Skip to comments.Evolution Opponent Is in Line for Schools Post
Posted on 05/23/2007 8:19:05 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger
click here to read article
Tell me something Ahayes, scroll down this page to the illustrations showing the cynodonts/early mammals, and tell me what’s wrong with that picture? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2
Please explain to me what you think a transitional organism is and why these fossils are not examples of such.
Drawing a hippo sized animal’s jaw the same size as a rat sized animal’s jaw and suggesting that it’s clear evidence of tansition is science?
As everyone knows, there is great variety in species anatomy- juxtoposing uniquely created, and completely different species, and suggesting that they show clear evidence of the transition of just one organ is beyond being a credible hypothesis- it amounts to setting an orange next to a coconut, the cocunut next to a pear, and the pear next to a banana- and attempting to point out that the banana and it’s unique shape evolved from the pear, the pear from the coconut, and the coconut from the orange, and suggesting it is evidence of transition.
When you have a clear line of jawbones in one species evolving, moving backward and upward, and can show the assembly of the ear anatomy in that ONE species, lemme know- otherwise all your showing me is that there is great anatomical diversity in different species, and you’re asking us to suspend common logic, and take a great leap of faith. Tell me, where are the transitions between the hippo sized animal and the rat sized one? One must have to believe rat sized animal is somehow related to the hippo sized one if we’re going to even begin to think that the two seperate species KINDS’ specific jaw bones pieces were indeed evolving into ear bones. Certainly you can show the many many steps between the two disimiliar species?
Show me that rat sized species evolving down through the ages- show the obvious links to the next species, and so on and so forth- Asking me to believe elephants evolved from blades of grass is a bit much to ask.
It would start a shooting war, you know.
Again, any scientst of any religion or nationality who studies the same subject will find the same facts. This really is something new in the arena of thought. It is the reason that Genesis based conjectures are not allowed in science classes.
Ah, so by definition, science can only be called science when ‘tests’ are done, eh? I guess we should then throw out all evolution being taught in schools that relies on OPINION then? Which means the majority of evoltuion material will be thrown out. We;ll throw out the whole notion of evolution because obviously we can’t fully test species that supposedly lived millions and billions of years ago- We can’t observe them, or even hteir environment for that matter, so byt your narrow definition of what science entails, anything that doesn’t fit the testability criteria isn’t true science.
Look, part of the process of science, as you full well know, yet apparently are feigning ignorance to, in order to support your losing argument, is studying material and comming to educated scientific conclusions- the two sites I listed are chock full of material by an extremely educated person in the sciences. As I stated, there is plenty more even some that fit your narrow view of what science consists of. Sciencei s a set of falsifiable proposals and that is exactly what Demski presents deflating your assertion that ID isn’t falsifiable, or even testable. Demski took the proposals of fellow scientists, tested them, and presented his conclusions and offered equally scientific alternatives and explained, scientifically, the problems with his fellow sicentists’ proposals and experiments.
Information, We’ve been over and over this- Search the forums- it’s been addressed to death.
[Again, any scientst of any religion or nationality who studies the same subject will find the same facts. This really is something new in the arena of thought. It is the reason that Genesis based conjectures are not allowed in science classes.]
Fine, then keep all the evolution crap conjecture out the schools then. Stick to the facts! The Jaw bone of the Cynodont sets back *insert correct measurement here*, the jawbone of the rat sized animal sets back *insert correct measurment here*- that’s it! Keep all the crap evolution conjecture out of it- DO NOT suggest the two are related or even close to being related! Keep conjecture out ofg it per your orders!
Facty is JS, While one conjecture is accepted with open arms, the proponents of the allowed conjecture absolutely refuse to allow any competing conjecture. Oh, they deny they conjecture, but the facts are plain for any htinking person to recognize- the hypocrisy is blatant, and quite frankly offensive to the intelligence. Got to keep kids ignorant if evolution hypothesis is to be kept alive and thriving.
If you choose to see it that way.
Heliocentrism had religious implications, but religion got over it. Religion will get over evolution and common descent also. It's just a matter of time. Behe and Denton have figured it out, even if they choose to call themselves ID advocates.
You have a misunderstanding of transitionals and the process of evolution. Evolution does not occur in a linear fashion with one species converting into another in a ladder fashion. It branches frequently. Likewise, a transitional is not to be understood as the direct ancestor of a later species. Transitionals are transitionals because they display traits intermediate between those of previous organisms in the tree and later ones. They are not transitionals by virtue of direct descent.
When you have a clear line of jawbones in one species evolving, moving backward and upward, and can show the assembly of the ear anatomy in that ONE species, lemme know
The process does not occur in one species, but over multiple ones over long periods of time. You're asking for something nonsensical.
Additionally, you seem to be supposing that the examples of fossils given are an exhaustive collection. It's a summarization, there are many fossils not mentioned. If you're interested in those you should go to your college's geology library and see if they have any books on the evolution of various lineages.
Sounds like, "If God made the universe, who made God?"
If these two constructions are not logically equivalent, perhaps you can tell me how they differ.
Are you suggestion that Newton's laws of motion are invalid or untrue because they don't explain the origin of matter?
Contrary to your supposition, my confidence in the accuracy of the theory of evolution has been directly related to my knowledge of it.
If you are referring to evolution, there are no competing theories.
A statement that science is incomplete is not a theory. Nor is a statement that some unspecified structures were made by an unknown entity having no specified attributes, capabilities, limitations or motives. This kind of statement is vacuous. It doesn't say anything that leads to research.
This is not just my opinion. It is widely discussed among ID advocates. They admit their lack of research and even a lack of suggestions or plans for research.
But that isn't the way science works. Science does make conjectures, hypotheses and theories.
What you are asking is for physics to teach the current positions of the planets without speculating about where they were a hundred years ago.
