Posted on 08/02/2004 3:58:04 PM PDT by Renfield
You've repeated exactly what I've accused you of: ignoring the obvious and simply stating "You don't understand".
Thank you for playing. Next.
Yes, yes. If I apply your logic to our debate, I must have lost. Like the U.S. lost WW2.
Well, once I figured your spelling was wrong, it only took a minute using Yahoo to discover the following:
What function do they serve? Aren't they important? The tonsils and the adenoids are mostly composed of lymphoid tissue, which is found thoughout the gastointestinal tract and on the base of the tongue. Lymphoid tissue is composed of lymphocytes...which are mostly involved in antibody production. Since we generally consider antibody production to be a good thing, many studies have been performed to try to clarify the importance of the tonsils. To date, there seems to be no adverse effect on the immune status or health of patients who have had them removed. Any noticable effect has generally been positive. It appears that the tonsils and adenoids were not "designed" to effectively handle the multitude of viral infections that occur in children in an urban population. Rather, the immune system, including the tonsils and adenoids, developed during a era where the child was rarely exposed to a large number of other people and the germs they carried. It may also be that these organs are relatively more important in dealing with certain types of infections, such as worms or other parasites, that are relatively uncommon in today's society. It is clear that in many cases, the tonsils and/or the adenoids become "dysfunctional" and are more of a liability than an asset.
Honestly, if creationists would simply do a little snooping around the net outside the standard creationist sites, they could discover lots of answers to the silly little questions they continually pose on these threads.
Remember, Google is your friend.
FYI a bibliophile is someone who loves books...
The vestigial legs in whales are located in the same region as the legs in other mammals. They have the same number of bones and in the same locations as other mammals. Fossil cetaceans have more developed (but still vestigial) legs in the same region. These legs become more developed the farther back in the fossil record you go.
With such evidence, wouldn't paleontologists and biologists be able to draw the conclusion the structures in modern whales are the remnants of legs and hips? Or, are they not permitted to connect the dots?
The Milano gene is being used to create treatments for high cholesterol, so there is quite a bit of research there.
Tell us, are we more or less resistant to heart disease than we were 3000 years ago. That's right, you weren't measuring such things back then. There is no data. Therefore we cannot compare data to 3000 years ago to say that humans are overall stronger and more resistant than back then
You really can't be this dense, can you? The Milano gene appears in a discrete community of people. Therefore, it is clearly a mutation with positive effects and qualifies as evidence of transition. How hard is that to grasp? Did this mutation exist 3000 years ago? I have no idea, nor is it relevant. Typical moving of the goalposts. You asked for proof of human evolution, I gave it.
You still haven't responded to the super-strong gene, either.
Except "kind" which they do not define.
It would appear that the questioner is under the mistaken impression that beneficial mutations are a problem for creationists. Some creationists make this unfortunate error. The mutations Q&A section of our Web site clearly teaches that the issue is not whether the mutation is beneficial but if it adds new genetic information (specified complexity). So it would have been clear that the A-I Milano mutation is not evidence for microbe-to-man evolution
No point reading after this. This is what's known as "squirreling the subject." Increased complexity is not a requirement of evolution, except in the minds of creationists.
The origin of the word is a Bible lover since the Bible was the most often read and loved book. But the dicionary of today bears you out. Thanks for the correction.
So? Your point? Saying something and proving something, by now, ought to occur to you to be vastly different things.
Like how your article you just linked denies liquifaction sorting of layers by a flood by saying that "bigger things would go to the bottom and smaller things to the top". This is so scientifically dishonest it amazes me that it could be stated so boldly. Liquifaction doesn't sort by size - it sorts by bouyancy. But mistating the argument - likely on purpose - then gives one the apparent ground to dismiss the argument out of hand without actually dealing with it's substance or any facts. Sidestepping it as it were.. This is not science nor does it pass for research.
And such a blatent attempt to avoid an argument belies the idea that this is a search for facts.
I think I noted to someone else that I was dealing with someone tuned into venus on another thread -- Venetian brainwaves must have melted his capacity to reason and Linux has become a threat to the free world because Gates could go broke and the MS trolls would no longer get paid..
