Posted on 11/12/2005 4:16:49 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Then why did darwin call his book "Origin of Species" in 1859.
Oh that's right his book agent suggested the name.(eyes rolling)
I'm glad you put in that JMO since you are wrong.
Here is natural selection, tell me what is wrong with it:
If a critter (plant or animal) can't survive and breed successfully, it dies and the genes it carries are fewer in the next generation of that critter.
"If you think there is any essential difference between micro and macro evolution, then you have been reading too many creationist websites."
I don't know of any creationist websites. I have minimal interest in the subject, since I see no irreconcilable differences between my beliefs as a christian and evolutionary theory.
"That doesn't mean you know what evolution is."
I took graduate level classes in evolution because I liked and respected the professors who taught them. I asked one what he would do if someone DID prove evolution is false. He said it would be a real kick in the nuts at first, and then it would be exciting because it would force him to rethink so many things. That is the sort of intellectual honesty I loved to encounter.
"I am neither a liar, nor like you, ignorant. Common descent is a fact."
Of course common descent is a fact. The variety of dogs demonstrates common descent. Common descent is NOT evolutionary theory - if you think it is, then you are very ignorant.
"Atoms exist. Have you ever seen one? Has one been observed? Have you ever heard of indirect evidence?"
Yes - and atoms are a useful construct. Their existance explains a lot. However, if someone comes up with a better explanation for the observed phenomena, physicists will gladly adopt the new construct. Physicists are better scientists than biologists.
"Are there any facts in history?"
Having listened to debates on the resurrection of Jesus, I'm inclined to say not.
Evolution is an explanation of observed facts, just as much of history is an explanation of observed facts. That doesn't make evolution wrong, but it suggests less dognmatism is appropriate.
If you wish to say that you believe the balance of evidence supports your view, fine. I'm inclined to disagree - I think the arguements in "Darwin's Black Box" are more formidible than evolutionists give them credit for being.
But when you say evolution is a fact, and that there can be no debate or discussion of alternatives, you go too far. Intelligent Design is an alternative explanation. Let it, and Evolution, stand or fall based on evidence and debate - not by insisting only one side get an airing.
Because it was about the origin of species, not of life. I see you never actually READ the book, or you would have known that. The book is about how species come to be from existing life. Without a previously existing imperfectly self-replicating organism, evolution can't happen. Darwin specifically says in the Origin of Species that the origin of life is outside the scope of his theory.
So, either you already knew this and felt the need to lie, or you are woefully ignorant about Darwin and felt the need to denigrate a book you never read.
A conumdrum for liberal biased darwin supporters then, since homosexuality in humans would have died long ago, according to your above italicized passage.
"Evolution is concerned with the changes in allele frequency in populations, with one end result being the production of new species."
Depending on how far you carry it, you are describing micro-evolution - changes in genetic characteristics with time, caused by some external pressure. It can take place in weeks, and can be demonstrated and repeated.
Developing new organs and new creatures is a whole different ball game. I know of no fundamental differences between chimps and humans. But there are many complex organs that cannot serve a useful function until the new organ is complete. I don't see how changes in genetic percentages or variability makes that jump.
That begs the question, species are begat of life.
Why did darwin and modern supporters leave that out.
Summary:
The definition of science proposed in the Minority Report is fully consistent with definitions used by all other states in the U.S. By contrast, the definition of science currently used in the Kansas standards and defended by the Majority is idiosyncratic and out of step with current educational practice.
By: Jonathan Wells, Ph.D, Discovery Institute, November 10, 2005
Science appeals to the truly conservative mind for the same reasons that free enterprise does. It's reality-based, it focuses on what works, it rejects failed concepts, and it produces results. American conservatism, which seeks to preserve and build on the wisdom of the Founders, is inherently rational at its intellectual base. No one can read the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, and the other Founders without immediately coming to that conclusion. This is also true of the Framers of the US Constitution. The conservative movement in America is and always has been rational. Any assault on rationality is not only anti-conservative, it is also anti-American.
