Thanks Moonman62.
Posted on 07/14/2018 8:14:11 AM PDT by Moonman62
Your statement tells more about you than the study.
It does not “prove” evolution, since nothing is ever proven in science. It does, however, provide strong evidence in support of the evolutionary model.
A salient feature of evolutionary theory is the concept of change over time. That is what the study in this article has shown, in great detail. Furthermore, the nature of the change is exactly what we would expect to see in a system where evolution is the fundamental driver of diversity of the biome.
A creation event implies static genomes. It also implies that any organism should be equally different from any other organism in its class. There are any number of inferences one could make on the assumption that life exists because of a singular creation event in which all existing organisms came into being. But observation tells us that none of those inferences is actually accurate.
Is there an ultimate creator who created a universe in which life could arise, evolve, and exist? That is not a question that is easily answered by scientific inquiry. Personally, I think that the existence of physical laws that allow for life to exist is worthy of a great deal of wonder and awe.
>>Your statement tells more about you than the study.
As does your ad hominem attack.
Read the article. There is nothing observational in there. There is nothing experimental in there. It is pure statistical analysis of a population that has largely never been seen or proven to exist.
Certainly a complex planet full of life, created by itself, would be worthy of wonder and awe. I reserve my wonder and awe for a Creator, one that is not bound by your rules and limits.
The body would not evolve something for which it had no use.
That observation just means it had a use for the genomes prior to being put to that use. We see the same thing occurring today in species which use the same or very similar proteins for differing uses - in some cases for differing uses in different tissues within the same organism.
Goes back to nomenclatures once in use. Over the last few years they’ve been reclassifying and renaming things as they get more specificity around the inner workings.
For example, the idea of “domain” is from the 90s
Time is just a perception.
There is nothing observational in there.
...
There is the observation of decoded genomes.
I did not want to say so before, but I consider the concept of a singular creation event in which everything that now exists sprang into being as extremely constraining, limiting, and unimaginative.
For example, making a ball is trivial. Formulating the physical laws so that properties of hydrophobicity, electromagnetism, charge, intermolecular cohesion, etc., work together in such a way that a sphere can spontaneously form if the physical materials are present is far more of a challenge.
>>There is the observation of decoded genomes.
Observation of theoretical knowledge that is assumed to be true is not observational science.
What it is though, is the circular logic where one theory is presented as fact to prove another and then the second is used as proof for the first. This is “Settled Science” or “Consensus Science”. See Climate Change for more on that form of dishonesty.
Thanks Moonman62.
-—Something like that should be easy to replicate in a lab-—
To achieve enlightenment, you should spend some time in the lab
The lab can be a near by park or especially a state park of some size.
Don’t worry about the fauna. A study of some aspect of the flora will be much more enlightening and will induce further study both at home and in your new lab.
I would suggest buying a Petersons Guide to Wild Flowers as a place to start. Take the field guide, a notebook and perhaps a camera, an open mind and you are in the science business
You will actually observe natural selection
Your opinion is more about epistemology than science. Why is it more credible than a published scientific paper?
You’re welcome. Thanks for the pings.
>>You will actually observe natural selection
Yes I will. Natural selection is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The Galapagos Finch had a different beak than a regular finch. It did not have scales or vestiges of a shell. People often confuse natural selection for evolution because that’s what the humanist agenda in schools teaches.
>>Your opinion is more about epistemology than science. Why is it more credible than a published scientific paper?
I never claimed that it was more credible. I am questioning its methodology and finding. In your mind, is “science” a thing that can never be questioned except by people who agree with the findings?
This is why “climate change” is settled science!
Sounds like you got the false Creo teaching down pat. Now get the to your lab for enlightenent.
First animal?? Oh I thought it was Michele Obama they were researching on...Sorry if I offended any FReepers...
What about Humans and Liberals? What is the percentage of liberal genes to Humans (aka Trump Supporters)?
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.
