Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
Yup, real non sequitur, I directly addressed the issue and showed exactly why you cannot find a single evolutionist writer that will deal with the question of the scientific facts about how a reptile could ever have transformed into a mammal. Facts beat rhetoric every time and your side does not have any facts.
Nope, that's why I said he slip with Darwinism, not evolution. He knew that evolution was phony, he just wanted to stay on the gravy train.
Interesting. Seems atheists, more than Prolifers, should hold life to be precious because to the atheist, that is all there is.
Are we talking about Steven J. Gould? The foremost popularizer of evolutionary theories of our time?
They would furthermore be advised to examine various members of the animal kingdom to see whether any "in-between" stages *already* existed to prove/disprove the workability of "stepping-stone" transitions. Only then could they hope to discuss the topic with any degree of believability and/or assurance that their points bore any passing resemblance to actual biology and/or animal life cycles.
Yes. Sharks. Some lay eggs, some give live births and some propagate themselves with what appear to be intermediate means.
Now, pay attention. We are going to ask scientific questions, questions you did not answer.
Is it true that many if not most species of sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years? Well, yes it is. If that is so, where is the vaunted Darwinian change?
And did egg-layers transition into live-birthers? Or the reverse? How do you know? What is the evidence? They clearly are all currently viable, so which of the 3 is the product of survival advantage? Sort of embarrassing to be asked these questions, isn't it? Particularly since you don't have the answers. But take heart. Neither does anyone else. And hang in there, there's more.
Whichever way the transformation occurred, which is wholly speculative at this point, what was the mechanism?. Chance? You allude to chance as the "reason" when you point to lengthy periods of time between supposed events. Sorry, Wrong Answer. Science explains. "Chance" explains nothing. It is anti-science. Well then, how about mutation? Sorry Again. Mutation has never been shown, in the laboratory, in the wild or in the fossil record to be anything but destructive. When selectively bred into monsters in the laboratory then left to their own devices, fruit flies rapidly gravitate back toward the norm in succeeding generations. There has not been shown to be a credible mechanism, only rhetoric. I do not maintain that it does not exist, only that it has not been shown. But it is science's duty, biology's duty, to tell us what it is. Or it ain't science.
Let's talk a little more about homology, structural similarities. Seems widely varying species have been known for centuries to exhibit surprisingly similar organic structures, which would seem to be impossible if Darwinian Evolution looks anything like a tree. I refer you to Icons of Evolution by Johathan Wells. To quote you back to yourself: OOPS!
You have not shown us, Dan. When someone says to the physicists "Show me", they go out a produce an atomic bomb and the laser. Tough to argue with that. Ask the same question of the Evolutionists and you get the Atheist First Dawkins and the Rhetorician Gould who drones on about magisteria.
But the Evol Claque is ecstatic, back slapping and shouting -- I think I even saw Patick on a table in the center of the room waving his hands. Well, they ain't happy about the science because there isn't any. I conclude that they simply enjoy bashing "Creationists", defined as anyone who would dare to question their pet "theory", and whacking on gore3000. For all the pretty pictures and the volume of rhetoric, Dan, I'm underwhelmed.
Actually, the placental invention of live birth comes well after reptiles became mammals. See also, egg-laying mammals and marsupials. Dan Day's earlier post to you explains the point nicely, and yet you still don't get it. (You, of all people! Who'd have thought?) It's almost a change of subject to suddenly, after all the dumb-dumbing about placentalism being impossible to evolve, announce that reptile-mammal transition is the topic.
The reptile-mammal transition is particularly visible in the fossil record. The diagnostic feature for mammals isn't placentalism (too late), live birth (still too late), warm-bloodedness (too early), or even the eponymous mammary glands (soft tissue, seldom or never fossilized) but a one-part lower jaw and the signature mammalian earbone configuration. Evolutionist writers and the fossil record itself have plenty to say on the subject, as has been linked for you many times over the past two years. You simply see nothing and remember nothing.
You may have skimmed my posts, but you have no idea of their content. You aren't even in the ballpark on this one, bud.
Not only am I not bashing religion, but I have no hatred for it - even f.Christian gets this part of my posts and tries to offer some solutions. So please, stuff it.
I am always amazed at Christians being so fervid to preserve life, no matter how wretched. Almost seems like they think death is the end. Are they AFRAID TO DIE?
So9
Nonsense. It is the very heart of quantum theory. You know, the funny rules that define the workings of the semiconductors that make up the computer you are using.
In exactly the same way chance is the heart of punctuated equilibrium evolution. Trying to trash Darwinian Evolution is about as useful as arguing about phlogeston. while our understanding of the details has improved, the basis of Physics or of Evolution remain valid.
SO9
Maybe they think they are emulating Jesus. It's just that they consider Jesus to be a hateful calumnious dolt.
I noticed that this thread has gone in a number of different directions; is there something in particular I should be researching?
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.