Posted on 10/27/2009 8:11:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
There is a reason it is called the Theory of Evolution instead of the Evolutionary Principle. It is a model that fits the facts and is revised, as necessary, as more data becomes available. An irony that seems to be lost on most YEC types is that theories evolve until they are proven correct or incorrect.
Are you really a geocentrist?
Still timeliness is a relative term based on generations. That’s why most historic models have primarily been Monera due to the logarithmic reproduction. Only recently have new models been chosen (GGG posted an article last month about that). Evolution in the larger scale is still unobservable directly in living models due to the human life span - go figure, eh? Ultimately it’s a theory in progress and is the best foundation that we have to build from even if we must occasionally tear down parts and rebuild it.
I like your reference to dogs. The dogs you site are a product of selective breeding and therefore support intelligence design. Keep posting and you may yet get totally confused by your own posts.
The fossil record is a testament to evolution. We see vast gulfs of time filled with unbelievable animals for long ages of the Earth, mass extinctions, and the rise and domination of new forms. We see marsupial mammals giving way to placental mammals everywhere on the planet (except opossums and Australia), and then we see it happening before our eyes in Australia with the introduction of placental mammals that now dominate the ecosystem.
Mutation processes are most certainly probabilistic. One cannot induce the exact same mutation consistently as if it were some programmed response. They take place more often in some locations that others because some sequences are chemically or positionally more prone to mutation.
Do you think random means ‘beyond God's control’? The dice fall in the lap, but every result is from the Lord.
Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) was never suggested as an explanation for why mutation is probabilistic not random. Did you just need a segue? PE didn't extensively modify the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation, it explained why we would see what we see in the fossil record and modified the idea of ‘gradualism’.
Gradualism is the idea that if you see fossils of a ‘flying squirrel’ that seems descended from a less aerodynamic squirrel fossil species from two million years before, a squirrel from one million years before in that lineage should be ‘half-way’ towards being a ‘flying squirrel’.
PE and most studies on how speciation actually happens or happened have shown why that is an incorrect assumption; but neither has changed the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
“time needed”??? Evolutionary theory doesn't dictate how much time has passed, and is not at all dependent upon how much time has or will pass. You need to look at Astronomy and Geology for that.
However once again we get back to my point. CONSISTENCY. Evolutionary theory, Astronomy, Geology, plate tech-tonics, radiometric dating, human history, archeology; all can be used to construct a CONSISTENT timeline; wherein an insistence upon a young Earth is INCONSISTENT with what we know about universal principles of physics, chemistry, and biology.
Intelligent Design indeed. Ancient horse breeders pioneered early genetic experiments on the IGF gene.
Oh there you go again. I suggest you start by reading Darwin’s work and you will totally agree with the rest of us in the scientific community that according to his standards his theory is totally unproven by the fossil record. On the other hand I note that you have become an intelligent design supportive by some of your prior post. Your post shoot from the hip and lack agreement even in the environmental community. Additionally your comments are false concerning PE to the extent that a response is not needed and again they conflict with the original writings concerning PE.Further I note that you lack the understanding of the word “consistent” as used by the scientific community. I believe you have convinced me you are not a part of this community according to your conflicting post.
Evolution is to Apollo 11 as Creationism is to Apollo 13.
Its like I always say: Where are those damned transitionals?
Its amazing what the ancients were able to do. How did they clone the IGF gene without any PCR or restriction enzymes?
Seriously where did the transitionals go? I think you had them last.
Just in case I come across one, what are the transitionals supposed to look like?
Are you a scientist? Do you work in the sciences?
No scientific theory is ever “proven” or “unproven”. A theory is either supported by the evidence or the evidence contradicts or adjusts the theory.
You have yet to indicate how the fossil record does anything but support the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
PE was never suggested as an explanation of or consequence of mutation being more likely for some sequences than others.
Consistent is, as I told you, that all the theories and all the facts have to be coherent. For example, when South America was joined with Africa - as proposed by plate techtonics- we would expect to see wide ranging species of animals that would be found from that time period in both locations. In time periods where South America had drifted away from Africa, we would expect to see different species develop in isolation from each other.
When we see light from a star one hundred million light years away, it is CONSISTENT with the fundamental principles of physics that the light took one hundred million years to get here.
Our measurement of radioisotopic decay is CONSISTENT with the age of the Earth, tree ring data, the historic record.
What you believe and have convinced yourself of is as of much accord as the quality of your posts warrant, and you write like you describe yourself, as a child.
Cite as in citation, not site.
You do not understand that no theory is ever ‘proven’.
Anyone who thinks my posts support the Incompetent Design idiocy put forth by the Discovery Insistute would have to be delusional.
You lack the credibility to make any such assessment; as your lack of understanding of the basics of science, evolution, and punctuated equilibrium is obvious for all to see.
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.