Posted on 01/11/2003 9:53:34 PM PST by DWar
Nonsense yourself. Something we don't understand is at the heart of quantum mechanics. Read Penrose. I have.
In exactly the same way chance is the heart of punctuated equilibrium evolution.
Hardly. Punk Eek acknowledges the huge problem for Evolution of the Cambrian Explosion but it explains nothing.
While it is true that I often like to talk about mammary glands to add a little humor to these threads, this discussion has nothing to do with them. It is about the transformation CLAIMED by evolutionists of the egg laying reproductive system of the reptiles into the live birth reproductive system of mammals.
The reptile-mammal transition is particularly visible in the fossil record.
No it is not. It's not about earbones, it's about internal organs and there is not a single bit of evidence about the development of those internal organs so you have no evidence on the question which I have been asking for a few months and which Dan Day tried to refute in Post# 378 and I convincingly dismissed in Post# 425 which is that a species cannot transform its mode of reproduction in a single generation which is what would perforce be necessary in the case of the purported reptile/mammal transformation.
What you have to refute is the scientific details in my post# 425 and show from your marvelous evolutionist writers how this TRANSFORMATION OF THE REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM occurred in a single generation, not talk to me about earbones.
Notwithstanding a multitude of accusations to the contrary, I do not have all the answers. But I have more than a few, for myself. If evil were not a possibility, there would be no Free Will, in my opinion one of the greatest learning tools ever conceived. That does not release us from the obligation to combat evil in whatever way we can and we do know evil when we see it. We are a speck but we are not an insignificant speck. Again IMHO.
It certainly does when someone brings God into the argument.
Oh, you plan to live forever?
So9
...And your rigorous google-search anaylis of placental evolution was intended to demonstrate just this point. As a matter of fact, you and others thought you had nailed it.
Thanks for noticing.
And yet now you appear knocking down the straw man you yourself made...
Son, before you go around accusing people of straw men fallacies, you would be well advised to explain exactly what you feel they have misprespresented. Otherwise, you're just slurring and name-calling. (Creationist tactic #483.)
At least when I slur someone, I explain in great detail what they have done to earn the flogging -- i.e., I make a case for it.
There's nothing "straw mannish" in directly addressing each of gore3000's claims like I did. You *do* actually know what a straw man is, don't you?
"It's also quite clear that the fundamentally *different* nature of the hammerhead/marsupial/mammalian placentas preclude them from being mistaken for being homologous"
Please tell me how these baby steps can occur.
I already did, try reading my post again.
But if you're trying to imply that my statement that the 3 types of placentas are not "homologous" somehow undercuts the points I made using them in an earlier post, then you quite simply don't understand the discussion.
Hint: Homologous, in biology, means that they were derived from a common ancestral feature. Only an idiot would attempt to argue that the shark, marsupial, and eutherian placentas were all inherited from a common ancestor, because they clearly are not.
However, this in no way invalidates the points I made using those placentas as instructional aids in post #378, because even though they are not homologous, they are analogous.
So if you have any specific objections, feel free to spell them out next time and we'll see if they hold water. Until then, your vague unexplained implications do you no credit whatsoever.
I enjoy the debate. Really I do.
So do I. I wish you'd learn how to properly do it. Hint: Sneering doesn't raise to the level of debate.
But perhaps you "have failed and appear to be acting disingenuously."
Wow -- the old "I know you are but what am I" defense. I take it you graduated from the Pee-Wee Herman school of debate?
I'm *this* close to writing you off entirely. If you are honestly interested in real debate, you'll have to demonstrate it better than you've managed with me so far. If not, it will quickly become apparent and I'll waste no further time on you. Your move.
(And note: Creationist tactic #213, "being so annoying that people give up talking to you and then you declare victory because 'they're running scared'" is so transparent that it doesn't fool anyone.)
Much observation also seems to support this.
I have too. He is a genius but no one but you thinks he is correct.
Hardly. Punk Eek acknowledges the huge problem for Evolution of the Cambrian Explosion but it explains nothing.
