[/caption] Posted on 05/11/2012 10:56:54 AM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV
[dc]O[/dc]n May 14, noted philanthropist and neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give the commencement address at Emory University and receive an honorary degree. But there is a problem. In recent weeks Emory faculty and students have asked the University to disinvite Dr. Carson because he is a critic of evolutionary theory and advocate of creationism. Faculty and staff have written that Dr. Carson’s “great achievements in medicine allow him to be viewed as someone who ‘understands science’” poses a direct threat to science that “rests squarely on the shoulders of evolution.”
The anti-Carson letter describes how there is “overwhelming” evidence of “ape-human transitional fossils” and how this evolution process has advanced an ability to develop animal models for disease and that even “the work of Dr. Carson himself is based on scientific advances fostered by an understanding of evolution.” The letter then argues that “the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”
In 2010, Gallup released a poll that found that 40% of Americans believe in strict creationism, the idea that humans were created by God in their present form within the past 10,000 years. Thirty-eight percent believe that God guided the process of human evolution from lower life forms over millions of years , and only 16% believe that humans evolved without divine intervention. Sixty percent of those who attend church weekly believe that we were created less than 10,000 years ago. Gallup notes that the numbers have remained generally stable for the past 28 years.
That the number of adherents of creationism remains so strong, even though Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species” has been around since 1859 and has been taught in most public schools since the 1960s, is a testament to the persistent strength of American religious belief and faith over contradictory concepts.
Earlier this week, Forbes magazine staff writer Alex Knapp wrote an essay entitled, “Why Some Christians Reject Evolution,” arguing that many Christians reject evolutionary theory because it conflicts with the Protestant view of the doctrines of original sin and salvation.
[caption id="" align="alignright" width="347" caption="Photo credit - iStockPhoto.com"][/caption]
Perhaps the only way to explain how evolved human beings would end up with a soul is expressed in the hybrid evolution-creation concept advanced by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis (1950). Pius XII writes, "For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”
In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that human beings were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided pre-existing, pre-created souls to those He designated and that these souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments.
In contrast, American evangelicals tend to view Adam and Eve as actual living people, who were literally created by God as clay forms into which God breathed the breath of life. There was no death before the fall of humanity. The time frames are important because they rely on the Biblical chronologies Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-28 to prove that Jesus was in the prophetically-designated ancestral line of David, and draw the genealogical line all the way back to Adam, the first created human being.
Many evangelicals reject the hybrid view of creation and evolution because it would necessarily require them to regard creation, as discussed in the books of Genesis and of a new earth in Revelation, as allegory and submit the pervasive teachings of the Bible referencing Creation and other supernatural activity to the realm of mythology or cultural contextualism. Acceptance of “scientific” views of evolution would then, by necessity, require a major reconfiguration of matters of faith – and that is something that most adherents to strict creationism are unwilling to do.
Knapp, whose own religious beliefs are not indicated, notes that while some churches have found ways to incorporate the idea of change over time into their belief systems, “for many Christians, evolution isn’t a minor fact of science that can be resolved into the mythos of their faith. It is, rather, a fundamental attack on their faith and many things that they believe.”
There have been a number of heated arguments on the campuses of a diverse array of religious universities regarding how issues of origins should be taught. Some have tried to walk the middle line of teaching “intelligent design” as an alternative to creationism and evolution. Critics of those teaching intelligent design point out that trying to split the issue down the middle does no favors to either side and in the end is nothing but a weakened form of creationism, and an explanation that is of no value to secular science.
Within the larger context of American Protestant Christianity the debate continues without resolution. Among Christians, creationists are often asked to consider various forms of evidence of a long-history of the earth, but those advocating for a long-earth have largely ignored discussion of the genealogies of the New Testament and the concepts of original sin and salvation. Christian evolutionists have failed to provide a verse-by-verse rebuttal to the Biblical Creation narrative or to acknowledge the extent to which acceptance of creation would impact theology.
Instead theistic evolutionists operate on the supposition that Creationists will eventually bifurcate their religious beliefs from scientific understanding, because incompatibilities must be resolved in favor of science. This places faith directly in conflict with science and any resultant battle on these issues will take centuries if true academic freedom is to be granted, but can resolve faster if the voices of religious dissent are silenced and those who have openly criticized evolution are denied a seat at the academic table.
The attempt to “purify” academia by silencing the voices of critics such as Dr. Carson would be the first step toward a secular Dark Ages. So far, it appears that despite the controversy, Emory University’s commencement ceremony will go forward as planned.
###
In response to the controversy at Emory, as of this writing nearly 2,000 people have signed a Petition to reaffirm “Dr. Ben Carson’s Welcome and Defend His Right to Express His Views.” Click here to view the Petition.
There is no serious definition of a biological "boundary" in post 176.
Even the alleged "experiment" intended to "falsify" an idea that is not even defined -- your "experiment" is ridiculous since, among other reasons:
What can be done on larger creatures is detailed analysis, using living examples, of exactly what causes speciation -- why do some breeds and sub-species interbreed readily, while others do not?
When precisely does interbreeding begin to become difficult, and when exactly does it become impossible?
It would be interesting to learn, and conclusions are totally obvious: the more identical are DNAs of breeds or sub-species, the easier it is to interbreed.
Correspondingly, the more DNA mutations separating one species from another, the more difficult and finally impossible will be attempts to interbreed them.
And once we estimate, from careful observation, the average rate of mutations per generation (i.e., circa 50 in humans), then it is possible to calculate how many mutations and generations of separation are needed to make interbreeding impossible, species by species.
annalex: "This is, by the way how science is done: by advancing a falsifiable hypothesis and then seeing if it matches all the observed facts."
You need to spend more time studying the definition of scientific method:
The above is an hypothetico-deductive method.
Each step is subject to peer review for possible mistakes."
The scientific Theory of Evolution meets all of these tests.
The "annalex species boundary" meets none of them.
annalex: "Not by adapting definitions to suit the available evidence, pretend that observable facts (namely, selection inside species and evolution of primitive creatures) miraculously prove hypothesis that reach beyond these observable facts, and refer to authority when your magic tricks are called into question.
Evolution is a pseudo-science, -- a cult."
As always, here you deny the first verified fact in evolution: descent with modifications.
So your words, especially "cult", do describe the alleged "annalex species boundary", but not the scientific Theory of Evolution.
Indeed, legitimate references to "scientific authority" are simply reports on peer-reviewed work completed over many years.
That's how real science works.
So what is your problem with science?
Whether two specimens can produce a viable offspring in a lab is a good and simple definition. That is your boundary.
Why it exists: because random mutations are more likely to break an existing genome than create another viable genome: see “Hamlet” randomly becoming “Othello” through random copying errors.
That the experiment will take too long: not my problem, and with genetic engineering you might find ways to accelerate it. If you cannot stage any such experiment then you do not have a solid scientific proof. Too bad — stop then pretending that you do.
Your “peer-reviewed work” does not seem to make logical sense and can only defend itself by demeaning the opponents. It’s a cult, unlike real science.
Nature is not the same as a lab.
A "boundary" which exists in nature can be broken under laboratory conditions.
Species which do not interbreed in nature can be forced in a lab.
And are those offspring "viable"? What is your definition of "viable".
Viable-in-the-lab is not the same as viable-in-nature.
Indeed, genetic science advances every day, and interbreeding which was not possible, say, 25 years ago might today be routine.
So your alleged "boundary" keeps moving -- your goal-post is in constant motion.
That's why your alleged "boundary" is a total mirage.
And why do you even posit it?
What possible reason could you have for imagining something which clearly doesn't exist, and has no reason to even want to exist?
It makes no sense -- certainly not scientifically.
Theologically, of course I understand it.
Theologically it makes perfect sense, since your imaginary "boundary" could define the biblical idea of "kinds".
But there's no scientific evidence to support it.
The scientific reality is not some hard-and-fast "boundary", but rather a sliding scale of increasing difficulty to interbreed.
As I've explained now many times here, most "breeds" (i.e., of dogs) interbreed enthusiastically, while many "sub-species" interbreed only reluctantly, and related species do not interbreed except under forced conditions (i.e., a lab).
Moving up the scale, most genera cannot even be forced to successfully interbreed (i.e., African & Asian elephants), although in a few cases they do -- i.e., "beefalo".
The relevant point is this: a new "species" is created -- in your warped language "a species boundary is crossed" -- whenever previously interbreeding sub-species become so different they no longer interbreed in nature.
