I think it's all advance publicity for the new X-men movie.
Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
" Then what directed it? Intelligence?"
Intelligence is not the opposite of randomness. Natural selection is not random. Nor does it need to be directed by an outside intelligence.
"Basic to the theory is the lack of an intelligence behind the life we see here, now. Hence the Great Debate among evolutionists, creationists and intelligent designers. Where the proto-organism came from would be central to the issue, don't you think?"
Not for the issue of the theory of evolution. You are talking about abiogenesis.
" Actually, your pint..."
That should have been *point*.
I am seriously convinced that creationists get their science education from Hollywood movies. Where else would they get these bizarre scenarios for things morphing into other things?
That might be a plausible explanation except for the fact that studying multiple genes and constructing phylogenies provides repetitive evidence of gene relatedness. The evolution of genes can be traced by mutations, most of which don't have any effect on the function of the gene. Why should a Designer make multiple copies of the same gene in multiple species and then make pointless changes in them that suggest a line of descent? Then there are also pseudogenes, which have been deactivated by a mutation. The site of the deactivating mutation can be used to construct a phylogeny of animals sharing the pseudogene and can be used to determine when this branch split off from others that have the functional gene. Why would a Designer insert broken genes into a species? Then there are viral inserts that can also be used for phylogenies. Why would a Designer insert viral DNA in a pattern that indicates common descent?
I used to think the same thing, but I changed my mind.
I think it's all advance publicity for the new X-men movie.
Exactly how many aquatic marsupials are there? This makes no sense at all since sharks and marsupials would not have competed for territory. And if they ever did, what resources did they compete over?
See post #52. Your "just a theory" line is becoming boring.
MTV. Remember that creepy video for the song "Black or White"?
How dumb do you want to play this, or are you not playing? A line of fish became amphibians. A line of amphibians became reptiles. And so proceed as I said already in the post to which you want credit for responding but have thus far failed to address.
See post #52.
Substance? I thought this was a comedy thread. Your response has proved me right again.
there is an alternative way of looking at things, which sidesteps the whole apparent conflict.
I don't vouch for it, mind you, but it works.
Think of a novel, one of good quality in its craft.
You will note that there are the events in the text, the narrative, the plot on the page. You will note also that the environment, characters, and overall plot are the creations of the author.
These are obvious.
But there is also a BACK HISTORY which never actually precedes page one paragraph one word one, yet upon which the events of the plot to a great extent depend, from which the characters were forged, and through which their world came to be... FOR THEM, the "residents" in the book.
In *really good* novels, the authors frequently spend an immense amount of effort in creating and detailing this back history, even though none of it makes it directly into the intended work, because this back history is *absolutely necessary* for the functioning of the intended work itself.
This back history is non-factual to the author, is non-factual in terms of the book's real genesis, but is very factual for the "lesser" or "internal" reality of the book itself.
Now, replace all iterations in the above of "back history" with "cosmological, geological, fossil, and DNA records"; of "book, lesser internal reality" with "the observable material universe"... and "author" with "God"
As I said, I don't endorse this way of looking at things, but it does seem to resolve the apparent conflict.
I can see where one has to be choosy lest "Your Brain on Creationism" become so large and clotted that its lunacy becomes lost in the endless drumbeat.
I should think not! It actually was closer to an ape.
See chart:
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
Can sharks walk?
How do you know this? Were you there? Has anyone reproduced this in a lab?
The word "author" is one good way to consider God. The biblical texts make this same attribution on occasion. A common author of life will certainly result in the objective discovery that living creatures are of common descent, though not in the way typically deduced by evolutionists.
Hooking up different parts different ways gives you different critters. Maybe one of them is an intergalactic cruiser.
We have only started on figuring it all out.
There is that word again. Evolution is just someone's idea, not a fact.
Evolution is both a fact (change takes place) and a theory (a mechanism proposed to account for that change).
And it is not "just someone's idea" but a cornerstone for many sciences, tested and refined for 150 years.
See the following (also read post #52, back upthread):
From an NSF abstract:
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
If the former, that's not the debate. The debate is around organisms' movement to more complex forms from simple forms as one species gives rise to another. Note the title of the thread.
The process has to be either guided by an intelligent force or happen by aimless movement of basic elements. If the latter, you must start with bare rock, water and other combinations of elements that just naturally form even today.
If life is presupposed, you must accept the existence of an intelligent designer, or you have to show how life came about and test it by using that process to create it.
Do you stipulate an intelligent designer? 
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.