Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution debate persists because it's not science
The Sun News ^ | February 23, 2009 | By Raymond H. Kocot

Posted on 02/22/2009 10:58:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 651-661 next last
To: Alamo-Girl; xzins; Does so; editor-surveyor; GodGunsGuts; hosepipe; betty boop; TXnMA; ...

Evolution, the theory, is called more properly “The Origin of Species.” That was Darwin’s title.

Evolution requires change over a period of time. Time then, by deductive reasoning must also have a beginning.

The flaw in the evolutionist logic is that life did not come from the earth, because the earth came from somewhere else as well.

Life came from somewhere else...

The notion that children need to be indoctrinated and badgered into thinking a certain way is the insecurity of adults, a universal dissatisfaction with mortality reaching out for an eternal ideal. Whether this is done by atheists or by the religious, it is exactly the same.

Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the “missing link” Louis Leaky searched Olduvai Gorge 30 years in vain for...

But the singularity of all life is the DNA molecule according to modern science. All living things have it. With DNA being like the singularity of the “big bang” theory, evolutionists make the inadvertent admission life is some sort of immaculate conception. (pun intended)


501 posted on 02/25/2009 5:10:59 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Science and scientists will never be able to touch the essence of what makes a man a man and sets him apart from animals within the parameters of that men have currently set for science.

I can...

The only thing that makes man civilized is the ability for the weakest to kill the strongest.

Nature is pure war, with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep peace; so man is civilized by the restraint of violence against him for trangressions upon his neighbor.

502 posted on 02/25/2009 5:13:20 AM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood; betty boop; Alamo-Girl
[ Man did not come from apes... Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the “missing link” Louis Leaky searched Olduvai Gorge 30 years in vain for... ]

Science fiction must seem to be very logical...
Reality does not have to be, reality has nothing to prove..

Adam and Eve can seem to be myth but so can men coming from a monkey... No really.. ultimately from a "mud hole" of proteins.. that magically became Life.. and THEN became monkeys..

If the third human on earth did NOT come from the first two..
A very creative Yarn MUST be spun.. to explain it..

503 posted on 02/25/2009 7:28:22 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood; hosepipe; betty boop; xzins; Does so; editor-surveyor; GodGunsGuts; TXnMA
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear Sir Francis Dashwood!

But the singularity of all life is the DNA molecule according to modern science. All living things have it.

Dead things also have DNA. DNA survives physical death.

Life is not DNA.

Having DNA is a characteristic or description of living things much like the ability to reproduce, etc. - but it doesn't tell anyone what life "is."

As betty boop and I have said on many threads, information (Shannon: successful communication) is the difference between life and non-life/death in nature.

The Shannon mathematical theory of communications is the foundation of "Information Theory" - a branch of math.

And under Shannon's model, information is the reduction of uncertainty (Shannon entropy) in the receiver (or molecular machine) as it goes from a before state to an after state.

It is not the message (DNA) but the successful communication of it. When the living organism stops communicating it is dead.

504 posted on 02/25/2009 12:24:06 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; betty boop; xzins; Does so; editor-surveyor; ...
"...Man supposedly came from a common ancestor - the “missing link” Louis Leaky searched Olduvai Gorge 30 years in vain for..."

Have you read how he did it? He went back, year after year, to search for bones that had been eroded from the soil by wind and rain. The missing link (or links) will emerge eventually. A million years or so of volcanic soil-building takes awhile to erode.

Leaky hardly searched in vain: much has been found, catalogued and added to the physical encyclopedia of our origins.

"...Man did not come from apes..."

The answer to that is at the end of your fingers. If you look, you will see various shapes. The preponderant shape is the "arch" type fingerprint. The lower anthropoids you dismiss so readily also have "arch" type fingerprints. Like humans, they, too, can be positively identified through fingerprints.

Why do we share so many physical attributes, and even some emotional attributes? (Like loneliness) Why have fingerprints been retained (IMO) for humans, or why are they shared in the first place?

