Posted on 10/11/2002 9:02:01 PM PDT by gore3000
So the indomitable Gore3000 wrote: Gee Junior, can't you make up your mind? Can't you stop contradicting yourself?
If I say, "wedding rings are simply another clue to the relationships between people," and "wedding rings are strong evidence that people are married," would anyone capable of chewing gum and walking at the same time claim a contradiction?
And if two organisms have a "relationship" in that one evolved into the other, wouldn't this be exactly what any literate and sane person would take Junior to be saying, to "square" that truly mind-blowing (to a troglodyte) circle?
And it has been. Now it's your turn. And, as for your contention that DNA denies evolution, nothing in the literature says that, indeed it states exactly the opposite -- that DNA evidence supports the evolutionist view of things. Unless, of course, you have any actual scholarship to back up your claims. Oh, I forgot, you don't actually do any research on the creo side, you simply carp at the guys down in the trenches doing the dirty work.
A conjunction is the only one known to have happened around then (although timing is unsure given that we don't really know the date of Jesus' birth). But conjunctions are pretty common and non-spectacular, and it's hard to see why it would be called just a "star."
What the article shows to me is that scientists are not afraid to contradict each other's conclusions based on the evidence at hand. It thus shows that science is not a conspiracy of dunces (unlike some other ways of seeking knowledge).
Well, that is the 'revised' version of evolution, but it does not work either. We see mutations all the time - and they result in death or decreased abilities. There is a famous example which shows the problems with the mutation theory brilliantly, it won a Nobel Prize for its discoverer. A mutation in a developmental gene resulted in a fly with a second set of wings replacing the stabilizers the fly had. Now the evolutionists claim this as proof of evolution however it proves the opposite. The fly needed the stabilizers. The second set of wings was totally useless because the mutation had created just wings, it had not created the support system necessary to make those wings useful. It is so with any function in an organism. It takes more than one thing to make a new function, therefore any mutation creating a new feature, even if it could be beneficial under the proper circumstances, will not be beneficial because the new feature will in all cases require a vast support system which in no way could have happened at random.
Once again, you overlook the obvious. The geologic record shows that the Earth's magnetic field has both waxed and waned in the past. In fact, human artifacts have captured the strength of the magnetic throughout recorded history. Putting all your eggs in the decay basket (even over only a few thousand years) has already been shown to be a loser bet. Better luck next time. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHA!
Now do a search on ‘Darwin gemmules’ and see what he speculated about what we now know as DNA. He was not a scientist mind you, so cut him some slack.
Was DNA what he predicted or was DNA something that was used to try to fit a preconceived notion? Does DNA fit better into a design scenario or a ‘no design necessary scenario’ as Darwin envisioned?
We will probably see two different things, but I hope you understand the general scientific philosophical flaw that I am suggesting.
And it has been.
You need to refute my post, not give us the nonsense that 'someone said it sometime somewhere'. Same for DNA, I gave you facts, I backed it up with articles. Your statement just means you disagree. We already knew your opinion, what we want is facts disproving my statements. Everyone has an opinion, I have the facts:
DURHAM, N.C. -- Classifying kangaroos and platypuses together on the evolutionary family tree is as absurd as adding your neighbors to your own family ancestral line simply because they share your love of the opera, according to scientists at Duke University.
But the current molecular method of using mitochondrial DNA to classify how mammals evolved is so flawed that it might have erroneously linked very different mammals, the scientists said. The mitochondrial DNA method of analyzing mammals has turned on its head the common-sense approach of linking mammals by similar anatomical traits or "morphology," they said.
Using a more comprehensive method to analyze the genetic material of 15 types of mammals, Duke researchers have shown that the mitochondrial DNA method that links disparate animals (hippo and whale, kangaroo and platypus) is statistically unreliable when it comes to evolutionary genetics, said Randy Jirtle, professor of radiation oncology at Duke University Medical Center. Their own research using nuclear genes (genes from the nucleus or core of cells) has shown a nearly 100 percent statistical likelihood that the Duke results are correct.
From: Kangarood and Platypus Not Related .
As you can read above, the evo 'scientists' threw out mtDNA as evidence of relationship and made up a totally subjective (and unexplained) 'scientific' analysis to prove their theory. In other words, since the DNA disproved their theory, they made up a new method that would. So no, DNA evidence disproves descent.
It only takes a single point mutation to "make a new function" that allows people to resist malaria.
The fact that a new wing would not be immediately useful is an interesting counter-example, but I bet it's self-evident to most readers that using a new wing is going to take neural and other changes due to the complexity of aeronatics, whereas lengthening a body part, or even adding a new limb for ground locomotion, is not nearly so complicated.
As the post above shows, the phony scientists of evolution made the evidence fit the facts which is the only way that the phony theory of evolution can be proven - with phony evidence.
As I stated, most mutations are harmful. Everyone agrees. So what's the point of your harping on that fact? As long as not all mutations are harmful, evolution can occur. And the sickle-cell/malaria example shows that not all mutations are harmful. So any number of harmful mutations that you might pratt on about aren't really relevant, are they?
First of all you are assuming that it is a mutation. Second, this mutation is absolutely deadly and would destroy any group in which all members had it (because it would kill 25% of the population each generation). This is very destructive and in no way supports evolution. What you need is beneficial mutations and those cannot be found anywhere. There is also not a single example of any organism - virus, bacteria, fruit fly, or whatever, which has ever in the numerous experiments conducted on them been transformed into a more complex creature. Not one.
I stand by my statements. Shapiro did not describe any new non-Darwinian theory. And he's right to address concerns. There is very little that is definitely settled by biologists. That's why it seems strange when some folks here use quotes that are so old.
Nope and that is why I posted that last item in the article. Read it and see that evolution is impossible and why:
While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information either, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either.
With the re-discovery of genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creation of new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species.
The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene are likely to destroy functioning completely and are extremely unlikely to enhance it, presented another serious problem for evolution. This was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for complete species transformation, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes.
With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species change totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.
So extinct species represent what? Failures of the Creator? I don't think so.
Maybe failure of your theory? Species were designed to fail?
Of course he did. Programs are written by intelligent beings, they do not write themselves. In addition let me point out the problem materialists have with their 'randomness' theories. If the Universe were random, there would be no scientific laws possible.
That is certainly one side. It seems the same on the other side to me.
Who is opting out of the scientific process? Are you making the ridiculous and easily refutable claim that all scientists are atheists?
I'm saying that students who don't learn the scientific method will be at a significant disadvantage in the competition for jobs and university positions.
Discuss the scientific questions presented against evolution instead of bashing your opponents. Again if evolution is science - defend the science of evolution.
I think some of the posters here have done a fine job of defending evolution. It's about time for Creationist/ID'ers to make their case that they're talking about science and not scripture. Have barely seen a peep of that.
Is this truly a mutation if the ability already existed?
Ask a theologian, I do not claim to know God's will. I am talking scientific facts, not religion. Explain euglena, the platypus, the wasp, the bat, the Cambrian, the butterfly in an evolutionary way. You claim evolution is science, then defend it in a scientific way. Do not change the discussion to a religion which you do not understand and do not believe in.
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.