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?
Some does, some has no apparent purpose at all, and is very unlikely to. (various repeating sections, pseudogenes, fossil viruses to name a few.)
Remember the LGGLO (scurvy) mutation in the great apes (including people). It's very similar to functional dna in other mammals, except for one missing base pair, which totally screws it up downstream from there.
Is it there for some unknown regulatory purpose? Evidence? Is it there to make a novel protein that only apes need? Evidence?
If it's not junk (your claim) and it would allow us to make vitamin C if just one base-pair were added (sequencing data), then the conclusion would be that it's a mutation that does something useful. But you're always claiming that doesn't happen!
All you never wished you never knew about Darwin and Marxism
You link me to Marxists.org? As I already said, "arm-waving commie double-speak does not qualify". Again, YOU need to explain HOW evolutionary theory supports marxism. Give me the argument logically connecting the two. Don't send me to pore through mindnumbing communist propaganda. Simply state the argument.
What possible bearing does this have on the truth of the standard biological ToE?
You know what's really ironic? Marx's conception of the inevitable historical progression up the ladder from primitive communism, thru the peasant system, feudalism, capitalism, and then the end point of communism, looks very much like the Great Chain of Being - which Darwin refuted!
Surely I'm not the only one who's noticed that. Do you know of any writer who's made that connection?
Not really - the few cases where the 'dialect' of the genetic code differs are bacteria, some of which also use amino acids no-one else does.
I was really thinking of the archaea which are not called bacteria anymore. They use two amino acids not used by any other living things which are coded by two codons which are used as stops in other organisms. The reason why these cannot be replaced is that they enable the archaea to withstand the tremendous temperatures under which they live. This is one of several reasons why the archaea are deemed to be a completely separate 'kingdom' which could not have been the source of the bacteria or prokaryotes.
But then if not all descended, then there must have been a Creator at work eh?-me-
How does this follow? It is possible there were at one time several kingdoms of bacteria with similar but not identical genetic codes that arose independently from the precursor chemical evolution.
The problem is in changing over from one code to another. The code is what proteins are made of. If you change the code you will be making proteins that do not work as they were supposed to. That is why I said that you would have to both change the code and the coding of the proteins at the same instant.
I find Marx and other commies unreadable, the jargon is awful and the lack of empiricism is a dead giveaway that we're dealing with revelation, not science or scholarship.
The contrast between Marx and, say, von Mises or Hayek or Friedman is overwheming. Jargon VS plain but precise language, armchair speculation VS real life and real histroy.
It's amazing that a poster on FR would continually post links to commie websites. I've never seen that before!
I never said he didn't. I said DARWIN didn't embrace MARX. Obviously Marx must claim that evolutionary theory is compatible with communism because he (Marx) has claimed that his historicist theory is "scientific". Any generally accepted scientific theory must be shown to be compatible with Marx's theory, however much shuck 'n jive and shoe-horning may be required. Of course Marx realized there were problems. He tried to wave them off as being due to the "clumsy English style of [Darwin's] argument," but of course the problems were not with the "style" of Darwin's theory, but with it's substance.
Oh, yeah. Darwin's note to Marx thanking him for Das Kapital. We already discussed this. Darwin is cleary, if politely, dismissing Marx, and in the process shoveling a bit of manure in his general direction, e.g.:
I heartily wish that I was more worthy to receive [your book], by understanding more of the deep and important subject of political Economy.
This is B.S. Darwin DID understand "political Economy." In fact he read many full books on the subject. But he didn't read Marx's book. It still exists in Darwin's library, but only a few pages are cut. (You had to cut the pages in those days or you couldn't read the book.)
Seems we pretty much agree on the basic facts as to what this 'mutation' does. What we disagree on is (1) whether it is beneficial and (2) whether it verifies the theory of evolution. As to (1) losing a 1/4 of the children does not seem very beneficial to me. In addition it must be remembered that people without this 'protective' mutation nevertheless survive in malaria infested regions. So this is not necessary for survival. As to (2) it cannot be said to verify evolution because it destroys normal operation of the organism. It does not create anything new. Evolution needs lots of new stuff to be true, not the destruction of stuff.
Of course there is as I already pointed out. I know what they said, I DISAGREE THAT THEIR THEORY IS VALID. I already gave the reason - it is ludicrous to say that a large amount of changes would suddenly arise together in order to create a new species.
Further your stating that there is no problem between gradual evolution and saltationism is false. The Neo-Darwinists and the Gouldians were constantly bickering with each other saying the other's theory was false. More importanly though it is totally against logic to say that a process is both sudden and gradual. You have not said anything which denies this - and indeed cannot.
No it's not. I'm not the one who thinks that scientific theories can, do or should "support" (or fail to support) political theories. YOU are the one who thinks this. I have repeatedly argued and stated that arguing from natural science to political ideology is fallacious.
Also, I am not the one who thinks Marx was correct in finding support for his theories in natural science. I think Marx is wrong about this. YOU are the one who thinks that Marx is correct (in the particular respect of evolution supporting marxism) but you won't say HOW. I think his claims, and similar claims by other marxists, are utterly gratuitous, and supported by nothing at all (apart from the typical communist "argument by defintition," arm-waving and jargonistic "word salad").
All I'm saying is that sickle-cell is an example of mutation and natural selection at work. If it weren't beneficial in the Darwinian sense, it wouldn't occur in 40% of some populations. Do you have another explanation to account for the fact it is found in a fairly large percentage of people in malaria country, but in a very small (zero, really) percentage outside it?
In addition it must be remembered that people without this 'protective' mutation nevertheless survive in malaria infested regions. So this is not necessary for survival.
No-one said, and I explicitly denied, that hemoglobin-S is the *only* protection against malaria.
YOU are the one who thinks that Marx is correct (in the particular respect of evolution supporting marxism) but you won't say HOW.
That's because ALS is being a troll. Please...
| WARNING!!! ALS is trolling Please do not feed the trolls! |
G'nite...
Can you quote an actual researcher saying something like that? Where does design enter into the picture?
Who said what to whom is irrelevant to me, I just look at the facts and they speak for themselves. I remember a quote posted on a thread here a few months back that said biologists do not need theories, they have the facts.
I thought I had explained how design enters into the question. At first scientists thought that cancer must be caused by a gene. They did not find it. When they started learning that genes were not 'it', but just factories which did what they were told they realized that they needed to look at the processes of the cell, not at a particular gene. The process of when to duplicate a cell is very involved and it has several controls over it. When the controlling mechanism is broken the system breaks down and cells start reproducing uncontrollably (normally after maturity a new cell is only made when an old cell needs to be replaced and the old one is made to commit suicide) This is why we stop growing at a certain point. This is a highly controlled mechanism and when any of the parts works incorrectly you get cancer. Reason why this is design is because it is a system, and system which must be highly exact cannot arise at random. Just think of this, there are 100 trillion cells in the human organism and just one going bad can cause cancer. This requires a very exact and very well controlled system and thus implies that the system was designed. If scientists had been looking for design, they would have found the answer sooner.
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.