Dolphin May Have 'Remains' of Legs
Posted on 04/28/2008 5:21:00 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)
Hank
Dolphin May Have 'Remains' of Legs
The answer is simple: natural selection. Deleterious mutations quickly work their way out of the gene pool.
Exceptions to this are obvious -- artificial environments, like inbreeding, where good genes don't have a chance to compete with bad genes and situations where normally deleterious mutations actually provide a selective advantage (Tay Sachs and Sickle Cell being prominent examples).
Mutations that confer a selective advantage may be relatively rare, but because of the low survival and reproduction rate of most animals in the world, even a small selective advantage can be tremendously significant and that trait will generally spread quickly by the process of gene flow.
You could show some of these people evolution in action and they would still deny it. They are the same people who buy those Japanese pads you put on your feet to get rid of cellulite.
Two methodologies used by atheist/secular humanist/evolutionists to “prove” their theology -
“extravagent extrapolation”
“proof by arrogant condescension”
What is a "medical professional," and why does this sobriquet sound suspiciously euphemistic to me?
Give us a try... Show us one kind of animal developing into another kind of animal in an experimental setting.
1. Argument by Namecalling. In your short post you did this several times. Examples: using the non-word "evolutionist," subsequently labeling scientists "atheists" and "secular humanists," and then referring to evolutionary science as "theology."
2. Argument by absurdism. Example: "I haven't ever seen a frog turn into a prince, so evolution can't be occuring!"
3. Argument by fable. "Somebody told me once that way back in 1921, scientists discovered a dinosaur and a cave man in the same rock strata. So there!"
I suggest that the animal forms we see now have always existed as they do, but have minor variations within species, which can arise from a variety of sources, largely genetic recombination, and which has the effect of allowing specie continuity in the face of minor environmental changes, such as the case of pale and dark moths on trees darkened by industrial smoke pollution. It is interesting to note that the vast majority of sea dwelling animals, including the mammals, have an overall "fish" structure. The starfish and octopi are minimally represented.
The assertion is that the basic forms of life today have always existed as they are, and those forms are dictated by the environment. The geological evidence is that the enviroment has, within the history of life on the planet, been quite variable in terms of providing the conditions that are amenable to many of the life forms that we have today.
Flying Spaghetti Monster anyone?
Step back a moment. “Creationism” hasn’t been taught exclusively in secular humanist indoctrination centers since around 1925. At that time, the SH’s were demanding that both theories be taught, given equal time.
Now, we have a very seriously flawed extravagant extrapolation theology being taught exclusively, and if anyone so much as teaches that there might be questions about it, they SH’s go screaming to a gov’t court in order to get that person silenced.
Yes, again I said THEOLOGY. You need to understand the definition of this word. Atheism and evolution are THEOLOGY.
Yes, I knew you did not finish the article.
“Mutations that confer a selective advantage may be relatively rare, but because of the low survival and reproduction rate of most animals in the world, even a small selective advantage can be tremendously significant and that trait will generally spread quickly by the process of gene flow.”
You missed the point. This is not attempt to disprove evolution. The point is, so far, there is no actual evidence of it, and it’s not the only possible explanation. Take your statement. You know this, how? It’s just a supposition, a plausible one maybe, but not demonstrated.
No one doubts there are “evolutionary changes” within a species, as the author points out, but there is absolutely no evidence of mutation ever resulting in a new species.
Hank
She’s a practicing registered nurse.
It sounded suspicious to you because you are used to the usual academic hubris of today’s pseudointellectuals.
What difference would it make anyway. Are you impressed by authority. Read the article.
Hank
Off the top of my head: there have actually been dozens of speciation events in the lab involving species of Drosophila ("fruit flies").
Drosophila is exceptionally easy to work with since they're genetically simple and reproduce at a high rate. Whereas if you were working with large mammals, you'd need to run an experiment for thousands of years. As you might suspect, NIH is reluctant to fund experiments quite that long.
NOTE: Ok, I actually looked it up, and in addition to Drosophila, speciation events in the lab have also been observed with bottle flies, lab rat worms, Gall former flies, flour beetles and apple maggot flies.
Didn’t read the article I see.
Yes, Drosophilia has been mutated into all sorts of forms of... mutated Drosophilia.
I guess if you loosen your definition of speciation, you can say that it happened.
But it’s still the same “kind” of organism.
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour."
- Don Hirschberg, in a letter to Ann Landers
“OK so she’s explains why she believes evolution to be wrong.”
No she doesn’t. She explains that until the questions she raises have been answere, evolution is not a science, only a conjecture. Perhaps you can explain why you cannot read.
“Why should we accept Intelligent Design is right?”
I don’t know why you should. She doesn’t. You really cannot read, can you.
She offers nothing in support of any alternative.
Good grief!
Hank
I did. Toward the bottom, she throws out ID and evolution and claims that species are fixed but shaped (somehow) by the environment. She is a woman with big opinions and very few facts.
At the bottom it says that she was involved with genetics. I found another article by her promoting euthanizing the elderly, where it says that she was involved in medicine, but she has been a full-time writer since 1996 at least. She was probably a nurse.
hmmm.. I used the word “theology”
you quoted someone using the word “religion”,
proving my point.
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.