Conjectures and hypotheses that are consistently confirmed over many years become become established theories. There really isn't a major theory in science that is more thoroughly established than evolution.
Good question.. Humans have a distinct problem with eternity and infinity in general.. The prospect that God always was is hard for any human.. So humans invent "big bang" mental concretions and other "where did GOD come from" ideas.. Like everything had to be "made"/initiated/caused/boot strapped/constructed..
Humans eventually innate hubris make everything point to what "they" can understand.. like a frog in a well(on earth) prognosticating the world on earth(above) and even the Universe beyond.. The metaphor of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (and resulting story) reduces this problem above to brilliant simplicity.. "Frogs" brush that metaphor aside with extreme conseqensences of logic..
Do you have a point? Are you saying that physics is also wrong? Is physics wrong because it doesn’t explain what existed prior to the big bang? Is Newtonian mechanics incapable of describing orbits because it doesn’t explain the origin of matter?
What is special about biology that you and others on this thread attack a theory of change in living populations because it doesn’t explain the origin of the first living thing?
I posit there WAS no big bang.. The big bang is a mental construct and secular religious "hope".. Physics and Cosmology is/are observations that seem true in a house of mirrors(dimensions)..
[.. What is special about biology that you and others on this thread attack a theory of change in living populations because it doesn't explain the origin of the first living thing? ..]
WHat is LIFE? has not been determined YET?.. Surely it(life) is NOT DNA which is/are the Plans for "the Machine".. and not "Life" at all.. DNA(rna) are the plans for all organic machines.. Life is a whole other issue..
Seems to me organic machines are being "ridden" "driven" by spiritual(living) entities.. Could be that "LIFE" is completely spiritual..
[What you are asking is for physics to teach the current positions of the planets without speculating about where they were a hundred years ago.
Conjectures and hypotheses that are consistently confirmed over many years become become established theories.]
No sir- there isn’t a theory more established through assumptive opinions. Big difference.
What has the planets gotr to do with science? It’s simply one aspect and shouldn’t be a criteria for discussing the theory of evolution or design
[This kind of statement is vacuous. It doesn’t say anything that leads to research.]
It most certainly does. If a design can be established, then the only conclusion- the only sane conclusion, is that a designer must be behind the design. You can falsify this by proving that random accumulations could account for the design we see. The burden of evidence is on the evolution side to do so when it is clear that design is evident. Ignoring that, and suggesting that the opposition isn’t science doesn’t negate this serious problem. In essence, you’re asking the folks to take it completely on faith that nature could create design. So please- quit suggesting that ID is the only one that goes on faith.
[They admit their lack of research and even a lack of suggestions or plans for research.]
That’s not true- there is research- ID is currently studying the genome in a project- discovering hter design that we are talking about
[But that isn’t the way science works. Science does make conjectures, hypotheses and theories.]
Ah- see? You’re conjecture is accepted, while the opposition conjecture is banned by law? Hypocrisy- plain and simple.
[Conjectures and hypotheses that are consistently confirmed over many years become become established theories.]
‘confimed’ by more conjecture outside of the realm of STRICT science. Sigh- the words game keeps going and going and going, while kids are left ignorant of completely plausible and scientific alternatives, and are kept ignorant of the seriousness of the problems that face evolution. All this conjecture allowed and mandated by government ignores the biological impossibilities, keeps coming up with dead end hypothesis, and ask everyone to suspend their belief and logic in order to glom onto a dead hypothesis. Nope- no baised agenda there. This is strict science- Egads!
and you’re qwelcoem to ignore the problems and form your own opinions- noone is questioning your right to do so.
Wow, that spelling completely threw me for a few seconds.
And you’re welcome to come to premature conclusions without bothering to actually research and understand the issues.
[The process does not occur in one species, but over multiple ones over long periods of time. You’re asking for something nonsensical.]
It’s only ‘nonsensicle’ to thosew who are willing to suspend reality and beleive in the impossible. What you show are exampl,es of completely unique species, weith completely unique anatomies, and suggesting that they are all common ancestors, yet you can show no evidence of such except for pionting out that they each had unique jaw bones? and just showing 5 examples and suggesting that because they are in different positions, then that means they are examples of ear evolution? Come on- Don’t be throwing out hte ‘nonsensicle’ label too freely when you defend such nonsense. Yuo do nothign to show the relationship or even the transitions of the species listed to the other species. At best, all evolution presents us are more unique species that might have had similiar features and telling us that they were related, and show transitions. Again, this am0unts to setting the apples next to pinapples and suggesting that they are related- yet offering nothing more for evidence than pointing out both have stems and a skin. When that fails to convince, then the ‘well... everythign is related, so therefore it had to happen’ covers all sins I guess. And I understand the process proposed by evolutionists just fine- and I also understand that it consists of a deep seated faith and apologetics based on assumptions while any other opinion is maligned and ridiculed.
[Likewise, a transitional is not to be understood as the direct ancestor of a later species.]
Noone is stating that- we ARE stating that the gaps are so vast that suggesting the pineapple is an apple- or rather became an apple is based on nothing more than a dogmatic faith- Yup- you can show trees that have unique features that appear to look more like an apple tree, and you can suggest that it’s an ‘intermediary’, but hte fact is that it takes a tremendous amount of faith and suspension of logic to beleive it in face of the lack of supporting evidence- suggesting that ‘all things are related’ doesn’t make uyp for lack of evidnece.
“Oh, but there’s a vast amount of evidence’ No- no there isn’t- there is a vast amount of unique examples that people have opinions about and who infact dissagree about.
Noone is suggesting that evolution hypothesis shouldn’t be explored, but we ARE stating that throwing out competing hypothesis- infact banning competing hypothesis is the highest form of hypocrisy there is.
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.