if you're so nasty, why don't you try washing it once in awhile?
Posted on 10/04/2018 6:59:49 AM PDT by fishtank
His guitar is going to sound like crap with his tie draped over the strings.
You also failed to address the chromosome problem I raised; your feeble reference to Adam and Eve notwithstanding.
See this old post of mine.
ML/NJ
Sorry, FRiend, you were using the words "homologous" and "analogous" as if you knew what they meant.
I didn't, exactly, so I looked them up to be sure.
"Homologous" means they really are the same.
"Analogous" means they only look somewhat the same.
You claimed the octopus & human eyes are "homologous", meaning they really are the same.
Then you criticized "evolutionists" for saying those eyes are merely "analogous", meaning they only look somewhat the same.
Sorry, my fault for equating your misunderstanding of the terms with a deliberate intention to "stretch" the truth.
That was not warranted.
Octopus and human eyes are analogous meaning they only look somewhat the same.
They are not homologous because they are not, in reality, anywhere near the same.
"Evolutionists" are correct in this matter.
Again, my apologies.
Wrong.
I won't be arguing scripture with you, except perhaps to notice how remarkably accurate it turns out to be when you consider God inspired it to explain His creation to mostly illiterate shepherds & farmers some 3,000+ years ago.
I concede that if you strictly insist on a traditional "literal" Biblical interpretation, it's just a "bridge too far" to cross scientifically without God's help.
chuckles: "There are no transitional fossils to show any evolution.
showing pictures of monkeys following apes and apes following gorilla's, and gorilla's following a man doesn't prove they are connected in any way."
Of course if your "scientific" standard is it must meet your Biblical expectations, then none of evolution theory can satisfy you.
But as a natural explanation of confirmed observations, evolution has remarkable common sense & predictive abilities.
As for "transitional fossils" they satisfy the theory and there's no other natural explanation I can think of for them.
chuckles: "How many times have you had to rethink what you think?
Piltdown man?
Java man?
How many new creatures have been built from an extinct hog's tooth?
How many animals have been built from a number of animal bones collected from a scattering over a mile of dirt?"
Piltdown man, Java man & Nebraska man are all "hoaxes" from at least 100 years ago.
Indeed, Java man is today classified legitimate, among the homo erectus species, of which there are now dozens of other individual examples found.
The important point to remember is that over the past 150+ years billions of individual fossils representing hundreds of thousands of species have been discovered, classified & stored in museums, universities & other collections around the world.
That's a lot of physical evidence to be handwaving away.
chuckles: "This "theory" has changed so many times most people can't keep up with the latest tale."
Sounds to me like you're confused about the differences between scientific facts, hypotheses, theories & laws.
Facts are observed & confirmed such that, for examples, fossils are facts & DNAs are facts.
Hypotheses are untested explanations of facts, perhaps even untestable -- for example, origin of life ideas are likely to remain untestable hypotheses long, long into the future.
A theory, like evolution, is an explanation which has been tested and confirmed.
A scientific "law" is simply a mathematical expression of a confirmed theory.
All theories are accepted tentatively until new facts or better explanations can falsify them.
And for a major idea like evolution, that means nearly daily discoveries each with a potential to falsify or modify existing theory.
New discoveries are one thing that makes science so exciting to real scientists.
chuckles: "Even top scientists admit today that Darwinism has failed"
I know of no real scientist who denigrates Darwin's work, except to the degree that science itself has advanced over the past 150+ years.
So the remarkable thing about Darwin is not that he was wrong on many details, but that he got the basic idea of evolution right: 1) descent with modifications plus 2) natural selection accumulating over long times can lead to new biological forms = evolution.
Now you're "wrong". What other answer did you expect?
ml/nj: "You also failed to address the chromosome problem I raised; your feeble reference to Adam and Eve notwithstanding."
"Feeble" being in the eyes of the beholder, sorry about that.
I think science has found plenty of other examples of chromosomes splitting apart or combining together in different species, but I've never read any solid explanations on how or why that can happen.
So in general I object to "God of the gaps" explanations, but in this particular case, it fits an interpretation of the Bible, and I like it.
You don't?
The question is, who created us? Or what created us?
I think science has found plenty of other examples of chromosomes splitting apart or combining together in different species
You think.
Do you have any scientific training? I do. (BS Math, Physics RPI '68; MS Math RPI '71)
Once (pairs of) chromosomes split or combine in some animal, they are no longer biologically compatible with normal members of the species. Fruit flies are routinely bombarded with radiation to produce unusual chromosomatic conditions. When and if such occurs, the fruit flies are jetted around the world to find similar mates; and nothing happens.
I challenge you to find and link to any scientific paper that claims the contrary.
ML/NJ
I agree Bob. There are footprints of some mammals in the rock at the same level or earlier. How can these fishapods be the first creatures to walk on land if something else beat them to it? There is also evidence of other birds at the same time as archaeopteryx, hence it could not be their ancestor.
We are talking out of place artifacts, which is strong evidence against evolution.
Thanks for the response and info, but it still doesn’t negate my point. ‘Science’ may have an agreed upon definition, but I don’t think those scientists are the one’s here on FR discussing EVO vs. CRE.
Now, let’s get to the definition you supplied.
1. descent with modifications.
Shouldn’t that be ‘ascent’ ? I understand the context that is implied by ‘descent’ as in ‘decendents’. Still, one would think that ‘evolving’ implied improvement. Are we ascending as we evolve or descending ?