They left it out for the same reason that Newton left out the origin of matter in his descriptions of the motions of matter. It's outside the scope of the theory
But still it leaves out the penultimate question(of who or what created life), and I beleive that is the creationists point, kinda of like the adage "can't see the forest for the trees".
FWIW, I side on the creationist side, they are least being honest in including the question of who or what created life.
There is no magic *Sop Sign* that tells an organism's genome to stop mutating. There is no brake on genetic variation in a population. There is no reason at all to say that little changes can't add up to big ones over time. "But there are many complex organs that cannot serve a useful function until the new organ is complete. I don't see how changes in genetic percentages or variability makes that jump." Sure they can. They aren't *looking ahead* to become something in the future. Natural selection culls from what already is there. Any modification of an organ that gives it a reproductive advantage will be favored. If the environment continues to favor modifications along a certain genetic path, they will be selected for. The organ will change little by little. No organ is *finished* though; there is no perfect adaptation for all time. The environment is not a constant.
Our eyes are not the *goal* of visual evolution. They are the end result of selective pressures that span millions of years. They are far from perfect. Our optic nerve for instance is partly in our field of vision. We therefore have a blind spot. If I believed that it was the direct result of a designer, then I would have to assume the designer was an incompetent. Especially since he already made eyes in Octopi that didn't have this design flaw.
There are none.
No mater what you observe, the AliensDidit.
"Would be nice to see the same intellectual honesty on the other side."
There are jerks everywhere. They are found on both sides. I have had professors screaming spit into my face for asking a question. Fortunately, I also had good professors.
"Now you are just being intentionally dense. Common descent means we share an ancestor with all other life, and you knew I meant that. At the roots of the Tree of Life, it gets more tricky, but we certainly share a common ancestor with other apes. That is a fact. That is the fact of evolution I am talking about. The way we evolved is the ToE."
I was pointing out that 'common descent' is to the debate on evolution like 'pro-choice' is to the debate on abortion.
"ID is an argument from ignorance. It's a gutless choice. It has no physical evidence, it makes no testable predictions. It's Creationism with an ugly dress on."
In fact, ID is analogous to 'pro-life' or 'common descent' - an attempt to make an arguement socially acceptable. But it is certainly NOT gutless. I'll take far more heat for suggesting ID than you will ever take for promoting evolution - oops, 'common descent'!
I would also be curious as to the testable predictions in evolution...
Abiogeneis is the theory that is exploring the origins of life. It may never reach a satisfactory conclusion, but at least it is trying to use the methods of science. There is no way to provide evidence for or against the creation of life by God, just as there is no way to prove or disprove God using science. Creationists want it both ways.
" FWIW, I side on the creationist side, they are least being honest in including the question of who or what created life."
For Creationists it is not a question, but an answer. They have to ignore the physical creation in order to make it fit their interpretation of scripture. There is no more dishonesty in evolutionists not trying to bring up the creation of life any more than there is dishonesty in Newton not bringing up the creation of matter in his theory of universal gravity. What is dishonest is claiming that your opponent's theory is weak because they are failing to explain something their theory never attempts to explain.
"Any modification of an organ that gives it a reproductive advantage will be favored."
But that is the problem - until the new organ exists as a whole, it has strong reporductive disadvantage - and yet, it is supposed to survive for millions of years until the change is complete.
In order to make the jump, it would have to 'look forward'.
Think of the switch between carburators and fuel injection. Seeing the complete fuel injection, we can see selective advantage. However, the moment you tamper with the carburator, the car ceases to function. A simplistic approach, but I'm running out of time for posting - my significant other wants to go shopping.
;>(
Background -- Kathleen Sebelius is John Gilligan's daughter. Gilligan was one of the worst (if not THE worst) governor Ohio ever elected. We have him to thank for instituting the income tax. It was for the children, doncha know -- said it would ALL go for education -- yea, right. He was a dem/lib/socialist, but his daughter is even more left-wing than him. And yes, he is still alive. The old fossil is serving on the Cincinnati Public School Board -- still squandering our tax money.
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.