Simulating such a descent with modifications in a laboratory would be as simple as changing some critical DNA to prevent interbreeding of sub-species, and so by definition make a new species.
Whether such an "experiment" has ever been done I couldn't say, but what would be the point?
In nature such changes can take millions of years, and we can already see exactly what happened by comparing & contrasting DNA of different species.
annalex: "Your “peer-reviewed work” does not seem to make logical sense and can only defend itself by demeaning the opponents.
It’s a cult, unlike real science."
I accept your claim here as being nothing more than a woe-filled cry of angst against a science that you loathe and totally misunderstand.
But, if you can produce real examples of actual scientific reports which do what you claim, I'll try to be a good therapist and explain them logically.
The offsprings of interbreeding survive to maturity and are themselves capable to breed under the same conditions, i.e. at least in the lab, and form a colony that does not dwindle for many generations under controlled climate conditions.
Viable-in-the-lab is not the same as viable-in-nature.
Indeed, this is why it is an experiment that allows for compressed timescale. For example, if evolution from species proper to another species proper occurs in specially chosen climate and with artificial insemination, most people would agree that it would be a proof that real-time evolution is also possible, even though in real time it would be much slower.
Simulating such a descent with modifications in a laboratory would be as simple as changing some critical DNA to prevent interbreeding of sub-species
Well, it would depend of what kind of evolution you set out to prove. If you are proving the evolution with random mutations, then you would have to make your mutations perhaps accelerated, but they should also remain random: the intervention directed at getting a particular feature turned off or on would not be a valid experiment.
If, however, you want to prove a weaker hypothesis: that evolution is possible if someone directs it, then of course you can direct your mutations in the way that suits your goals. You still have to show that the descendant species, while not interbreeding, are themselves each viable: produce offspring and form a viable colony. You also have to somehow explain what had directed the mutations in real life.
And why do you even posit it?
Why, because setting aside some speculation how zebra 1 and zebra 2 are somehow "evolution in motion", the direct observation of mammals and birds is that their species are stable: you can only produce examples of speciation by fudging the definition of species, and at any rate you can only point to very similar animals. It ix natural to conjecture, as I do, that species proper do not evolve one to another at all: there is a boundary that does not get crossed.
Theologically it makes perfect sense [...] cry of angst
If evolution were real science you would not need to psychoanalyze your opponents. You would simply use facts and logic.
I have cited before examples of evolution "caught in the act" of speciation -- half way in the middle of forming a new "species boundary" (your term) which prevents them from producing viable offspring.
Of the three species of Zebras, to repeat, two can produce viable hybrids, but the third cannot -- at least not consistently.
Attempts to interbreed produce unusually high levels of miscarriage and still births.
Might some of those Zebra hybrid offspring be viable?
I don't know, but this example clearly illustrates the point that speciation in nature is not a simple matter of one mutation crossing a "species boundary".
Rather, it's the accumulation of many mutations, generation after generation, which leads to a long process among separated sub-groups of increasing difficulty in interbreeding.
So, using your term, a "species boundary" is what forms whenever sub-groups accumulate so many different mutations they cannot produce viable offspring.
By scientific definition then, where there was one species, now there are two, and this is illustrated in countless natural examples.
annalex: "For example, if evolution from species proper to another species proper occurs in specially chosen climate and with artificial insemination... "
Your term "species proper" is meaningless.
The scientific definition of "species" includes the ability to interbreed in nature.
When two different sub-species no longer interbreed, then they are classified by science as two separate species.
So that is your "species boundary."
And the ability of sub-species to interbreed is largely a function of the number and type of DNA mutations which accumulate generation by generation, typically over thousands or millions of generations.
Of course, simulating thousands or millions of generations in large creatures in a lab is impossible in real time.
And not necessary to confirm Evolution Theory, since we can see, through DNA analysis, exactly which mutations separate one group from another.
annalex: "Well, it would depend of what kind of evolution you set out to prove.
If you are proving the evolution with random mutations..."
I don't personally believe that anything is ever truly random, but rather God at some level directs everything.
Exactly where, how and why we will never really know, but the appearance of randomness in nature is one just tool God uses to enact His will, in my humble opinion.
So it's ultimately irrelevant to me exactly how "random" various mutations may or may not have been.