The Cambrian Explosion is one of many, each following a mass extinction. Punctured equilibrium is the discription of the results. The cause is simple genetics.
Let me ask you, how much oil production do you have? How many people do you know of who do not believe in evolution who have managed to make significant discoveries? Why don't you and your Fundie budies get together and put up some Jack and drill some holes. You are obviously smarter than the fools at the oil companies who think a knowledge of evolution will help them find oil & gas.
So9
I take it you read minds like many other Darwininians.
In addition, a number of well-designed, carefully controlled studies of health and well-being have demonstrated the salutary effects of older adults' religiosity (McFadden, 1995, 1996).
Your inability to specifically address any of the points I made with anything better than blanket ridicule is duly noted. If you run across anyone who knows what an actual rebuttal looks like, you might want to use them as a pitch-hitter.
Have you read "Icons of Evolution"?
No -- but I have read the author's website, and his gross dishonesty convinced me that his book would be a waste of time, unless one were looking for anti-scientific propaganda of the worst sort.
Do you believe in Global Warming?
No, is this relevant somehow? Or are you just having trouble focusing?
You butted in to my reply to SO9's mention of God in 433. If you are going to butt in, make sense.
Hmm. I don't suppose you could show us a placenta that demonstrates the transition from "non-deciduate" to "deciduate" qualities, could you?
No, but I can't say that I'm familiar with every type of mammal placenta, either. There may be some, there may not be.
Hmm -- I don't suppose you could explain why there allegedly would *have* to be a transitional placenta of that type?
Hint: The difference is a straightforward enough one that it could reasonably have happened in a single mutation. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any transitional forms.
For example, the loss of the two tissue layers in the extra-embryonic portion of the deciduate placenta (versus the non-deciduate) alone may have allowed the chorion layer to interdigitate with the uterine wall; and losing a feature is *very* easy to do with single-point mutations.
And then, could you please explain the mechanism that drove this change?
You'll have to clarify your question first.
Hmmm. Looks like a giant "leap of faith" to me, and a leap backwards from common sense at that.
First, beware of "common sense", it's often neither.
"Common sense" would tell you that the Earth is flat, and the Sun revolves around it. The real world is often more complex than it would first appear.
Second, you're missing the point (or trying to distract attention from it, I don't care which).
I've made no specific claims about how the placenta "must" have evolved. Heck, I've not even really declared that it necessarily evolved, period.
What I have done is point out that gore3000's original claims were hogwash. He claimed that the placenta *couldn't* have arisen by "gradual change" from an egg-laying ancestor. I demonstrated that his arguments were fallacious -- it *could* have been implemented by "gradual change" without "breaking" the system.
That's not the same as a proof that it *did*, just that it logically *could*, proving gore3000's specific claims to be wrong.
He was very specific in his claims, and I was very specific in my rebuttal. Running the conversation off in another direction only distracts attention from the topic being debated, before it has been settled.
Oh, Really?
Then why are we treated to such historonics by Evolutionist every time a new school board votes to grant the same privliges to other students which you enjoyed?
Cold callous comments like the above greatly grieve my spirit.
[snip]
What would they have lost? Their lives. Their entire lives and the world would have missed out on two very special boys who just may come up with a cure for a disease that might be taking your own life someday.
Since my comment is apparently being interpreted as "cold and callous", I'd like to clarify.
I'm well aware of the tragedy of a lost life. That wasn't my point.
My point was only in response to someone who stated:
When they understand that the eternal information (Spirit) for a life is contained in the embryo, at the point of conception, maybe then they will know why we fight like zealots to protect those children.The point he was making seemed to be, "over and above the usual 'earthly' loss, it's *more* of a tragedy if you consider that babies have eternal souls".
My *only* point was to scratch my head and ask why the consideration of an eternal soul would somehow make it *more* of a tragedy? If anything, it could be argued that it would make it at least marginally *less* a tragedy, since at least the child would then have the consolation of an eternal afterlife, versus a final dead end (in the case of no souls).
It was a philosophical question only, and was meant to prompt bondserv to explain his reasoning on that particular point.
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.