Posted on 06/27/2006 3:41:53 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Please give a few of the experimental results confirming this so-called alternative. For example, what does it say about genetic markers common to domestic cats and dogs? Does it make any predictions about wild animals, or other kinds of animals? Have any of these predictions been tested and found to be true or false?
You know what standard biology has to say on this sort of question, and you know that its predictions have come true.
Why doesn't the "alternative" have to adhere to the same standards?
God help this country in the 21st century.
It's a state issue. And it's only interesting in the fact that some states are currently competing tooth and nail for science-based industries.
"What is ZAP?"
LOL It is the SaveUS word for Instant Creation of everything that ever was or ever will be.
I really don't think religion needs to be in the classroom for any reason. For the same reason both ways. We have freedom of religion, or freedom from religion. Bringing it up in a classroom just lends itself to forming a government sponsored opinion either way. Let people be free in their homes to do what they wish within the law, but don't force any religion on anybody.
Fine. Show some theoretical and/or experimental results to back this assertion up, run it through the gauntlet of review and replication by skeptical experts, and maybe someday there will be something to teach in high school.
But as long as 99.7% (estimated) of biologists agree that standard ToE is fundamental to an understanding of life, that's what gets taught as science.
Yes, you're right. It would be opening a can of worms. I withdraw my suggestion.
You know JC, I always look forward to your arrival on these threads. After I have read the DUFU all the way through, it is a super kick to see our own moonbats.
As has been pointed out to you countless times, evolution is open to debate and in fact debates occur wthin it all the time. But mythology is not "debate." It is like proposing that angels holding airplanes up is an "alternate theory." I remind you scientific theories explain things, they don't describe them. Things fall down: describes Gravity. Theory of Gravity: explains WHY things fall down (or don't in some cases).
You have fossils millions of years old. You have a progression of physical evidence that points an arrow. Deal with it. If you have an alternate theory that doesn't rely on diefic intervention, we are all ears (eyes).
CRIDer peer review: "Hey, hand me your Bible."
It is what they have in common that makes them of the same species. Their common DNA is devine intervention.
Can you imagine if theology had the same level of review and skepticism as science does? Christian theologians would have to prove their assertions to the satisfaction of Muslims, Hindus, et al, before they could publish.
"well, that's a very pretty theory, but since it can't account for the fact of totem animals..."
That is HILARIOUS!! LOLIRL.
I get convinced of stuff all the time here. Sign of an intelligent, probing mind :)
Experimental results? You mean like putting giraffes in a pen with only low bushes, adding a million years, and recording the results? That would be nice. I'll get right on it. I'm unaware, however that that has been done for standard TofE in regard to the subject I'm speaking.
I could compare hundreds of sets of animals that have infinitesimally small difference to see if they have any comparative advantage in breeding. However, I'm smart enough to know that a result that showed no advantage would simply be dismissed as "insufficient". The beauty of your position is that my experiment, no matter the outcome, would never be accepted as conclusive.
However, I don't believe that there is a single bit of proof that says I'm wrong. If giraffe's necks simply got longer with time due to a natural progression of change in the DNA, they would either cope with it or go extinct. At some point, competitive advantage would stop the evolution.
I frankly don't think 99.7% (estimated) of biologists would disagree with me on that. And until I hear a reason why its not more logical than believing that extremely minute changes result in more offspring, I'm sticking with it. And I think its healthy for science to ask such questions, and even more healthy for scientists to have a better answer than "we all agree that we're right and you're wrong."
Now, you don't seem to have read all my posts, and that's OK, but you are challenging assertions that I have not made, such as ToE being taught as science. There are certain aspects of evolution that are absolutely fact, as supported by the fossil record. Then there are theories, such as "why did a particular animal evolve a given way". At this point evolutionists love to speculate, and that's fine and can be fun, but the bottom line is, they just don't know. Just as I get annoyed at anthropologists that recreate an entire civilizations social structure from a few shards of pottery, I get annoyed at the presumption of certainty in some biologists about "why" certain animals evolved the way they did. All they generally know is that the animal evolved, and the change wasn't so detrimental that it led to extinction.
Yes, I know there are no demonstrable examples of macro-evolution. Thank you!
Not different from other religious fanatics all through history...
Are giraffes legs and necks too long or too short?
As their legs just touch the ground without any excess, I must say they are just right. Of course this is always the answer isn't it?
Not to mention the fact that male giraffes are much taller than female giraffes. I guess they were male chauvinist pig giraffes who bent the trees down so their mates could chow down.
the "theory of macroevolution"
Never heard of it. Could you please summarize what it says?
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.