However, you have to ask this question: if God wishes for things to appear "random", would He not in His infinite wisdom have created them to actually be random?
In reference to alleged "randomness", I would invite you to look up the mathematical ideas in chaos theory, and particularly the notion of a "strange attractor".
In that language of directed randomness, God is the Great Attractor, who makes what appears random conform to His plans for the Universe.
That is my theological belief, and it leads me to suspect that we will never find scientifically the "Hidden Hand of God" within the "random" mutations that created all life on Earth, and eventually, us.
That's why as far as science is concerned, by definition of the word "science" these DNA changes were all just "random".
And I have no problem with that -- let scientists do their scientific "thing", as long as it's honest work, it's all good stuff as far as I'm concerned.
annalex: "If, however, you want to prove a weaker hypothesis: that evolution is possible if someone directs it..."
That is hardly a "weaker hypothesis", it's a confirmed fact as demonstrated by innumerable examples of humans working to develop new breeds for agricultural and other purposes.
Selective breeding and careful hybridization alone produce astonishing new varieties, and there is no imagining what might eventually result from DNA engineering.
So "directed evolution" is not a "hypothesis", its a fact.
annalex: "direct observation of mammals and birds is that their species are stable: you can only produce examples of speciation by fudging the definition of species, and at any rate you can only point to very similar animals.
It ix natural to conjecture, as I do, that species proper do not evolve one to another at all: there is a boundary that does not get crossed. "
As now demonstrated many times, all of that simply is not true:
annalex: "If evolution were real science you would not need to psychoanalyze your opponents.
You would simply use facts and logic."
When you claim science is a "cult" and working scientists are "cult authorities" then you have left the reservation of sanity, and entered the realm of psychoanalysis -- tell us poor dear, what is your problem, did some scientist drop you on your little head as a child, and that's why you can't think logically any more?
That is all language of disrespect, regarding which a certain wise Individual once directed we should "do unto others...", FRiend. ;-)
I did't not say it was simple. If your third breed of zebra eventually retains the ability to produce viable offspring and a stable colony within that breed, and completely loses the ability to interbreed with both other two in a lab setting, you will have speciation. So far, you have a breed that is distant from other two, but still the same genome, since interbred offspring is possible.
When two different sub-species no longer interbreed [in nature], then they are classified by science as two separate species.
So that "scientific" definition cannot be used to define the boundary (it is also logically meaningless because it depends on sexual behavior rather than on the genome). I defined the boundary that, I postulate, does not get crossed differently. Deal with it.
my theological belief
The point remains that there are two experiments possible, one with random mutations (for example using a lottery machine) and the other with directed mutations. Each will be useful to turn evolution into something resembling science, but each will prove a different thing compared to the other.
humans working to develop new breeds
Breeds, yes. Species, no, at least not species in the sense I prefer to use the term. Please pay attention to the matter being discussed.
1-4
Repeating your fantasies does not constitute a proof from observation. Breeds are fluid, species are not.
you claim science is a "cult"
I don't. I love, understand, and respect science. Evolution is not science. Once upon a time, -- when genetics were not known, roughly at the time of Darwin, -- it was a plausible scientific hypothesis, made in absence of real knowledge. Now, it is nothing but a cult. One of the characteristic of a cult is that it uses camouflage to look like something respectable, in this case, to look like science. Another is that the arguments are not done straight: for example, the same questionable claim (that breeding is speciation) is repeated as if it is not in dispute. And here you try to slander me as an enemy of science. Please find on this thread where I called science a cult, or retract your slander.
Obviously you don't understand, and that has to be at least half of your problem here.
I've provided you with numerous links to high-school level explanations of what biological sciences are all about, but you haven't read them, have you?
And the result is, you don't understand the difference even between a breed & sub-species, much less species & genera, do you?
Really, if you are going to pretend you have "scientific" objections to evolution, you should at least study some basic science, FRiend.
So (sigh) here we go again:
There are no "breeds" of Zebras in nature.
The lowest level of differentiation among Zebras is a sub-species.
Among Zebras there are five living sub-species of plains-zebras, two of mountain-zebras and one separate species, Grevy's.
The related Zebra sub-species can interbreed in nature, but those of different species do not.
So "species" classifications do not mean "impossible" to interbreed, only increasingly difficult.
But even among different genera in the same family interbreeding is not always impossible, example: "beefalo" hybrid from genus bos cattle and genus bison buffalo.
