Posted on 05/17/2007 9:02:34 AM PDT by Sopater
i saw several of these billboards as i drove up Interstate 5 to Oregon last week... i like them...
“”It’s kind of funny because the theory of evolution is based on chance mutations and natural selection,” she said. As a result, “the process can go either way.”’
Yes it can, since natural selection is environment driven. It’s nice to see fundies accept the theory of evolution.
LOL
“we’d be completely happy if they’d just allow a critical evaluation of evolution.”
It is at this point that so many strident evolutionists start sounding like their own caricature of their opposition. Quite ironic, really. I admit that I don’t have the science background to follow a lot of it, but the Darwinists get smacked around rhetorically and logically. I haven’t seen one yet win the argument against an I.D. proponent. If there is video or a transcript out there, I would love to see it. They usually move quickly to ad hominem and other losing pursuits. The entire issue is fascinating from a purely forensic standpoint.
Backwards evolution, or devolution, would seem to be about as likely as “forward” evolution, if everything were up to chance encounters and “natural selection”.
Using that logic, the human race could be receding to a more primitive form, about as fast as they are advancing to a higher level.
Result, no net gain.
Ever.
I don’t think that states it quite right. Evolution dictates that the the mutations with the advantages live (reproduce enough to survive), while the others die off.
No problem. Join right in. But this is where the "critical evaluation of evolution" is taking place, not the high schools:
American Journal of Human Biology
American Journal of Human Genetics
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
The Anatomical Record Part A
Annals of Human Biology
Annals of Human Genetics
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
Anthropological Science
Anthropologie
L' Anthropologie
Archaeometry
Behavior Genetics
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
Biological Psychology
Biology and Philosophy
BMC Evolutionary Biology
Current Anthropology
Current Biology
Economics and Human Biology
Ethnic and Racial Studies
European Journal of Human Genetics
Evolution and Human Behavior
Evolutionary Anthropology
Forensic Science International
Gene
Genetical Research
Genetics
Genome Research
Heredity
Homo
Human Biology
Human Heredity
Human Genetics
Human Genomics
Human Molecular Genetics
Human Mutation
International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
Journal of Archaeological Science
Journal of Biosocial Science
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Journal of Human Evolution
Journal of Human Genetics
Journal of Molecular Evolution
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
Molecular Biology and Evolution
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Nature
Nature Genetics
Nature Reviews Genetics
PLoS Biology
PLoS Genetics
Proceedings of The Royal Society: Biological Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Russian Journal of Genetics
Science
Trends in Genetics
“where are all the living transitional forms that are evolving into other forms?”
Well, look at the Orchard Oriole and Baltimore Oriole for one example.
And biologists are constantly finding new species- unlikely that they were there ever since the Flood and no biologist noticed- perhaps they are truly new?
I’ll look for the billboards, they sound cool.
Another ignoramus pretending to be an expert.
The billboards sound like fun though.
Not really. Assuming evolution, and using it as the philosophical lens through which you interpret data is not the same as “critical evaluation”. In any other field but science, it would be classified as “circular reasoning”.
Evolution is junk/demokkkrat science, with or without monkeys.
“Using that logic, the human race could be receding to a more primitive form,”
Gore and his acolytes are making the case that humans are incapable of adapting to a temperature change of a decree and a half. Temperature deviates, hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of us die.
If Darwin and Gould are anywhere near right, those left will be better fitted to the warmer clime.
Worst case, nobody survives and we join the Neandertals in some future museum case. Assuming that Gore, Darwin, and Gould are right.
Scientific Evolution is a fact, but it’s not how we got here.
I’m arguing history, not science. Although based on the scientific theory of evolution, I predict that within 200 million years, it will be nearly impossible to distinguish between species, because there will be so many living “transitional forms”.
Historically, when the slightly better humans come along, it never seems to eliminate the slightly-less humans. We can still find humans of all stages of “evolution”. There’s no reason to expect any different in the future. The same would be true for most species, just because there are some better-suited offspring doesn’t mean all the other members of the species will stop breeding.
So after Evolution has had 200 million years to operate, there will be a steady trail of living forms from what we have today to the new “species” that have evolved over that 200 million years.
Evolutionists will certainly now explain why we don’t already see that in today’s world, although the answer is pretty obvious.
With a Madison Avenue twist. When do we move down so we can have clean cups?
Hey Doc, figure the odds that your detractor opened even one of the links you provided.
Don’t be too quick to laugh at the man-to-monkey concept. The human population is currently undergoing a good deal of DEvolution which is being driven by socialism == policies of taking from the competent to give to the incompetent, resulting in rising birth rates among the incompetent and dropping birth rates among the competent.
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.