Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: annalex
I am not a dumb man, have an applied math degree, and worked all my life gainfully employed in engineering.

I know more than a few engineer creationists - 2 in my family alone. It's taken me a long time to reconcile how intelligent people can have such a gap in their willingness to accept biological science. Is it because results are often difficult to come by immediately? Or because you can't necessarily control the forces of nature? It is an interesting question.

But your opposition to 160 years of solid theory, on the basis of your engineering background, does nothing to diminish the strength of the theory. Sorry. I know engineers hate that.

I can understand a scientific theory when I see one.

Good. Then let's go have a beer now that you've come to accept the fact of evolution.

Anyway, I see you're the type of creationist who accepts evolution and all its tenets - except you can't wrap your head around speciation for some reason. Ring species mean nothing to you, nor does the fossil record. Ok... let's discount reality for a moment and pose a simple question: What is the biological mechanism wherein alleles "know" not to change anymore than just a little "subspecies" bit over millennia or millions of years?

It MUST exist, right? You accept lots of tiny "subspecies" speciation. So you must know the biochemical switch that shuts off when that type of speciation gets to be just a bit too much. Note: Your discovery WILL be published if we can repeat your results.
147 posted on 05/26/2012 8:46:15 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies ]


To: whattajoke

Speciation is the root of its problem. In order for the evolution between species to work for advanced animals (those that have few and vulnerable offspring) there must be a sufficient probability of beneficial mutations occurring in a population, while birth defects — what mutations statistically are — remaining at relatively low probability. I have not seen a proof from observation that it is the case. Statistics militate against it: if you have a random copy error and you start with “Hamlet”, you will not statistically speaking end up with “Othello” no matter how long you wait.

That’s all there is to it; there is nothing to psychoanalize evo-skeptics for. Anyone with an engineer’s mind and training, who has the courage to tell the king that he has no clothes, will see through it, and many do.


149 posted on 05/26/2012 11:58:08 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson