Posted on 04/05/2006 10:32:31 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
I I think I meant that the strength of their opinions is inversely proportional to the amount they know.
Flamebait: philosophy is to science what astrology is to astronomy and what alchemy is to chemistry.
*Ahem* I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the entire Bible is mythology (of a sort), in that it describes a belief system, not a scientific construct.
There are many belief systems (Shino, Hindu, Buddhism, etc.). There is certainly a lot of room for philosophical discussion. But none for science.
If you're trying to be contradictory it would be more effective if you said you didn't come from an ape. Apes evolved from monkeys. We evolved from apes.
Thanks furball! The tiger salamander isn't what was the subject of the recent documentary I saw, but interesting nonetheless. This was some sub-saharan creature totally dependent upon water, or lack thereof. If it is a dry year, the creature lays eggs that turn into an amphibious animal. In a wet year it lays eggs that turn into an acquatic animal. I think this was on Discovery or Animal Planet. I'll see if I can find it. It's interesting because drought could render this species extinct but somehow it adapts to either wet or drought conditions during egg laying. So how do it know?? Maybe if it rolls snake eyes, we have X kind of eggs? What if it layed eggs for drought conditions and then the monsoons set in. Or layed eggs for wet conditions and a drought set in? No intelligent design here, nope.
It has the necessary genes for either mode of life and depending on environmental conditions it turns on either one set or the other.
You're right, no intelligent design, just natural selection favoring the existence of alternate developmental routes determined by transcription factors.
Do you have a link? Or is it still missing? :-) None of the primates laid eggs, so far. None of the tree climbers had opposable thumbs, so far. There is absolutely nothing to validate this as more than someone's active imagination.
Philosophy is the argument for proof of faith and belief in things unknown. None have ever produced proof and all have been refuted also by argument. Of 400 religions which is proved or disproved by argument. Don't they all make the argument that each is the only truth.
Why in the world would they do that?
No, no intelligent design there. The eggs are the same, the difference comes in a developmental switch that is affected by environmental conditions. These developmental divergences are often subtle in their beginnings, but have a profound effect on the adult animal.
The real question would be: What happens if the switch is set to aquatic and there is a sudden drought or vice versa? A short term disaster for the critter.
CTM doesn't appear to be chasing that car, though.
These genes turn on IN water? How does it know there will be no water at the end of the gestations period? How does it know it's babies need to crawl out of the water and survive without water when the eggs are laid IN water? How does the animal know that it is a drought or wet season at the time of egg laying if the eggs are laid in water? Is it intelligent design or the animal is psychic and knows that at the end of the gestation period there will or won't be water, and its babies need to be aquatic or reptillian?
I know. We've had quite civil discussions.
You are asking the wrong people. It's the ID crowd that needs to explain how you anticipate need. Darwinian evolution doesn't anticipate need. Those individuals that are best adapted to current conditions leave more offspring. It's a bell curve thing, not an either/or.
If you want details, you'll need to provide me with some. I'm searching for a sub-Saharan amphibian that alternates between something like a newt and eft state, but not having any luck. Was this a frog? A toad? A salamander? You don't remember the name at all?
You were totally unaware of this?
Ever hear of "Frankenfood"?
Beats me. According to the evolutionist anything is possible. Not only did we lay eggs once, we laid them while swinging from trees. There's nothing to validate this as anything but someone's over-active imagination. I look at my little cocker spaniel and don't think of her as a 115th cousin once removed. Yes we have a few things in common as mammals, air breathing lungs for one, live birth for two, but other than that I can't see some critter crawling out of a cess pool and deciding to be a dog or a human. IF we were dependent upon water/drought conditions then yes, maybe I could see us becoming fish or amphibious. That would leave us two, possibly three, animal forms on earth that could survive under water/air/both conditions. But a fish crawling upon land and thinking "hmmm, do I want to be a cocker spaniel or a human....decisions decisions."
We have walked on the moon, explored Mars, measured light from distant galaxies, broken much of the human genetic code and still nobody can say how we went from fish to human or provide definitive proof thereof. I'm keeping an open mind, just saying there IS no proof that evolution, a/k/a Darwinism, is nothing more than junk science.
There are climatic types that are named after these zones.
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.