I guess you would be willing to stipulate an intelligent designer, then. 
Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Besides, you find the same animals in both places.
I guess you would be willing to stipulate an intelligent designer, then.
Sorry. If you cant observe it happening, it isnt science. I learned that on the Crevo threads!
Except the Designer seems to have modified everything in completely inconsequential ways in every species, and the inconsequential differences are less in species that we expect to be more closely related according to the theory of evolution (yes, it has predictive powers). A deficiency of an enzyme in one species can be corrected by introducing an enzyme with a slightly different amino acid sequence produced by an entirely different species. The function is the same. The theory of evolution would predict such inconsequential differences, ID or creationism would not.
Sorry evolution is defined as ongoing change and it is a fact that applies to more than evolution. The theory of evolution observes the fact, evidence and empirical evidence for the fact and provides a explanation for the fact.
In the life sciences, evolution is a change in the traits of living organisms over generations, including the emergence of new species. In other fields evolution is used more generally to refer to any process of change over time. Web definition
The the theory of evolution presents evidence and empirical evidence that the fact (evolution or ongoing change) explains the origin of the species. Evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Thank you, but you excel, as usual, at sidestepping the point.
BOTH creation processes can be factual and true, simultaneously and with no conflict, depending only on frame of reference (internal vs. external).
"Have you read any of the evolution threads on FR?"
Quite a few.
" I guess you would be willing to stipulate an intelligent designer, then."
No, I wouldn't. Your dichotomy is a false one.
Tell that to all the birds we know.
If we evolved from fish that laid eggs into primates that swung from trees, then why not primates that laid eggs in trees. Seems we could check in on the eggs once in a while during our swinging without having to carry around the extra burden of a baby in our belly.
YOU said that evolutionary biologists DID say that our ancestors laid eggs in trees while swinging from trees (as our primate ancestors). You have failed to substantiate this absurd claim by citing ANY biologist who as ever said this. You made the claim; put up or shut up.
Certainly I said no such thing. You can either re-read the posts, shut your ownself up or apologize. I made suggestions and theories and "what if" questions, which is what we are discussing anyway, right? YOU can't provide a post where i said that "evolutionary biologists DID say that our ancestors laid eggs in trees while swinging from trees " because I never said it. I posed a question. Either a question is allowed in your Darwinian world or not. Laying eggs in trees to me seems to be the "missing link" which scientists have yet to provide. It would be the most efficient and expedient birth process if one is doomed to swinging from trees. Birds have adapted it as the most, not completely, pedatory free. It makes perfect sense that we would have evolved from there (as tree swingers) to hunter-gatherers, live birth, land locked animals. Yet nobody has yet to provide a homo specimen that laid eggs or a live-birth mammal that evolved into a primate, tree swinging human. Either from a fish to a crocodile to a monkey to a human or a fish to a shark to a monkey to a human....nothing.
U of H, Central Mich, Delta, SVSU, U of Mich.
Below are some branches on the family tree (and some cousins). Their relative positions are subject to change, cuz' thats all "just a theory." But these guys (and ladies) are FACTS--rock hard facts (sorry for the pun). Wishful thinking is not going to make them go away.
Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)
ah, I see: a "collage" of colleges.
"false dichotomy"? hell... "utterly bizarre non-sequitur" is more like it
Darwin said this almost 150 years ago. This is from Origin of Species (6th ed.), Chapter 2 - Variation Under Nature:
The many slight differences which appear in the offspring from the same parents, or which it may be presumed have thus arisen, from being observed in the individuals of the same species inhabiting the same confined locality, may be called individual differences. No one supposes that all the individuals of the same species are cast in the same actual mould. These individual differences are of the highest importance for us, for they are often inherited, as must be familiar to every one; and they thus afford materials for natural selection to act on and accumulate, in the same manner as man accumulates in any given direction individual differences in his domesticated productions.
You have no idea how willing and able I am to understand both points of view and allow both to be taught to anyone anywhere. I am not the one invoking US law to prevent evolutionist teaching in public schools in the context of science. You'll have to look elsewhere for thought police.
From the perspective of each and every observer it can be true that the sun rises and the earth rotates. Big deal.
Please explain why this isn't a mistake: post 339
In a giraffe this nerve is 15 feet longer than it needs to be.
Its facts you want? Here are some facts. Cute little guy, too. I studied this skull in grad school some years back. One of my favorites (but I was always partial to Mrs. Ples. The way this thread is going I suspect you will be seeing her anon and anon).
Site: Buxton Limeworks, Taung, South Africa (1)
Discovered By: M. de Bruyn, 1924 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.3 mya * determined by Faunal & geomorphological data (1, 4, 5)
Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 3, 7, 8)
Gender: Unknown (1)
Cranial Capacity: 405 (440 as adult) cc (1, 3)
Information: First early hominid fossil found in Africa (7, 8)
Interpretation:
See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=27
yet more sidestepping.
the external frame of reference cannot be scientific, as science is limited to observations of the inside from the inside. creationism of all forms can be explored in philosophy and/or comparative religion courses, it just isn't and cannot be science.
Darwinian evolution, as propounded by Darwin himself, would not have had anything in particular to say about enzymes you know.
What you are talking about is something a tad more modern than that ~ an "evolved" version in fact ~ but is it better adapted to its environment?
Lord only knows.
Did you notice how there seem to be several layers to the information content of a single coded sequence in a single gene? Given that sequence's relationship with a different sequence on the same gene, or in the presence of some other enzyme, you get a wide variety of results.
Now, real quick, where's the seat of consciousness, and do single celled animals have one?
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.