Something like that anyway.
VR, you wrote: "Darwin spent no time advocating atheism." Even if he had wanted to (which is dubious), he didn't have to: He had Thomas Huxley -- a thorough-going atheist who was first among his popularizers -- to do that for him. Huxley obviously had an ax to grind against "Rome" (we can come to this reasonable conclusion on the basis of his own statements) and it seems that his critique of Darwin was largely a polemical appeal to the masses, for the purpose of freeing them of the backward superstitions and putative persecutions of religious fanatics who stand athwart science yelling STOP! because (supposedly) the theory of evolution is a threat to Genesis....
A thoughtful Christian is unlikely to see evolution as a threat to Genesis. Certainly I don't.
Nonetheless, Huxley gins up his straw man. I gather he conceived of his project as human liberation of some sort ... once God's out of the way, you see, man is completely free to do whatever he likes -- to make a better, more perfect world, for instance; or simply to indulge his own viciousness, "guilt-free," should he prefer that. In short, T. Huxley -- and later on, grandson J. Huxley -- was just another tom-tom beater for the "God is dead" movement, and his use (misuse? abuse?) of Darwin's "theory" well served his purpose.
The author of this fine article has not imputed motives to Darwin, and I won't do that either. I'm sure the Darwin thought he was doing science, and was in fact doing science. But he himself seems to have been aware of certain weaknesses in his theory.
Huxley, on the other hand, obviously did have a motive. That meretricious motive continues to inspire the likes of Richard Dawkins, who also seems to prefer dishonest polemics to good science.
No, a rational person might actually just appreciat the fact that they can glide. They might actually also look at how they do it. But to postulate that they are transitional species wouldn't even come to my mind. Especially without any evidence that they'd ever existed in any other form but what they are now. You know, giving ground for a postulation that they were changing. I would generally posit that absent any evidence of change, assuming change bears the responsibility of proving it rather than saying it's possible and then saying "every living thing today is in transition". I can say equally as absurd things just as easily. It doesn't mean I'm any more or less right than you. Nor does it make either of us truth tellers. You can't say that you observed a change in foxes or squirrels that spontaniously allowed one bread to glide. Nor can you say that a time ever existed that they couldn't do this. I know I've said it' but, it's worth repeating things that we can truthfully say. So you have no basis for saying that these are in transition because you are not accounting for what you DON'T know. The fact is that the possibilities do not stop at your theory's edge. In absence of proof for your "theory", I think I'd leave well enough alone. But that would deny you the chance to shape politics and force your views on others via science.. right.
I was just taking it from the greek... biblio meaning book and phileo (love)...
Why not create bat wings. Bat wings work great too. Why didn't you go the other way with it. When you can make a bat out of nothing but elements, color it, size it, set it's environment and design something for it to eat all by speaking it into existance, I think at that point you'll be in a position to compare notes with God. Till then - until you have some basis on which to know His purpose in having done it the way he chose to do it, I think it is well beyond presumptuous to assume you could have done better. And not being in possession of all the facts or how everything works while HE does..
Most dinosaurs were man-sized or smaller critters, and if their nearest relatives, crocodiles and birds, are any indication, about as dense as modern animals. A two-meter long velociraptor therefore probably weighed in the neighborhood of 45 kg (remember, one meter is tail). A 1.8 meter human male weighs on the order of 80 kg. Note, they are both approximately the same density. Therefore, the Flood should have sorted the remains of velociraptors above those of humans -- but we don't see this in the actual fossil record.
They work no better than bird wings, AFAIK. So what's the point? You need to give one rational reason other than "God felt like it."
If God loves wings so much, why not create a different wing type for each bird?
You're ignoring the possibility that humans are probably better swimmers than velociraptors.
Oddly enough, insects, arachnids, and other similarly teeny critters, have a tendency to float because they don't break the surface tension of the water, yet some of their remains are found far below those of later, larger critters.
In other words, hydrographic sorting makes absolutely no sense as an explanation for the fossil record.
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.