Posted on 08/05/2019 7:47:32 AM PDT by fishtank
>>Are you claiming biologists have all the answers?<<
Moreso than mathematicians or other specialists. It is like saying a geologist is qualified to speak to medical issues.
On a side note, the left prefers authoritarian governments whereby laymen are declared incompetent to critique the claims of the professionals. They go so far as to call this critique the "politicization of science." In fact, for them democracy stands in the way of their climate goals.
Politically, this is significant. Thank God for democracies.
I couldn't agree more.
Especially when the authority Bergman's invoking isn't an authority at all.
I did follow the idea that the time span of the fossil record doesn't square with what is mathematically required by the genetic code.
Nobody is claiming to be creating a predictive model, they are just making the case that the process being suggested requires time frames many orders of magnitude greater than what we know to be the approximate age of the earth.
I absolutely believe that Bergman purposely omitted Gelernter’s field of study. Don’t you?
************************************************
No.
**********************
Let me ask another way. If Gelernter were a renowned evolutionary biologist do you think Bergman would have mentioned that?
************************************************
Maybe, maybe not.
**********************
As to Gelernter’s qualifications to evaluate evolutionary theory, the reader has no way to evaluate if Bergman won’t even say what his field of study is.
************************************************
How do you determine who is qualified to evaluate evolutionary theory? Certainly you do not believe an evolutionary biologist is qualified?
Mr. Kalamata
Snort.
Since “kind” is not a scientific term there is no need to answer. Perhaps you care to rephrase?
****************************************************
The created kind is a specific scientific term, corresponding in general to the taxonomic rank of family, but without all the evolutionism baggage. The most well-known kind is the human kind, aka, humankind. Other kinds include dogs, cats, finches, beetles, bacteria, and so forth.
The rule of thumb is, a plant or animal never naturally strays genetically outside its created kind. There is a genetic barrier, or boundary, that keeps them within their respective kinds, as explained by this writer for Phys.org:
“In analysing the barcodes across 100,000 species, the researchers found a telltale sign showing that almost all the animals emerged about the same time as humans...Which brings us back to our question: why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time?... another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between. “If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.” The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.” [Hood, Marlowe, “Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution.” Phys.Org, May 28, 2017, pp.3-4]
https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html
That research implies what the book of Genesis says: 1) that animals and humans arrived on the scene about the same time; and 2) that animals multiply after their respectives kinds.
Biochemist Michael Behe explains the boundary in more detail in his latest book:
“Darwin rightly touted natural selection as relentless, as ‘daily and hourly scrutinising... every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good.’1 Yet, since the mechanism has no foresight, and since in many circumstances the random damaging of genes can be helpful to an organism, then selection ‘adds up’ those degradative changes only in the sense that broken pieces of machinery might be added to a growing pile of junk. Its inexorable predilection to hastily squander genetic information for short-term gain—encapsulated by the First Rule of Adaptive Evolution—guarantees that Darwin’s mechanism is powerfully devolutionary and explains why unguided evolution is self-limiting. Ironically, random mutation and natural selection do help form new species and new genera, but chiefly by promoting the loss of genetic abilities. Over time, dwindling degradatory options fence in an evolutionary lineage, halting organismal change before it crosses the family line.” [Behe, Michael J., “Darwin Devolves.” HarperOne, 2019, Chap.10]
I hope that helps.
Mr. Kalamata
Intra-species adaptation is observable and replicable, even within a single specimen during its life cycle; the rest is not.
Ah, I see. Sorry for the curt reply.
Both words have very broad “definition intervals” that overlap. In some usages, the meanings are identical. In others, perhaps not. My point is that evolution does not address the genesis of life, only the transition of living things to slightly different living things.
You still have not defined “kind” in a scientifically usable way.
What process being suggested by whom?
A mathematician can't model a process he doesn't understand. And by 'model' I mean describe mathematically.
Moreso than mathematicians or other specialists. It is like saying a geologist is qualified to speak to medical issues.
***************************************************
Your second sentence is irrevelant. Regarding your first, why do you believe evolutionary biologists are more qualified, or even as qualified to evaluate evolutionary theory than mathematicians and computer wizards?
Mr. Kalamata
Snort.
*************************
It is not polite so snort in public.
You still have not defined “kind” in a scientifically usable way.
***********************************************
Of course I did.
Now, your turn. Define species.
Mr. Kalamata
Nice rap. Even your own referencecsays it is vague. It is NOT part of the formal taxonomy. Your lengthy cut and paste seems to sugest it SHOULD.
Opinion, not science.
Did you read your own question? Why should we think specialists in an area are more qualified than those NOT in that area? That is your question?
And my example os dead on point.
I forgot:
BEHE??????????? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Next time quote rachael madcow. She has more credibility than behe.
He quoted mikey behe.
Sorta ends any attempt at logical discussion.
It also explains why it is long on words and devoid of science. behe’s calling card.
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.