Criminals who have had their fingerprints removed are hardly physically handicapped in any manner that I can see. Their ability to manage hand tools is unimpeded.

We hardly need them on our palms and feet, but there they are! Why should they be so similar—even down to fingerprint shapes?

505 posted on 02/25/2009 1:38:22 PM PST by Does so (White House uncomfortable? Sleeplessness? The 0bama will quit before 6 months are up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 501 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

Your behavior on these threads says more about your immaturity than anything you have to say about others.

Your ridicule is doing less to make your opponents look bad than it does to you yourself.


506 posted on 02/25/2009 2:21:46 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 499 | View Replies]

To: Does so

Man did not evolve from apes. Man supposedly has a common ancestor with apes...

Just like I said... You need to study evolutionary theory a little more in detail...


507 posted on 02/25/2009 3:14:50 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: Does so; Sir Francis Dashwood; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; xzins; editor-surveyor
The answer to that is at the end of your fingers. If you look, you will see various shapes. The preponderant shape is the "arch" type fingerprint. The lower anthropoids you dismiss so readily also have "arch" type fingerprints. Like humans, they, too, can be positively identified through fingerprints.

For this "evidence" to be dispositive, you would need to show that a similarity of form necessarily proves common descent.

It may well be that Nature, ever parsimonious and efficient, uses only a finite number of "forms" in biology. Indeed, IIRC from Stephen Wolfram's A New Kind of Science (2002), the number of general biological "body plans" that have be observed in Nature, directly or though fossils, is amazingly small, 14 or so.

Perhaps some would argue that the paucity of general body plans is yet further "evidence" of common descent. But that would be a circular argument that can prove nothing except some people are pre-committed to this doctrine, and the faulty line of reasoning used to defend it.

In short, for common descent to be "true," we need to show a bit more than formal resemblances among species.

I'm not "against" the idea of common descent. I just don't think the way the problem as typically imagined by your standard neo-Darwinist is particularly illuminating. FWIW.

508 posted on 02/25/2009 3:22:16 PM PST by betty boop (The world is in God by participating in God through being and action.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
No really.. ultimately from a "mud hole" of proteins.. that magically became Life..

My point exactly... in a different vein...

If evolutionists jeeringly claim the creationists believe in a flying spaghetti monster, then evolutionists must believe in a magical boiling primordial pot of spaghetti sauce.

The earth came from somewhere else, as all things in the universe are in motion. Life also came from somewhere else and it will not always exist (that is of course, unless evolutionists believe in eternal life).

Logic eludes a lot of them...

How would evolutionists feel about teaching life came from outer space? The public schools already teach the "big bang theory.

There is also no evidence at all that any species was not brought here or engineered by extraterrestrials.

509 posted on 02/25/2009 3:24:07 PM PST by Sir Francis Dashwood (Arjuna, why have you have dropped your bow???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 503 | View Replies]

To: Does so
Have you read how he did it? He went back, year after year, to search for bones that had been eroded from the soil by wind and rain. The missing link (or links) will emerge eventually. A million years or so of volcanic soil-building takes awhile to erode.

What great faith.

510 posted on 02/25/2009 6:09:37 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 505 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Does so; Sir Francis Dashwood; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; xzins; editor-surveyor
Thank you so much for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!

I recall reading that some 50 phyla or body plans "suddenly" appeared in the Cambrian explosion and all but about 30 of them didn't make it.

More astonishing than that, there have been no new body plans since. One must ask why that is so if evolution continues apace?

That Wolfram reduced the basic body plans to 14 instead of those numbers doesn't surprise me either. Cellular automata is more structured IMHO than self-organizing complexity. And of course it is forward looking rather than backward looking like taxonomy.

511 posted on 02/25/2009 10:03:58 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; xzins; editor-surveyor; Alamo-Girl; betty boop
"...Man supposedly has a common ancestor with apes...Just like I said...You need to study evolutionary theory a little more in detail..."

Studying "in great detail" for a pre-Med degree (and particularly Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy) has opened my eyes.

