue evidence to be indoctrinated into our kids? You said it: "Established theories are not easily discarded". Even when the foundational pillars are known to be false.
If "it's turtles all the way down", or "the Great Raven regurgitated the world into being" fits the data, why not allow it as a hypothesis?
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.