2. Natural Selection
Why just ‘natural’ ? What about non-natural selection ? It plays a part in this process, does it not ? Wars, abortion all effect the outcome of the ‘evolution’ process.
There are 'plants' on the ocean floor that pull up their roots, turn into a fishlike creature and swim away.
A caterpillar turns into a butterfly (metamorphosis- which is a way of saying it completely changes it's entire bodily structure).
Why would the DNA for certain cell configurations/types be 'different' in one creature vs. another ? Why 'reinvent the wheel' for every creature?
One might as well believe that the laws of physics are different on every planet.
For the same reason that my house and the Empire State Building both have windows and bathrooms.
ML/NJ
if you're so nasty, why don't you try washing it once in awhile?
[[I didn’t, exactly,]]
obviously- you also have a reading problem,- many species do infact have the same systems- had you read my original post about the issue correctly you would have seen that- since you seem to wish to turn this into insulting me- just like you’ve done to me in the past- I’m not going to discuss the issue further
[[You claimed the octopus & human eyes are “homologous”,]]
NO I didn’t- I NEVER mentioned a comparison between octopus and human eyes- either you are flat out lying about me now- or you are incapable of reading my posts correctly- STILL falsely misrepresenting what i said- I’m not playing your games- you’ve done this to me in the past- enough is enough!
quoting BJK: "I think science has found plenty of other examples of chromosomes splitting apart or combining together in different species"
ml/nj: "You think."
Sure, the operative word here being "plenty".
I think there are plenty enough other examples in nature of chromosomes splitting apart or combining together for me to say it's a natural process, though I've never read a satisfying explanation of how or why that happens.
ml/nj: "Do you have any scientific training?
I do. (BS Math, Physics RPI '68; MS Math RPI '71)"
Rensselaer, in Troy?
One of my daughters went to Colgate for biology, rowed in crew, others to Ithaca & Binghamton for psychology & (my favorite) history.
I'm retired, a history "buff" and a fan of science, I have season tickets to all their home games.
ml/nj: "Once (pairs of) chromosomes split or combine in some animal, they are no longer biologically compatible with normal members of the species. "
Right, I "get" that, and yet there are, ahem, "plenty" of examples in nature where exactly that happened.
How & why, so far as I've ever read, nobody really knows.
ml/nj: "I challenge you to find and link to any scientific paper that claims the contrary."
Proving yet again that God's creations are still, ahem, one h*ck of a lot smarter than we are.
Sure, but all scientists accept basic assumptions, premises & definitions of natural-science, including: what do we mean by the term "evolution".
Answer: basic evolution is the simple process Darwin first identified as 1) descent with modifications plus 2) natural selection accumulating over long time periods leads to 3) evolution of new life forms.
UCANSEE2: "Now, let’s get to the definition you supplied.
1. descent with modifications.
Shouldn’t that be ‘ascent’ ?
I understand the context that is implied by ‘descent’ as in ‘decendents’. Still, one would think that ‘evolving’ implied improvement. Are we ascending as we evolve or descending ?"
I much enjoyed Brownowski's "Assent of Man" years ago:
But scientifically, we are descendants of our ancestors just as politically, we are descendants of our Founding Fathers.
There's no denigration implied in the word "descent", and scientists naturally shy away from the word "assent" as implying a value judgment not always warranted.
Think of this example: if a ferocious carnivore species gives up the life to become a vegetarian, is that "assent" or "descent"?
Yes, scientists do use another word which may get at the idea you're aiming for.
That word is: "complexify", over time evolution leads to life's "complexification".
But even there we can quickly think of exceptions -- viruses appear to have come from bacteria stripped down of all unnecessary features except essentials & DNA needed to do viral dirty-work.
So for a virus I'd change "complexified" to "simplified high-concept".
Humans of course like to think of ourselves as "ascending" and God has indeed laid out a path for that, in the next life.
But it remains problematic in this life how long humans can continue to enjoy our current status before getting tripped-up & "descending" from some natural or man-made disaster.
UCANSEE2: "2. Natural Selection
Why just ‘natural’ ?
What about non-natural selection?"
Fair to say that until several thousand years ago all selection was natural selection.
Today it's arguable if any selection is truly "natural" since virtually every species on earth is affected by human enterprises, to some degree or another.
The best and longest running examples are the many breeds of dogs which began as wolves maybe 30,000 years ago.
So, unless you consider humans ourselves to be a "force of nature", dogs are the oldest, least "natural" species on Earth.
Sure, and if they are examined carefully, including their DNA, they will quickly reveal their true nature, whether plants, animals or something else.
UCANSEE2: "A caterpillar turns into a butterfly (metamorphosis- which is a way of saying it completely changes it's entire bodily structure)."
Of course, but once conceived, its DNA inheritance doesn't changes, and can tell us what the creature really is, plus how closely related to every other life form.
Bob434 post #136: "obviously- you also have a reading problem,- many species do infact have the same systems- had you read my original post about the issue correctly you would have seen that-"
Yes, it does appear that one of us has a problem with comprehension, but I still can't put my finger on exactly what that is.
Your post #91 seems very clear and straightforward to me, claiming octopus & human eyes are "homologous," not "analogous".
Now you seem to be claiming that's not what you posted, so I'm confused.
Are you now saying your post #91 is somehow in error?
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.