Ultimately, my career in medical studies was cut short by my inabilities in Organic Chemistry; later, subscriptions to scientific periodicals—and a completed career in Forensic Science—has helped to confirm the elegance of evolutionary "theory".

"...One must ask why that is so if evolution continues apace...?

1) We know that blue-eyed mankind didn't exist until about 10,000 years ago. Perhaps it was selected-for a light-gathering advantage in the upper latitudes of northern Europe: perhaps it was selected-for "sex appeal". In any case, "Demograpics is Destiny", as stated in Rummy's rules.

IOW, blue-eyed people are being selected-against by malignant forces of Humanity. (In case you hadn't noticed). The blue-eyed people of the world will be phased-out through no fault of Darwin's. Through DNA, future Paleontologists will record the actual period through which those non-fit, blue-eyed, people lived.

2) Evolution does continue "apace": most significantly among Insecta. (As our generation observes).

"...What great faith...

Not really. My faith in Darwin was disclosed to me in small increments. One could say it "evolved".

To become a medical doctor, Evolution must be studied and observed.

(While Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy is one of many Electives, Embryology is not normally an Elective).

Darwin's is a very elegant "theory" that every medical doctor in the US must study and can expect to apply directly or indirectly every day: Veterinarians, too, of course.

Scientologists and 7th-day Adventists, as just two examples, are not strongly attached to Science, Medicine, or Evolution. But then, I don't know any who are medical doctors, either.

:-\

512 posted on 02/25/2009 11:55:25 PM PST by Does so (White House uncomfortable? Sleeplessness? The 0bama will quit before 6 months are up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Does so

Does not....


513 posted on 02/26/2009 4:22:48 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; betty boop; Does so; Sir Francis Dashwood; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; xzins; ...

Commonalities speak just as much to a common designer as they do to a common process.

In all of this, though, rings the words of a 70’s song with the line “God save the people from despair.”

Too often we are slow to communicate ideas to the regular folk. But Jesus thanked His Father that He had revealed the things of the Kingdom of Heaven to the simple, and not to the worldly wise.

These wise ones reject the truth of the Kingdom, not because they are busy seeking truth, but because they are not of His children to begin with....and most never will be.

Our God who can raise up children of Abraham from these stones....


514 posted on 02/26/2009 5:07:07 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: xzins; betty boop; Does so; TXnMA; DallasMike; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; MHGinTN
Beautifully, beautifully said, dear brother in Christ!

These wise ones reject the truth of the Kingdom, not because they are busy seeking truth, but because they are not of His children to begin with....and most never will be.

Our God who can raise up children of Abraham from these stones....

Precisely. For instance...

Correlation is not causation.

That a great many storks are seen at the same time a great many babies are born does not establish cause/effect. That injury to the physical brain affects behavior does not establish that there is no ghost in the machine or that the mind is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain, which is to say, a secondary phenomenon which can cause nothing to happen.

Scientists understand this very important principle - and yet atheists who advocate their worldview under the color of science seem to ignore it or use it whichever is convenient to their objective at the time.

Ditto for the principle, very important in physics, that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The one advocating either a worldview or a theory in the historical sciences (anthropology, archeology, evolution, Egyptology, etc.) is liable to use it or the opposite of it, whichever is convenient at the time.

Ditto for the choice of probability - combinatorics or Bayesian - depending on which one in convenient at the time, to argue for or against a worldview or theory.

Ditto for complexity models, whichever is convenient.

But when any such thing is used to argue about God, it is all vanity, because...

Man is not the measure of God.

That a person cannot perceive God through his own senses and reasoning does not constitute proof that God does not exist, only that he cannot perceive Him.

That a person can perceive a correlation or coincidence in nature does not establish cause/effect or prove that God did not do it either through nature or by supernaturally intervening in nature. It only establishes that that particular coincidence or correlation exists in nature. As Einstein said "Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous."

And there is only one way to know of a certainty that God is the Creator. But just like I cannot know your mind, man cannot know the mind of God except as God Himself reveals it to him.

But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed [them] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. - I Corinthians 2:6-16

No doubt science proceeds under the presumption of equality in perception - that two observers running the same test will achieve roughly the same result.

