Posted on 09/27/2001 7:43:35 AM PDT by Nora
Not true. Due to the fact that each daughter product has its own rate of decay, the scientist can look at the ratio of all of the daughter products and determine quite accurately the origional ratios of the isotopes/elements.
Let's Amend that statement. There is no DIRECT evidence to support that first step. However, there are indirect steps all over the universe that sure lead me to believe that all we have to do is continue looking. For example, deep in the heart of giant million solar mass molecular clouds, astronomers have been finding complex organic molecules. If organic molecules can form out in the middle of nowehere through simple collisional processes, who is to say that complex organic molecules didn't form here on earth? Is it such a leap to bridge the gap between intermediate complex molecules to the really complex things like amino acids and DNA? I don't think so. I definitely think we have to KEEP LOOKING! The data is out there to support abiogenesis, we just have to find it.
I see, however, that you have religiousesque FAITH is said theory even without said evidence. That's fine, but call your beliefs religion because they aren't based upon tangible scientific evidence.
What you seem to call faith, I would call Inductive Reasoning. It is an important step in any theoretical endeavor.
The facts do not support creationism as being taught as a theory.
In the wild, cleaner shrimp make their living by picking parasites and necrotic tissue off fish. The shrimp typically rest upside down under ledges with their white antennae sticking out to advertise their cleaning services. Fish solicit cleaning by taking a particular posture near the shrimp that indicates the fish is not a threat. The shrimp swim out and climb all over the fish, picking it over for edible morsels, and even reaching into the gills or climbing into the mouths of large fish.
To get to your fore-ordained conclusion, you leap to a couple of assumptions: 1) there's no benefit if the shrimp aren't doing the teeth, and 2) there's no way for the fish to live without the shrimp. You build a wall of impossibility around the existing situation and claim it could not have evolved.
The shrimp's service is beneficial, yes, but not essential. Many fish, not just barracudas, use the cleaner shrimp. It confers an advantage to the fish where available (ie, where there are cleaner shrimp). But there are fish including barracudas in many places without cleaner shrimp. The service is not essential.
Note too that the shrimp don't just work inside the fishes mouths. They work all over the body. Thus, the problem is no different than having birds cleaning parasites from hippos or crocodiles. You don't have to have full-blown trust up front. It's enough if a hungry critter takes a chance and snatches a meal from the hide of a nearby predator and the predator experiences relief from that maddening irritation. That will get things going.
But let's step back and look at what you attempted in another way. You claimed not to know of a single transitonal species save a questionable feathered dinosaur. That's pretty sad. Challenged on that, you revert to a bit of badly-memorized stump-the-dummies minutiae, demolished in a single web search.
Cheering for the gaps. Rooting for ignorance. This "science" offers no progress.
You might want to share that info with some of the anti-abortion crowd, what with their website with the crossed off names and all.
=====================================================
Add to your response the fact that the victims of the Spanish Inquisition and witches of Salem might like to take issue with that remark.
There's no evidence for cars coming into being via reproductive acts by other cars. Living things seldom come into being except by the reproductive acts of other living things. So where does it make sense to put the evolution?
144 Posted on 09/27/2001 13:02:09 PDT by marsis
"with religous conviction"...especially darwinst-evolution-marxists--statist--"secular--materialist"--RELIGION-false history-science combined-CONVICTION...unquestioned!
EVOLUTION is Science--inevitable! What a mantra-MONSTER!!
Huh? Please come up with an instance within 300 years of the present time to recieve credit. Heck, at least they had trials, albeit total shams. I think the church has come along way.
Organic molecules exist in their precise form to begin life on almost every deceased human, yet scientists seem to have a problem animating said stiffs in the laboratory.
And I'm all for continuing to search for evidence of abiogenesis, but let's not kid ourselves, scientists haven't found any sort of said evidence to date (other than wild-eyed jumping up and down when they find various acids such as vinegar that exist - gasp - in the wild).
But the jump from vinegar to DNA is an insurmountable one because DNA is comprised of perfectly ordered organic molecules formed in mathematical Base-4 pairs (A, C, G, and T elements). Moreover, these Base-4 pairs of elements are grouped into machine-readable subroutines known to us as "genes." These genes are capable of precisely replicating desired behavior, too. That's hardly the sort of thing that one would expect to find happening at random.
In fact, DNA houses more orderly and complex code than any current human-derived software systems. Again, that's very unlikely to happen by accident. Consider that the DNA for the simplist life forms has more code than that for the Microsoft Windows operating system. Is Windows really very likely to be formed by accident in nature (well, some MS bashers might have a few cute comments on that, I suppose). Further, our human-derived software systems break down to Binary (i.e. Base-2) code. That's an order of magnitude less complicated than Base-4 DNA.
So is it really such a leap to bridge the gap between intermediate complex molecules to the really complex things like amino acids and DNA? Absolutely.
In fact, it appears preposterous.
Good question. We and the apes had a common ancestor. That's why we're both here.
There is a tremendous amount of scientific evidence for evolution. On the other hand, Genesis falls down rather badly when it comes to the order of creation. It has plants being formed before the sun or the moon was in the sky.
When I go out to the creationist web sites or listen to the Christian radio programs, I find it quite amazing the lengths that are taken to try and fit the observed phenomena and current day discoveries into the mold described by Genesis. For example, geologists long ago rejected a worldwide flood, however, fantastic explanations abound in the creationist circles to try and re-establish this as an actual event.
Genesis is not a scientific description of the formation of this universe. In fact from a scientific viewpoint Genesis is wrong.
That would seem to say that Life is necessary as a prior condition for Evolution to proceed. Thus, you have just given credibility to the concept that a living Designer is required as a precursor for both Evolution and Life.
What a pathetic statement. The taliban enforces their views through government which is how evolutionists enforce their views. The public schools prey on children and the taxpayer to enforce their views. The creationists want to discuss theories. It is the evolutionists who want to promote religious dogma when they present only their theories as fact.
I disagree. In fact, there is NO EVIDENCE of an inanimate object evolving into an animated life form.
Considering that current speculation is that the Earth was first lifeless, that first living form would have to evolve out of that inanimate, lifeless environment for Evolutionary theory to be taken seriously.
And since that evidence doesn't exist and can't be replicated in the lab, young children shouldn't be taught such speculative nonsense.
Regards
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.