Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
You do not need radically different genetic codes to show others could not have descended from it. The reason is this - to change the genetic code, one single reading, you would need to AT THE VERY SAME TIME need to change the DNA bases of all the genes using that code or the organism will not function. So what you need is a miracle or a designer and evolution says there are no miracles and no designers. So yes, that proves the theory of evolution to be false (at least in regards to the statement that each and every species descended from another species). But then if not all descended, then there must have been a Creator at work eh?
Have the Communists ever used the Sermon on the Mount to support their theories?
Based on an analogy between the hypothetical designer and current software design/implementation practices? Based on the hypothesis that the putative designer *just happens to follow* known phylogenies when doing his/her/its thing? What exactly has hypothesising a designer given us?
Because form follows function
Like cows, pigs, hippos and whales have a lot of functions in common
Remember, the statement applies to *all dna sequences*, even those that have no apparrent purpose (coding or regulatory). For example, fossil viruses, LINES, SINES, pseudogenes, etc.
It's funny that ID can make this prediction only after it was made by legitimate science. Is there any prediction from the ID camp that differs from the standard theory? (IE, one that could, in principle, disprove ID, making it more theory-like).
I stand by what I said above: No, there isn't.
ID is consistent with any conceivable observation, hence it is not science.
Well thats fine for the technician. Some folks try to grasp the big picture and understand the science behind things. It doesn't make it any less valid. NASA engineers used classical newtonian mechanics to send Apollo to the moon. I suppose you are not a fan of Relativity either?
Science is not about assuming, it is about proving. So no, it is not safe to assume such a thing. If there were no phenotypic differences then all animals would be the same. To be different, there have to be both phenotypic and genetic differences. So no, your statement is a tautology which says 'if we assume evolution is true' then mutations are the cause of phenotypic differences. There is no proof of that.
. An example of this are a group of genes found in virtually all multicellular organisms called the Hox cluster. This locus is a major determinant of the overall body plan of the animal. It looks like it went through several duplication events throughout evolutionary history. This is still an area of active research, but where it has been tested, the mutations to the Hox cluster have been experimentally verified to be responsible for the visible changes of the organism (i.e. more legs, wings etc).
That is not correct. It is again saying that if evolution is true, those changes are due to mutations. You and evolutionists seem to forget a very simple thing, the phenotype of the organism has a purpose and has to be in accordance with other parts of the phenotype (what we see - arms, legs, etc). It is not there due to luck. The problem with the Hox genes and evolution is that they are not what is important when it comes to development. It is the program controlling development that matters because everything has to be done in proper order. Each time you make a cell for example you have to make sure it is able to get nutrition, oxygen, be able to excrete wastes, etc. So changes to the phenotype cannot be made stochastically (at random) they have to be properly programmed to be in accordance with all the rest that is going on in the organism's development.
The comment would exist in the same "character set" that DNA is written in. So yeah, the A, T, C and G nucleotides. As far as what it would look like, that's a hard one. If the comments were encrypted the first problem would be to determine if there is valid, but encrypted, information there - as opposed to random junk. And since DNA is rather like "open source", if I had to bet it would be that the comments would be encrypted.
The comment would exist in the same "character set" that DNA is written in. So yeah, the A, T, C and G nucleotides. As far as what it would look like, that's a hard one. If the comments were encrypted the first problem would be to determine if there is valid, but encrypted, information there - as opposed to random junk. And since DNA is rather like "open source", if I had to bet it would be that the comments would be encrypted.
Doing a bit of web searching, I found this! Now isn't that interesting?
I am unaware of anything in science that has been formally proven.
It is the program controlling development that matters because everything has to be done in proper order.
Yes, the Hox genes encode for factors which are "master switches" for all of the accessories associated with a specific body part (i.e. leg, wing)
Then why do something like 20% of people in West Africa carry the gene?
You need to create things to get from a bacteria to a human, an illness creates only destruction
In this case the mutation causes an illness, and also prevents one.
In fact, if it was prevalent in any large amount of any population it would kill up to a quarter (that's called genetics, a well proven scientific fact) of the children of those carrying this trait.
Quite correct. (25% of the children of hetreozyotes whill be homozygous). So why does the gene persist in malaria country, but nowhere else? Could it be natural selection at work?
So yes, more people have survived without this trait than with it.
No-ones saying any differently - there are likely to be a lot of mechanisms protecting us from diseases; the hemoglobin-S is just one of them.
Not just the technician. Electrical theory, as science, has not been particularly advanced by the QED. After all, it is concerned with electrons, not the quantum stuff.
I have no problem with relativity theory, actually I think that that theory meets Popper's criteria for a well stated theory quite well.
This is the whole problem here. You have to make a real prediction as to what ID would tell us to look for.
Replace QED, with elecromagnetic wave theory.
I have no problem with relativity theory, actually I think that that theory meets Popper's criteria for a well stated theory quite well.
Explain why it does better than TOE.
To a literalist Bible-believer, they'd be in Hebrew, I guess. To a Muslim, the'd be in Classical Arabic. To a Hindu, in Sanskrit.....
Rather like Sagan's "Cosmos", with the message in Pi.
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.