And no doubt there are many who would demand equal spiritual perception as well. But that too is vanity.

God reveals Himself according to His own will, selectively and not equally.(emphasis mine:)

Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word. - John 8:43

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. - Romans 8:9

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - John 1:12-13

To God be the glory!

515 posted on 02/26/2009 9:33:38 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Does so; Sir Francis Dashwood; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; xzins; GodGunsGuts; Alamo-Girl; ...
"To become a medical doctor, Evolution must be studied and observed."

If so, you have added another reason (as if we need another) to never darken the door of a MD.

Steering clear of MDs has done wonders for me and my family, and this could explain why. There are still a few good doctors out there, but none seem to have been added in the last 30 years or so. All the recent additions to the fold have learned to profit from death, and understand that to cure is to go bankrupt. Give them drugs to disguise their symptoms, and as a bonus, each and every drug adds new ailments to the patient's woes, requiring even more drugs to disguise, but never ever curing a soul.

Viva Evolution! Product of the new 'science' and the new 'morality.'

516 posted on 02/26/2009 12:13:57 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 512 | View Replies]

To: xzins; editor-surveyor; Sir Francis Dashwood; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; GodGunsGuts; Alamo-Girl
An FR post today describes the human-like footprints of a progenitor living in Africa 1.8M years ago:

"...The find casts important new light on the evolution of humanity’s upright stride, suggesting that Homo erectus, an ancestral species that emerged about 1.8 million years ago, walked with an upright gait little different from our own..."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5812463.ece

While you are definitely not going to want to call this slope-browed, hairy guy "Dad", his gait and footprint is just like our own.

On another note, I found it interesting that most humans' little toe never touchs the ground! (Ask your Podiatrist).

This is consistent with the model for mammalian species to have five fingers and five toes. (Or, in some mammalians' skeletal reminders of five fingers and five toes hidden beneath skin).

I thought perhaps it was due to the genetic limitations of the 10,000 or so human beings that survived the Sumatra super-vocanic cataclysm of 74,000 years ago; however, based on the article, it appears to have been ingrained in our DNA some 1.8M years ago.

Louis Leakey should have been looking in that layer of volcanic soil (where the footprints were found). :)

More on the recent development of blue-eyed people and the cataclysm (near bottom of page).

http://survive2012.com/news/labels/evolution.html

Another article describes the Sumatra super-volcano that reduced the Neandertal and Cro-Magnon populations to a few thousand individuals 74,000 years ago: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1202/1202blast.txt

The article points out that the Yellowstone Park super-volcano could cause another "leap" in human evolution, decimating Humanity's DNA pool to a few thousand "fit-and-savvy-survivors" once again.

517 posted on 02/27/2009 1:17:00 AM PST by Does so (White House uncomfortable? Sleeplessness? The 0bama will quit before 6 months are up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 514 | View Replies]

To: Does so; xzins; editor-surveyor; Sir Francis Dashwood; hosepipe; YHAOS; metmom; GodGunsGuts; ...
a gait and footprint like our own

Certainly doesn't injure any argument about a designer using a common design.

Thanks for the info.

518 posted on 02/27/2009 8:43:08 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 517 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Does so
Thank you both for sharing your insights!

"Coincidence is God's way of remaining anonymous." - Einstein


519 posted on 02/27/2009 10:19:59 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 518 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Does so; Sir Francis Dashwood; hosepipe; YHAOS; allmendream; metmom; xzins; ...
More astonishing than that, there have been no new body plans since. One must ask why that is so if evolution continues apace?

Well, that's a puzzle! In addition to the fact that we see no new body plans since the Cambrian, the very fact that the number of body plans is finite (and small, whether 30 or 14) would seem to argue against the idea of evolution as a simple random walk. If Darwin's theory is true, then we should be seeing gadzillions of "failed body plans" in the fossil record. Where are they?

Or so it seems to me, FWIW. Thank you ever so much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!