But this is only done in captivity, never seen in nature.
You might put it this way: what does not exist ("species boundary") among man-made breeds, begins with a slight reluctance to interbreed among natural sub-species, considerable difficulty among different species in the same genus, near impossibility among different genera in the same biological family, and total impossibility among different families in the same order.
As organisms become more-and-more separated by evolution, interbreeding becomes more-and-more difficult -- a "species reluctance" becomes a weak "species boundary" which eventually becomes an impenitrable "species border".
annalex: "...but still the same genome..."
Really, you need to crack a book and learn something of what you keep talking about.
"Genome" is not a biological classification.
Start by studying this.
annalex: "So that "scientific" definition cannot be used to define the boundary (it is also logically meaningless because it depends on sexual behavior rather than on the genome).
I defined the boundary that, I postulate, does not get crossed differently.
Deal with it."
You have really defined nothing, so there is nothing to "deal with".
But I have now explained -- over and over -- such reality as might correspond to some notions of "reluctance" or "boundary" or "reinforced border" preventing different species from interbreeding.
But even the previously "reinforced border" separating different biological families in the same order has already been penetrated by genetic engineers.
Today there are farmers raising genetically modified livestock bred to produce chemicals that come from genes of organisms in an entirely different biological Kingdom.
The point, yet again, is: in the long run, there are no "boundaries" or "borders", but only a question of the degree of difficulty in producing "viable" offspring.
annalex: "The point remains that there are two experiments possible, one with random mutations..."
No, not "possible".
Sure, I can also design an "experiment", requiring a very long lever that could be used to prove the claim by that ancient Greek Archimedes (circa 250 BC) that:
And I can stick my head in the sand and shout to all the world that until such an "experiment" is actually performed, then Archimedes is a liar, his ideas are just a "cult" and he nothing more than a "cult authority"!
And that would make as much logical sense as what you propose.
annalex: "Breeds, yes. Species, no, at least not species in the sense I prefer to use the term.
Please pay attention to the matter being discussed. "
No FRiend, you pay close attention -- to actual words with actual definitions.
In any reasoned conversation, especially on science, you don't get the right to invent your own words with your own definitions.
You have to use the accepted language that's given us, or no serious conversation is possible.
And I'm sorry to say it, but until you study and learn the real language of science, all you're doing is jabbering nonsense here.
annalex: "Breeds are fluid, species are not."
Species are just as "fluid" as breeds, but with more difficulty and over longer periods of time.
annalex: "I love, understand, and respect science."
No, as you've demonstrated here in post after post, you know nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about real science, and you despise what you think you do know.
annalex: "And here you try to slander me as an enemy of science.
Please find on this thread where I called science a cult, or retract your slander."
Your refusal to learn, and repeated mis-characterizations of even the grade-school basics of biological classifications, demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that you despise science itself, not "just" evolution.
Your claim that evolution is a "cult" is a slander on all of science -- since evolution is an integral part of science, and cannot be separated without destroying all of science -- and that makes you, in your word, an "enemy" of science.
You should retract all of it, and apologize for being so misguided.
Then crack a book. Learn something, FRiend. ;-)
"species" classifications do not mean "impossible" to interbreed, only increasingly difficult.
Very well. So prove to me that evolution of a subspecies (what I previously called "breed") leads to a different species, such that the breeding inside the new species is natural and leads to a healthy population, while the breeding with the old species is completely impossible. I postulate, you cannot.
No, not "possible".
You mean the experiment I defined is not possible? I agree, that's the whole point.
refusal to learn, and repeated mis-characterizations of even the grade-school basics of biological classifications,
Yawn. I don't need to learn your voodoo to know that it is voodoo. Go ahead, take a manatee and make an elephant, like you make those genetically modified crops. It is not a complicated challenge. When you do, wake me up.
You won't pay attention, you just won't learn what science is all about.
You obviously hate science and care only about attempting to discredit it.
In this case, you have not defined an "experiment", not even close.
First of all, the scientific definition of "species" does not include the term "completely impossible".
As I demonstrated in post #187 virtually nothing is "impossible".
What happens is that as evolution more-and-more separates one sub-species from another, interbreeding becomes more difficult and the offspring less viable in nature.
That would be your "species boundary" coming more-and-more into effect.
