Posted on 08/17/2005 7:44:13 AM PDT by PApatriot1
You want some math?
Here's a little example from Ichneumon of how evolution theory speeds up random processes by a factor of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Read it. It's pretty interesting.
" Evolution is no longer a theory. It’s a fact!"
In science, mon cher Monsieur, a theory ends being a theory, when is demonstrated by evidence, a.k.a. FACTS.
So sit back and relax.
You don't have to believe or not FACTS.
The Earth is round, whether you believe it or not.
You just saying it makes it so, eh.
Then why have we never seen one species evolve into another species? We can make comparisons - this fossil is similar to that fossil and that fossil came before the other fossil. We can observe cellular evolution - resistance to different bacterium and viruses and such, but no scientist has reproduced the two essential components that PROVE evolution to be fact:
1. the creation of a living organism from the non-living elements of life, and...
2. the evolution of one species into a completely different species.
The probability that simple, single-celled organisms formed accidentally out of a pool of prehistoric muck are so outrageously low that they are laughable. The probability that single-celled organisms evolved to possess all of the higher functions of mankind are equally remote.
Round with four corners, eh? Last time I checked, a circle was not a sphere, and the sun didn't actually travel around the earth.
As for the infinite number of stars, Bruno was burned to death by Christians for saying something like that.
Whichever, they seem to defy the "theory" of gravity, too!
"no scientist has reproduced the two essential components that PROVE evolution to be fact:
1. the creation of a living organism from the non-living elements of life, and...
2. the evolution of one species into a completely different species."
1. This is abiogenesis, not evolution. Google it.
2. This has been demonstrated multiple times, ie. new species of fruit flies created in labs.
Not at all. (FWIW, you can see my position on the topic at this thread.)
My problem is with the article itself. Flickinger doesn't really present any compelling reasons for including "the other side" other than his own disdain and disbelief. It's not an effective approach.
We don't need to see one species evolve into another species (even though we have)
The theory of evolution is an explaination, a model, for the history of life on Earth. As you point out there are fossils that can be compared and they are found in a certain order. Evolution is quite strict as an explaination. There are many ways new fossil finds could contradict evolution. Yet despite over a century of fossil finding the fossil pattern does not majorly contradict evolution. It's too much of a coincidence. So historical evolution is regarded as beyond doubt - beyond doubt = scientific fact. Even many Intelligent Design advocates accept common descent of species.
but no scientist has reproduced the two essential components that PROVE evolution to be fact:
Scientific theories are not proven to be fact. They are supported beyond doubt and so regarded as fact. It's the same as if all the evidence pointed towards a defendant in court for a murder. It would be beyond doubt, but not proven. Noone observed the murder scene.
The probability that simple, single-celled organisms formed accidentally out of a pool of prehistoric muck are so outrageously low that they are laughable.
It is not part of the theory of evolution, and noone suggests single-celled organisms formed accidentally out of a pool of prehistoric muck. Equally noone suggests stars formed accidently out of a pool of cosmic muck.
The probability that single-celled organisms evolved to possess all of the higher functions of mankind are equally remote.
Such a probability cannot be calculated. You are using your gut feeling.
"So sub-atomic particles are in the Bible, eh?"
Jack Chick taught me that Jesus holds nuclei together, not the nuclear strong force, which is Satan's deception.
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp
Dear Biology Prof : Evolution is 'anti Christ' fiction
-God
"Evolution does not explain Creation" - Charles Darwin
And, before this gets ugly, might I add this:
Those are some of the worst fake boobs I've ever seen.!!!
Now, as far a the theory/fact of evolution goes - may I pose this question:
Does a woman with a basketball sawed in half and stuck under the skin on her chest have a better chance of reproducing than a woman with the basketball? :-)
Evolution is not considered a fact. Evolution is considered a scientific theory that explains the observable facts and is based on tested and retested observations that are peer reviewed to reach logical conclusions.
If people actually and truly want to learn evolution please feel free to visit
http://www.freerepublic.com/~patrickhenry/#List-O-Links
or
http://www.freerepublic.com/~ichneumon/
ID and C are not scientific theories and at best could be philosophy.
Agriculture has been doing it for centuries.
That is no surprise. lol
I was appalled by the sheer stupidity evinced in Christopher Flickinger's August 17 article on Evolution. Having read the article, there is no way I would speak to Flickinger either. Arguing with a fool is pointless. Just to list the obvious problems with the article:
Intelligent Design presents itself as a scientific theory (though it lacks most of the essential attributes of a scientific theory). If it is a scientific theory, one cannot have it both ways, as Flickinger does, and claim that criticism of ID is an attack on religion.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a moral code. Arguing that we should let natural selection guide our moral choices is like arguing we should push granny downstairs, because gravity demands that objects fall towards the center of the earth. Is the theory of universal gravitation immoral? After all, millions die from gravity related causes every year!
Science classes do indeed include two sides of a debate, where a scientific debate exists. There is no serious scientific debate about evolution. Instead, there is a group of religiously motivated theocrats trying to impose a particular creation myth on science classes.
As for the hilarious contentions that the Bible reveals the existence of subatomic particles and that the earth is round (Isaiah actually says 'the circle of the earth', and the earth is most definitely not circular, it's nearly spherical), they appear to be the product of a hopeful imagination too little versed in scientific principles.
I'm a conservative of long standing; I was campus advisor to the College Republicans here in Nebraska for seven years; and I was a frequent reader of Human Events back in the nineties. It appears to have been transformed from a serious and thoughtful conservative magazine to a vehicle for the random and uneducated thoughts of unschooled religious zealots. That's too bad.
Gerard S. Harbison, Professor of Chemistry, UNL, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA.
gerry@setanta.unl.edu
Except that it hasn't.
Breeding plants to have softer husks and fatter seeds isn't macroevolution.
No one has bred barley into a tomato.
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.