520 posted on 02/27/2009 10:58:01 AM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 511 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

So why do you suppose that a dolphin looks so much like a fish?

Inherent in that answer is the answer to your question.


521 posted on 02/27/2009 11:06:32 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I strongly agree! There should be many more body plan attempts and failures in the geologic record.

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dearest sister in Christ!

522 posted on 02/27/2009 11:48:12 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; Does so
So why do you suppose that a dolphin looks so much like a fish?

Inherent in that answer is the answer to your question.

The same reason that a submarine does.

Inherent in that answer is the answer to your question.

523 posted on 02/27/2009 11:58:38 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: xzins

LOLOL!


524 posted on 02/27/2009 12:07:34 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
So why do you suppose that a dolphin looks so much like a fish?

Because both are "naturally selected" to swim in water? And thus must have similar body plans? Well fine, allmendream. But you still haven't answered my point about the non-appearance of large numbers of "failed" body plans in the fossil record.

To put it another way, random mutations will not be "selected for" if they do not provide fitness value for survival and self-perpetuation. The fossil landscape should be littered with evidence of creatures whose mutations did not provide fitness value.

Just in the case of fitness to survive in an aquatic environment would require a body plan that is hydrodynamically suitable. "Nature" would have to "select" for this. Fish and dolphins "made the grade." (The first a member of the superclass Pisces, the second, a mammal.) But how many random mutations were there that didn't "make the grade?" Shouldn't there be evidence that they once existed, even if they weren't sufficiently viable in terms of survival fitness in their natural environmental niche to leave many offspring?

Then again, given that evolution reveals very few basic biological body plans, are we to understand this as the result of a long trial-and-error search by Nature to come up with just those few suitable basic forms? If so, we can see the "successes." But where are the "failures" in the fossil record?

allmendream, do you think such questions are meaningless? If so, please tell us why.

Thank you so much for writing!

525 posted on 02/27/2009 12:17:40 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Where are the failures in the fossil record?

That is like asking why you don't see failed auto designs on the road. For an animal to be fossilized is a one in a million shot. “Failed” body plans don't get to grow into the million population group, they die young if they are even born at all.

So a non streamlined dolphin born with a big obstruction that drags in the water will not live to produce a large number of descendants among whom a fossil will most likely be preserved.

But a more streamlined dolphin will live to reproduce a more streamlined pack of descendants, and among those one might well get fossilized.

The fossil record is a record of animals that were prolific and successful enough to “win the odds” at being fossilized.

526 posted on 02/27/2009 12:24:59 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies]

To: xzins; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; Does so
The same reason that a submarine does.... Inherent in that answer is the answer to your question.

Brilliantly put, xzins! Thank you so very much!

527 posted on 02/27/2009 12:29:37 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 523 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; xzins; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; Does so
The fossil record is a record of animals that were prolific and successful enough to “win the odds” at being fossilized.

And so you admit that the fossil record is not, in principle, complete, "exhaustive?" That what is there is pretty much the result of a crap shoot? That it's sketchy at best?

Well jeepers, that's a fine admission from somebody who's committed to a theory that depends on the fossil record for its justification. Jeepers, even Darwin knew that evolution theory stands or falls on the fossil record!

528 posted on 02/27/2009 12:36:41 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Ever hear of DNA? Phylogenetic analysis? Evolution observed in the lab?

Drawing a blank?

Only if you are completely ignorant of the support that all of the above lend to the theory could you state that the theory “stands or falls on the fossil record” alone.

Moreover, in as much as the fossil record is a “crap shoot” it paints a very compelling picture of land animals arising from amphibians, mammals arising with traits that previously were only in reptiles, etc etc.

The fossil record need not be “exhaustive” or perfect in order for it to be a treasure trove of data that supports the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.

Also, the fossil record cannot tell you anything about HOW evolution happened, but it sure does show you that the species that inhabit the Earth have not always been the same from the beginning, and that 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct.

