How Much Longer Can They Sell Darwinism?

From Sea to Shining Sea ^ | 1/4/09 | Purple Mountains

[PurpleMountains]

All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.

[allmendream]

The pattern is consistent with common descent in that highly functional sequences show high conservation between species and sequences of little or no use change at a predictable rate. As such the data is unmistakable for common descent.

According to your “like should be like” hypothesis a chimpanzee and a gorilla should be more similar in DNA than either is to a human, but that is not the case because a human and a chimp are more similar to each other than either is to a gorilla. Old world and New world vultures should be more similar to each other than either is to hawks or cranes, but they are not.

[tacticalogic]

I'm not particularly impressed with accusations of "moral relativity". Anything short of perfect moral absolutes involves some degree of elativity.

Morality is the domain of philosophy and theology. If you could establish a baseline of absolute morality to base science on, you will have effectively made science the exclusive domain of whatever philosophy/theology/religion you choose as your baseline for morality. You may think that's a good idea, but I don't.

[Dog Gone]

My dog also lives in the exact same environment as me.

Our DNA must be becoming more identical, right?

[tacticalogic]

Are you suggesting that one can not harbor animosity unless they first have someone specific upon whom they objectify their animosity?

Not at all. But I think more often that not it involves personalities as much as issues and ideas.

[allmendream]

You seriously doubt it? A great big nothing?

I thought my explanation was sufficient but I will explain it in more detail for you.

It is called a “phylogenetic tree” and it shows the evidence (one data point out of many thousands) of common descent from DNA comparison of a segment of DNA common to all the species. Each species has a different sequence there, and the most “parsimonious” tree arranges the similar with the similar and the divergent further away.

This tree, unlike many others, includes the actual numbers of DNA differences that they were counting for this particular data point (there have been several methods and sequences used and all derive the same tree).

This particular tree shows that humans and chimps are closer to each other than either is to a gorilla. If you are counting the differences would be...

Human-chimp= 42+28 = 70 DNA differences
Human-gorilla=42+16+42= 100 DNA differences
chimp-gorilla=28+16+42= 86 DNA differences

This is the pattern we see repeated over and over again. Every tree we make based upon data shows that humans and chimps are closer than either is to a gorilla.

[NicknamedBob]

"Our DNA would be expected to be very similar because we look similar and live in virtually identical environments and eat basically the same food."

What you eat has no effect on your DNA other than to keep it functional and allow it to reproduce.

However, organisms living in similar environments may be pressured, over time, to make similar adaptations.

This concept of similar environments producing similar creatures confused early taxonomers. It confuses some of us still ... "The marsupial wolf is not a wolf? But it looks like a wolf!"

The clue is in the word marsupial.

[CottShop]

[[You keep saying this, but neither you nor anyone else has produced a sustainable argument to support the claim.]]

Mmm Yes we have- We’ve explained it in detail, it’s just that you refuse to acknowledge the biological difference and still insist that mutations can bring about the trillions of upward self assembling non species specific info needed- and you insist this without a shred of scientific evidence to back up your claim-

There IS a seperation biologically betqween micro and macro evolution

[[From the point of view of evolutionary theory, nearly all evolution proceeds at a micro rate.]]

No it doesn’t (Although I see you’ve left yourself an ‘out’ by declaring ‘nearly all’). Macroe is a far different animal than micro biologically speaking.

[NicknamedBob]

"This is the pattern we see repeated over and over again. