Posted on 04/07/2006 4:16:49 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Even as the evolution wars rage, on school boards and in courtrooms, biologists continue to accumulate empirical data supporting Darwinian theory. Two extraordinary discoveries announced this week should go a long way to providing even more of the evidence that critics of evolution say is lacking.
One study produced what biblical literalists have been demanding ever since Darwin -- the iconic "missing links." If species evolve, they ask, with one segueing into another, where are the transition fossils, those man-ape or reptile-mammal creatures that evolution posits?
In yesterday's issue of Nature, paleontologists unveiled an answer: well-preserved fossils of a previously unknown fish that was on its way to evolving into a four-limbed land-dweller. It had a jaw, fins and scales like a fish, but a skull, neck, ribs and pectoral fin like the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods.
[big snip]
Another discovery addresses something Darwin himself recognized could doom his theory: the existence of a complex organ that couldn't have "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications," he wrote in 1859.
The intelligent-design movement, which challenges teaching evolution, makes this the centerpiece of its attack. It insists that components of complex structures, such as the eye, are useless on their own and so couldn't have evolved independently, an idea called irreducible complexity.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Kurds, the original Illinois Nazis.
The simple fact is that after the first 4 words in the
Bible "In the Beginning God"
(in case you didn't know what they are)
everything else is irrelevant to
all that ya'll come up with. All the theories
and facts and figures and graphs and charts
and pictures and old dead bones all that crap
ya'll call science doesn't mean a thing in the world
to me. I just like to be as your friend called me
an antagonizing troll. and ya'll just make it too
darn easy.
Wow.
Not only do you admit that he's not interested in facts, but you admit that you're a troll.
Simply stunning. The glorification of ignorance is very sad.
you might have been convincing if not for all the insults. Why must you insult the guy just because you're a self proclaimed expert?
Ichneumon: You really haven't a clue, have you? You've been reading too many creationist pamphlets and not enough science journals.
How do all the non-scientists come to believe all of your scientific journals (or all of your links you throw at us)?
Do you expect all people of planet earth to become scientists, paleontologists, etc.?? Do you expect non-scientists to enroll at the nearest leading university graduate program in biology or physics? There is no possible way for ninety percent or more of the world population to obtain an advanced scientific degree and to obtain the necessary experience to properly evaluate all of your links and "proofs" within a human lifespan. All that a non-scientist can do is take it on faith that evolution is true.
Or do you find it more reasonable that One God asks all to come to Him by faith? (Without graduate degree in hand, without white papers, without research materials, without scientific journals, etc.) (and faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17 ).
"Okay, so then what the hell is a slime mold?"
It's called a strawman.
Do plants require animals to survive?
Do animals require plants to survive?
If the answer is yes, that makes a great cace for intelligent design.
Are you trying to suggest that Ichneumon's claims are false simply because a large percentage of the population may not understand them?
"We have more than just two basic forms of life."
I'm aware of all that as it was taught in the '70s when I graduated. The fact remains that plants need animals to survive and visa versa. Great evidence of intelligent design.
You decided AGAINST posting a picture of "the enigmatic" Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) on a science geek thread????
You should be flogged to within an inch of your life.
Why? (Other than the fact that, to its proponents, anything and everything "makes a great case" for ID)
Well then, since eidolons or automata do not have the "tell-tale" properties that define what is human, though they may resemble humans in other respects, what is the object of this comparison? What does it seek to show? That eidolons are "just as good" as humans? That is to say, there is no real substantive difference between eidolons and humans in the first place?
What am I missing here? Might it be the case that, in the example above, the conclusion has been loaded into the premise?
Though I do regard your question regarding the "source" of Cain's wife as a delightfully serious one, one that has not yet been "naturalistically" answered, as far as I know.
Thanks so much for writing, King Prout!
Plants do not require animals for survival. They can be grown quite nicely axenically (Most can, that is - there's always exceptions). Animals require plants because they are not capable of primary productivity. Animals also require microorganisms and a large part of the primary productivity on Earth is provided by bacteria.
But your main point that these interrelationships prove ID is specious. These interrelationships do not imply any form of design, but they do imply, hhmmmmm, since I doubt you'd accept a scientific term for it, let's call it "learning to live with your neighbor".
You've studied the morphology of the finds? What are your scientific conclusions?
Don't Need No Stinkin' Study - placemarker.
"Does anybody besides me find it interesting that we have two basic forms of life, plants and animals."
The balance you are referring to is not hard to explain. It's the result of natural selecetion plus the normal balance that occurs in nature. Too many rabbits eating up the veggies and next year there's a poor crop of veggies and a die-off among the now hungry rabbits.
Not really. What you are saying, when you stop to think about it, is that literally everything you might ever observe is "evidence of intelligent design." Nothing could possibly not be "evidence of intelligent design." Your "theory" can't make any distinctions between what is and what is not "evidence of intelligent design."
No predictions can ever made using your idea. No testing of the idea is possible. That's why ID isn't a scientific idea.
Faith without reason is BS. The followers of Jim Jones had faith. If you check your brain at the church door, you are wasting your time.
Thanks for the ping...as usual, I am late coming to the thread..took me quite a while to catch up...but its been enlightening, for the articles themselves, and for the responses...
Wow, you really slayed Dimensio with that argument!
There needs to be a word like endarkening.
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.