529 posted on 02/27/2009 12:41:47 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
And why don't we see failed non streamlined submarine designs in Naval Warfare Museums?
530 posted on 02/27/2009 12:42:40 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

You’ll never get an answer for that either. Evo-cultists want us to believe that the fossil record will one day turn up all the “missing links”, but it is painfully obvious that the record is so spotty and that by far most organisms that have ever lived have never been fossilized. There is no way the so called fossil record will ever record what Darwin prophesied. If the record isn’t absolutely complete and exhaustive, it logically follows that Darwin’s claims fall to dust.


531 posted on 02/27/2009 12:58:24 PM PST by ToGodBeTheGlory ("Darwinism" is Satanism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Thank you oh so very much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

Truly, the fossil record is quantized. Few creatures actually left a fossil for us to examine.

And indeed, the "tree of life" is a theoretical continuum which stands or falls based on those quantizations.

If scientists were to discover the fossil of a modern man in the same place as a fossil of a T-Rex, the tree would fall.

532 posted on 02/27/2009 1:03:50 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
And do you suppose that humans and T-Rex’s lived at the same time such that those two interposed fossils would ever be found in the same strata?

Why does the fossil record always show a different page out of the same story?

Why are there only extinct temperate fossils buried under the Antarctic ice, but no modern species?

Could it be that the fossil record, as incomplete as we all acknowledge it is, shows a story about what life forms inhabited the Earth at what times and in what sequence?

It seems the easiest explanation to me for why we only find rather small and mostly marsupial mammals in strata laid down during the age of the dinosaurs.

533 posted on 02/27/2009 1:18:36 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 532 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; Does so
And why don't we see failed non streamlined submarine designs in Naval Warfare Museums?

Because submarines are designed to be "streamlined" in the first place? Such that anything that wasn't so designed would not meet the definition of "submarine," and thus would not be in the Naval Warfare Museum in the first place? For it wouldn't even qualify as a "submarine?"

The "spotty" fossil record seems to be of no help to you here, allmendream. One could crudely say that the fossil record is a crap shoot (by your own admission) in the service of the defense of another crap shoot (biological speciation as a random walk).

And yet it seems you inadvertently may have stumbled into the periphery of design theory here. Be careful!

Then again, what is the meaning of your comparison of the Naval Warfare Museum to natural selection? There's nothing "random" about a Naval Warfare Museum....

534 posted on 02/27/2009 1:24:33 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Jeepers, even Darwin knew that evolution theory stands or falls on the fossil record!

Actually Darwin based his theory on living organisms.

Since then the fossil record has developed into supporting evidence.

However, the example of finding dinosaur fossils mixed with human fossils of the same age would pretty much doom modern thinking about evolution.

535 posted on 02/27/2009 1:29:42 PM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 528 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; Does so

All good points, bb.

Obsolete submarines are recorded by the droves....even the Merrimac & Monitor.


536 posted on 02/27/2009 1:32:01 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
My comparison is valid because a submarine must WORK in order to make it into the museum of Naval Warfare History. Can't make history if you don't work. Similarly you only “make it” into the fossil record if there were successful enough as a species to have a few members fossilized.

It is like saying that people in the past were more extraordinary than today, because all the people you read about in history did extraordinary things. Yep, because dull people rarely make history.

There is nothing “random” about a successful body plan. What works is a rather limited subset. Natural selection is in no ways “random”.

537 posted on 02/27/2009 1:34:00 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 534 | View Replies]

To: xzins

And obsolete animals are recorded in the fossil record in droves as well. But they were successful FOR THEIR TIME.

Simply no market for a marsupial tiger anymore. They are obsolete, as well as extinct.


538 posted on 02/27/2009 1:35:16 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; Does so
Only if you are completely ignorant of the support that all of the above lend to the theory could you state that the theory “stands or falls on the fossil record” alone.

I didn't state that, allmendream. Darwin did. I was merely quoting him.

You wrote: "The fossil record need not be “exhaustive” or perfect in order for it to be a treasure trove of data that supports the theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation."

Question: Has the term "random mutation" of the original orthodoxy been officially replaced by the term "genetic variation?" It seems to me there is a vast difference of meaning between the two terms. Was there something "faulty" about Darwin's original thinking that had to be corrected in light of new knowledge?