The examles of Zebra species and sub-species serve perfectly well to illustrate.
However, in captivity, in a laboratory, your "species boundary" is far less solid.
There species can be interbred and the offspring might be "viable" in a zoo.
And today, with genetic engineering, there is virtually no limit on inter-species interbreeding, since totally unrelated genes can be mixed and reproduced.
So nothing is truly "completely impossible", which means there is no real "species boundary."
Second, your request for an "experiment" which in nature could take millions of years is not serious science.
It simply shows how much you loathe and despise real science.
annalex: "You mean the experiment I defined is not possible?
I agree, that's the whole point."
And thus helps confirm my conclusion that you hate science.
annalex: "I don't need to learn your voodoo to know that it is voodoo."
Now you've added to your list of anti-science epithets: "cult" and "voodoo."
Really, I don't have a problem with your hating science, as long as you are honest about it.
If you think science is all a crock of nonsense, that is your total right, guaranteed in the US Constitution's First Amendment.
So believe whatever you wish to believe.
But if your are dishonest about it -- pretending to speak as some kind of scientist yourself, proposing "scientific experiments", claiming to have "scientific objections" to whatever you loathe, all the while demonstrating you actually know nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about real science; well then I'll have an interest in your shenanigans, and will make an effort to point out errors, FRiend.
;-)
Really? Fine, let the new species have the same probability of successfully mating in a lab with the old as a manatee today has with an elephant today, and let each species have the same probability of producing a healthy offspring as a manatee has with a manatee and an elephant has with an elephant.
What happens is that as evolution more-and-more separates one sub-species from another, interbreeding becomes more difficult and the offspring less viable in nature. That would be your "species boundary" coming more-and-more into effect
Aha. Show me, -- not by waving hands in the air and cute pictures but with experiment, like an adult scientist. Take a manatee, make an elephant. Take a zebra, make a monkey. Something. Please.
your request for an "experiment" which in nature could take millions of years is not serious science.
Not my problem, and I did not ask to observe it in nature. I said, use genetic engineering and accelerate the mutations. And if you cannot prove your hypothesis, call it what it is, a hypothesis.
point out errors
I am grateful for pointing any errors of mine, but I think you could not overcome my evo-skepticism in substance. Further, there has been so much switching of definitions, substituting one claim for another, psychologizing your opponent, arguing over words, segueing into theology, and arguing from authority, that I think the real damage to science is being done by your side.
FRiend, just this week I learned a brand new term, never heard it before.
In that case the term was applied to political discourse, but equally applies, I think, to a large portion of your postings here.
The term is: "word salad"
"Word salad is a mixture of random words that, while arranged in phrases that appear to give them meaning, actually carry no significance.
The words may or may not be grammatically correct, but the meaning is hopelessly confused."
You keep producing "word salads" which have no real meanings, certainly no scientific meanings.
For examples:
You're not really defining a scientific "experiment", you're just stringing random words together, in a "word salad", and even your intentions are not scientific.
You are obviously hoping to make a point (a ridiculous point) by using scientific sounding words to discredit science.
But your fundamental problem is that you obviously understand nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about real science, and so all you can really do is produce random "word salads".
annalex: "Take a manatee, make an elephant.
Take a zebra, make a monkey. Something. Please."
You haven't understood even a single word of what's been posted here, have you?
So all you can do is blather "word salads" which make no sense scientifically.
In your examples, fossils and DNA suggest that evolution produced manatees and elephants from common ancestors which lived about 50 million years ago.
So evolution itself did not "Take a manatee, make an elephant," even after 50 million years.
Why then would you "demand" to see such a magic trick performed in a lab in just a few years?
Fossils and DNA suggest that evolution produced zebras and monkeys from common ancestors which lived about 100 million years ago.
So evolution itself did not "take a zebra, make a monkey," even after 100 million years.
Why then would you "demand" to see such a magic trick performed in a lab in just a few years?
annalex: "Not my problem, and I did not ask to observe it in nature.
I said, use genetic engineering and accelerate the mutations.
And if you cannot prove your hypothesis, call it what it is, a hypothesis."
And still more word salad.
"Genetic engineering" does not "accelerate the mutations".
What it can do is produce hybrids by taking entire DNA sequences from one species and "gene splicing" them into another.
