Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Browsing a magazine at the airport and saw an article about a very unusual large virus that shares some markers. They called my flight, but more info should be out there somewhere. I'm off again so can't follow up.
Or, is it the one where (let me correct the number here) about 5% is made up of such examinable stuff, and the other 95% is composed of invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable dark energy and dark matter?
Does your "reality" have 3 or 4 dimensions, or 11 dimensions?
Please don't bring "reality" into these threads ~ it just raises more questions that can't be answered.
After 500+ posts, don't think of my last post as a hijacking.
There's also this problem with living in lateritic soil. Much of Africa, as well as the American South, have such soils.
Only when you redefine evolution as a change in a single code unit in a single gene ~ otherwise, using Darwin's title for it "the origin of species", no one has seen it.
It's like trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Does not compute. Does not compute.
"Only when you redefine evolution as a change in a single code unit in a single gene ~ otherwise, using Darwin's title for it "the origin of species", no one has seen it."
Darwin called it the transmutation of species, or descent with modification. Evolution was not his term.
That being said, new species have been observed.
I was beautifully and wonderfully made in God's image.
____________
But where's your proof? That's only a theory.
If there is any sidestepping here it is on the part of those who fail to acknowlege to subjective nature of the observer, and the emotional attachment one may have to his perceptions. Evolutionists are champions at hiding their biases while pounding their chests as if they alone hold the key to objective interpretation of the evidence. At least creationists honestly admit they subject themselves to a text they themselves did not spin out of whole cloth. Evolutionists have no guide other than their own opinions and what appears to be consensus among like-minded ideologues. In short, a science that depends upon human observers is no more sound than a science that proceeds on the basis of outside revelation.
That's why you don't want to use that particular argument ~ it's of value if and only if we have a static Universe. Since we have a constantly changing Universe, which may even have variations in the speed of light over time (and all the other kinds of changes you might have with that sort of thing depending on when you live in the Universe), we really do need to stick with arguments that accommodate change.
This suggests, BTW, that Occam's razor is a fundamentally flawed doctrine and should, itself, be discarded.
"Humor has to have some basis in reality. The post in question didn't."
Of course, that is your opinion, not necessarily fact - I don't say that to stir the pot but respectfully. However, in that I try to avoid intentionally irritating someone, I probably shouldn't have posted my affirmation on that post. I have my weak moments.
I think all sides here need to chill a little. We argue with each other, and it never gets anything accomplished. We are all pretty entrenched in our relative positions. I sometimes marvel at the amount of time I waste posting here on FR on this topic.
And, as always, all chains has a weak one.
" "A" link, but not "the" link -- a chain has many links, and so does an evolutionary sequence."
Does raise a question though.
If the tree of life takes two forks, and one fork develops a lung but no articulated fin structures, while a seperate fork develops a shoulder-elbow-wrist mechanism but no lung, how do those two seperated developments get back together?
Not to annoy, but someone could make a case for evidence of design right there. Is a lungfish's lung just like ours? Could seperate branches be reasonably assumed to develop identical complex mechanisms?
Still, we do have folks on the Evo side who keep arguing "gradualism" ~ just as we have folks on the Creo side who keep arguing that "gradualism" is wrong.
ADM creates new lifeforms all the time.
RE: Backhistory and all that- we have a saying at my house, when watching television especially-
"Don't sweat the talking bears."
Sounds sort of like what you just explained.
Doc
As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).
|
M. Eyes = ?
Nose = ?
Teeth incisors = ?
K. Eyes = ?
Nose = pointy
Teeth incisors = small
J. Eyes = Medium
Nose = stubby
Teeth incisors = BIG
I. Eyes = Medium
Nose = less stubby
Teeth incisors = big
H. Eyes = smaller
Nose = more blunt
Teeth incisors = smaller
G. Eyes = SMALL
Nose = Pointer
Teeth incisors = Skinny
F. Eyes = BIG
Nose = Blunt
Teeth incisors = Thin
E. Eyes = HUGE!
Nose = pointy, again
Teeth incisors = Bigger
D. Eyes = Smaller
Nose = Getting wider
Teeth incisors = Bigger: two!
C. Eyes = Huge, again!
Nose = broader
Teeth incisors = very small
B. Eyes = less huge
Nose = less broad
Teeth incisors = ??
A. Eyes = bigger again
Nose = rounded
Teeth incisors = small
|
(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here. )
After seeing these pix; do you?
I have a photo of a photo taken of Jesus at the moment of resurrection. So, do either of you really look like Jesus? We can check.
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.