Well, I'll answer my own question: Of course there was. Darwin never heard about DNA, or relativity or quantum theory for that matter. His theory is constructed in terms of late Newtonian/classical thinking based on materialistic presuppositions. With DNA, we have learned that "immaterial" factors play out in nature — specifically, information from a "source" that no one's been able to localize in the spatiotemporal world of direct human experience. If such "corrections" keep going on what, at the end of the day, will remain of Darwin's theory?

And yet how passionately, even seemingly desperately, some people cling to it!

539 posted on 02/27/2009 1:39:38 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Genetic variation is produced by mutations. Mutations appear in a probabilistic distribution (random). There is no difference, and there was nothing “faulty” about Darwin's thinking about the subject, he just didn't know how ‘varieties’ or ‘races’ within species came about, he just had the notion that their differential reproductive success would shape subsequent generations.

What non-materialistic presuppositions led you to conclude that DNA has “immaterial” factors that play out in nature?

What do you conclude was the “source” of the information that enabled a bacteria to digest nylon?

540 posted on 02/27/2009 1:43:46 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 539 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; CottShop; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; Does so
My comparison is valid because a submarine must WORK in order to make it into the museum of Naval Warfare History. Can't make history if you don't work

My point is the submarine is designed to work. That is, it's not the end-product of a virtually endless chain of prior random events that somehow ended up by (serendipitously!) getting it "just right" to do what submarines do.

Surely you can discriminate the difference between "design" and a "crap shoot" that somehow gets things right by accident.

541 posted on 02/27/2009 1:47:18 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Not critical to the analogy. The analogy was that you don't make history unless you work and had an impact. You don't make the fossil record unless you were successful enough as a species prolific and wide spread enough to get some members of your species fossilized.

Natural selection is not random either. It is a trial and error process that keeps designs that work and discards designs that do not work.

Check out “directed evolution” as an example of how novel enzymes are made for industrial purposes by random variation and selecting for the necessary traits.

It is a MUCH more powerful system for designing enzymes, right now, then attempting to design an enzyme with the necessary traits on paper and then making it in the lab.

542 posted on 02/27/2009 1:54:02 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: acliffhang3r; GodGunsGuts
Yes, let me see if I can simplify this AMAZING revelation.

If there is debate, then it is not Science. However, what is not debatable is Science. Genesis is not debatable. Genesis is Science.

I respectfully think not.

This sounds like standard fair from the cult of evolution.

You can tell that evolution is neither theory or science because anytime it's criticized, like a swarm of army ants the cultists attack any and all criticisms, including so-called peer review as "religion" or "attacks on science".

What's equally fascinating is the cultists don't seem to understand this is a floundering and failing tactic and harming the theory, or what's left of it, more than any actual peer review ever could.

543 posted on 02/27/2009 2:11:47 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Directed evolution allows us to explore enzyme functions never required in the natural environment and for which the molecular basis is poorly understood. This bottom-up design approach contrasts with the more conventional, top-down one in which proteins are tamed `rationally’ using computers and site-directed mutagenesis. I will describe how molecular evolution can be directed in the test tube in order to produce useful biocatalysts

http://www.che.caltech.edu/groups/fha/Enzyme/directed.html

544 posted on 02/27/2009 2:13:34 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: xzins; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; Does so
Obsolete submarines are recorded by the droves....even the Merrimac & Monitor.

Yes — and Merrimac & Monitor would be "fossils" of the species "submarines."

But this does nothing to detract from the fact that every member of the class "submarines" is a purpose-built machine, constructed by an intelligent, creative agent.

A typhoon blowing through a junk yard cannot construct a Boeing 737 no matter how much time is "available" for this process. Especially because there's nothing to "tell" the process how it could ever know whether it had achieved its purpose (construction of a Boeing 737); i.e., whether the process was successful or not.