This process could eliminate any "species boundary" that exists in nature.
And what exact "hypothesis" do you wish to see proved?
Descent with modifications and natural selection are not scientific hypotheses, they are often-confirmed facts.
The evolution of species over millions of years is also not a scientific "hypothesis", but rather a theory confirmed by innumerable observations of fossils, DNA and other supporting evidence from different branches of science -- i.e., geology.
annalex: "Further, there has been so much switching of definitions, substituting one claim for another, psychologizing your opponent, arguing over words, segueing into theology, and arguing from authority, that I think the real damage to science is being done by your side."
I have not "switched definitions".
I have not "substituted one claim for another".
I have not "psychologized" you in any way, except to note the weirdness of your epithets "cult", "cult authority" and "voodoo".
I have not "argued over words", I have defined them, correctly.
I have only "segued into theology" when necessary to explain the limitations of natural science -- i.e., God directed "randomness".
And, by the way, this is a religion forum, so it is entirely appropriate here to discuss science and religion together. Why do you refuse?
And how could that "do damage" to science?
I have only "argued from the authority" of truth, facts, confirmed theories, accepted word definitions, etc.
And how can that possibly "do real damage" to science?
Finally, science itself does not in the least depend on my limited abilities to defend it here on Free Republic.
Nor will your ridiculous "word salads" have any negative effect.
Here's the bottom line: the truths of science exist entirely within the natural realm, beyond which science cannot and does not extend (segue into theology if desired).
But within its own realm science is a function of what scientists produce and write about their ideas.
So, for you to scientifically dispute them, you must first learn their language, their ideas and their methods.
You can't just jabber "word salads" at them and expect to have some effect, FRiend.
;-)
confirmed by your fellow cultists and believed by your fellow cultists.
I think my position and criticism of the evolutionary hypothesis has been clear to any reader throughout the thread. Prove the hypothesis by making one species from another: one distinct species from another distinct species. Two subspecies of Zebras that still can produce viable offspring in the lab do not constitute that proof. Creatures that exist today and have similar features do not constitute such proof either: similarity does not prove genetic relation. I leave the choice of the two species to you; obviously the second species does not have to be anything that exists today, but it has be as different from species 1 as a manatee is from elephant.
The last post of yours, by the way, was another example of arguing about words rather than about substance.
That is meaningless "word salad" because:
annalex: "The last post of yours, by the way, was another example of arguing about words rather than about substance."
Precise definitions and usage of words are extraordinarily important in science, else communication amongst scientists would be impossible.
The fact that you have no understanding, and no respect for word definitions dictates the efforts I put into unscrambling your otherwise meaningless "word-salads".
annalex: "confirmed by your fellow cultists and believed by your fellow cultists."
Your continued ridiculous anti-science epithets ("cult", "voodoo"), combined with your repeated demand that science, in effect, perform a magic trick in a laboratory, help confirm my hypothesis that you misunderstand and loathe science itself.
So you may be beyond any help I could provide here, FRiend.
It is about one month and you are not past the main point of criticism that I set forth on this thread. No one argues that random mutations do not occur. Please read back my posts and figure out what the objection to your theories is.
"Natural selection", the second key element of evolution is also not a "hypothesis", it's a many-times observed and confirmed fact.
Ditto, no one does indeed. I certainly don't. Read back and find where I denied natural selection leading to breeds or subspecies, -- and that is where it has been observed "many times".
begin to meet the criteria
Now that IS a word salad. The criteria are a funny thing: they are either met or not met.
counting up the DNA changes
Or tea leaves. Have you tried tea leaves? You postulate that random mutations lead to speciation, then you count differnces in two different species and claim that these are "DNA changes" They may just as soon be simply two genomes, not related to one another.
In short, if you cannot figure out what the argument against your hypothesis is, why do you waste your time and mine? This makes true science look very, very bad.
you have no understanding, and no respect for word definitions
Well, I will appreciate corrections, but at the same time, I am not a biologist. If you cannot refute my posts other than by pointing out that here and there I used a layman's term, then again, this is what lawyers do, not what scientists do.
demand that science, in effect, perform a magic trick in a laboratory
That really takes the cake. Ever heard that in science hypotheses ARE proven by experimentation? I ALLOWED for laboratory setting to accelerate your experiment. If you instead endeavor to conduct the necessary experiments in the wild, good luck.
You have yet to make a coherent or cogent argument.
Random mutations are a confirmed fact which helps confirm evolution as a theory, not "hypothesis".
That's the reason I included this point in my list.
annalex: "Read back and find where I denied natural selection leading to breeds or subspecies, -- and that is where it has been observed "many times".
Anything often observed and confirmed is a fact, not a hypothesis.
The fact of natural selection is one foundation for the theory of evolution.
annalex: "Now that IS a word salad.
The criteria are a funny thing: they are either met or not met."
I have now many times explained the process and scientific criteria of speciation.
You have just as frequently jabbered "word salads" to the effect that you disagree and dislike scientific ideas on the subject.
In some of your more colorful language, you call them "voodoo" and "cults".
annalex: "You postulate that random mutations lead to speciation, then you count differnces in two different species and claim that these are "DNA changes"
They may just as soon be simply two genomes, not related to one another."
According to various studies there are thousands of mammal species, tens of thousands of bird, reptile and fish species and millions of other species.
In addition, thousands of extinct species have been identified from fossils.
But, no scientific fact, theory or hypothesis I know of claims that any or all of these species are not more or less distantly related.
Nor has any scientific hypothesis ever been proposed to explain how the earth might be populated by thousands and millions of unrelated species.
Occum's Razor among other ideas, suggests the simplest scientific explanation is best: all DNA driven species descended from common ancestors, some as far back as hundreds of millions of years ago.
annalex: "In short, if you cannot figure out what the argument against your hypothesis is, why do you waste your time and mine?
This makes true science look very, very bad."
Your anti-science "word salads" cannot possibly make "true science look very, very bad."
annalex: "Well, I will appreciate corrections, but at the same time, I am not a biologist.
If you cannot refute my posts other than by pointing out that here and there I used a layman's term, then again, this is what lawyers do, not what scientists do."
Interesting that you should pretend to know just "what scientists do," immediately after admitting that you are "not a biologist".
I would suggest a central disconnect in your reasoning: on the one hand you admit to no understanding of the basics of biological science (i.e., species classifications), while on the other hand you demand as "proof" of your misunderstandings of evolution theory, that scientists perform magic tricks in a laboratory, turning elephants into manatees, and zebras into monkeys.
And as long as scientists can't pull magic monkeys out of zebras, you'll insist science is all just "voodoo" and "cult".
I'm saying you speak "word salad" and thus cannot possibly harm real science.
As for my efforts here, it's likely true they waste your time, but I'm not yet convinced it wastes mine, FRiend. ;-)
annalex: "Ever heard that in science hypotheses ARE proven by experimentation?
I ALLOWED for laboratory setting to accelerate your experiment."
More "word salad."
Duh.
You've got a cult. Understand the argument, then get back to me. Incantations of your belief system won't work; you've posted them a number of times already and I pointed out what, exactly, needs a scientific proof, and what is indeed an observed fact.
I’ve often heard Drosophila flies used to foil the Theory of Evolution. The argument goes that experimenters cannot genetically alter them through natural selection or even gene manipulation into a new species. Is that correct?
Word Salad = Cognitive Dissonance
Global Warming = Evolution 2.0
Word Salad = Cognitive Dissonance
Global Warming = Evolution 2.0
By my count, that's the 12th time on this thread you've called science a "cult".
In no case is the epithet accurate or appropriate, as I've pointed out.
But you continue to use it, no doubt as a substitute for serious scientific argument, suggesting that perhaps you have no serious arguments to make, and can only hurl abusive terms instead.
annalex: "Understand the argument, then get back to me."
I've already understood and posted answers to every argument and even those "word salads" you've made here.
If you disagree, then go back and find even one of your arguments that I did not post a (often lengthy) response to.
You, on the other hand, made very few serious responses to my posts here, beyond repeating such terms as "cult" and "voodoo".
Do you disagree? Then cite an example.
annalex: "I pointed out what, exactly, needs a scientific proof, and what is indeed an observed fact."
What you've actually done is just blather word-salads at scientific questions.
The "experiment" that you fantasize, and the "proof" you imagine are neither scientific nor necessary to establish evolution as a confirmed theory.
But you obviously are not interested in real science, only in spouting words ("cult", "voodoo") you hope will somehow discredit it.
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.