No purpose can be invoked by a "random" process. Indeed, the specification of "randomness" is usually made when the idea of "purpose" in nature enters the public debate/discussion. The advocates of randomness purport to show the unshowable: that an ordered system can emerge without prior reference to a functional purpose. They think they can dispense with purpose in nature altogether.

allmendream didn't specifically answer my question as to whether "random mutation" has been morphed into "genetic variation" as the proper language to use nowadays. Yet he clearly deemphasizes the use of the word, random, in descriptions of biology. Though that's the very language that Darwin used.

And moreover, is the language still used by some of the most eminent biologists of recent times. For instance, the Nobel prize-winning biologist Jacques Monod, who insists that everything we see all around us in nature, biological and otherwise, is the product of "sheer, blind chance."

I dunno, xzins. Seems to me if a claim like that were true, it would refer to a process nothing short of the miraculous. For a chain of accidents is to be credited with the order of the natural world. On this principle, order rises, spontaneously you see, from disorder.

But jeepers, when exactly did Darwinists start believing in miracles like this?

545 posted on 02/27/2009 2:34:19 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 536 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
So where did the “information” on how to digest nylon come from?

I did answer your question. You asked about genetic variation and random mutation. I told you that genetic variation is produced by mutations in a random manner.

Are you suggesting that God has no control over random processes? That “random” is synonymous for “out of God's control”?

Prov 16:33 The dice are cast into the lap but every result is from the Lord.

As to your ‘miraculous’ ideas of how evolution works, do you feel a “miracle” is needed for random variation and selection to produce novel molecular machines?

Did you not read what I posted to you about “directed evolution”?

Do you suppose that miraculous intervention is needed for this process to derive novel and useful proteins for industrial purposes?

546 posted on 02/27/2009 2:40:12 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; allmendream; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe; metmom; Does so
I dunno, xzins. Seems to me if a claim like that were true, it would refer to a process nothing short of the miraculous. For a chain of accidents is to be credited with the order of the natural world. On this principle, order rises, spontaneously you see, from disorder.

As forerunners of ships with a low profile, the M&M are likewise forerunners of those with a below the surface profile. They are obsolete because they died.

The unmentionable process is death. Just where does that fit with rational, sentient beings who realize their own mortality? Who anguish over lost love, lost hopes, lost strength?

Evolution cannot account for the human spirit, and as you say, reassembling junk from a junk heap will not construct a single mili-liter of conscious, self-aware spirit.

There is one Wind (pneuma) blowing through existence, though, which can. "The wind blows where it wants to, but you can't tell where it comes from or where it's going. The same with everyone born of God's Pneuma."

547 posted on 02/27/2009 2:53:27 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain, Pro Deo et Patria)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: xzins

All living things are mortal. From the dust they were formed and into dust they shall return. One thing alone is not mortal.


548 posted on 02/27/2009 2:57:56 PM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; CottShop; hosepipe; metmom; xzins; Does so
Natural selection is not random either. It is a trial and error process that keeps designs that work and discards designs that do not work.

And so please tell what standard against which this process of trial and error — non-random! as you say (but it still looks pretty random to me, especially if we are to think of it as "goal-less" and "undirected") — is to be measured? What is the standard that decides what works and what doesn't work in Nature? Especially if Nature is said to have no purposes of her own?

If there are no purposes in Nature, then how can natural selection not be random ?

549 posted on 02/27/2009 3:07:37 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 542 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; xzins; hosepipe; metmom; Does so
Are you suggesting that God has no control over random processes? That “random” is synonymous for “out of God's control”?

No. I am absolutely not saying that, allmendream. God uses what we view as "randomness" for achieving His creative purposes in Nature. Broadly speaking, "randomness" refers to the potentiality of newness arising in nature. And "newness" arises in biological beings literally with each and every time-step.

In short, God loves "random!" It's what keeps the universe from becoming perfectly static; of allowing for its development; in leaving room for, among other things, human free will.

But because the total system contains random elements (potentialities) does not mean that the total system is "unguided," let alone purposeless.

550 posted on 02/27/2009 3:15:35 PM PST by betty boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 451-500501-550551-600 ... 651-661 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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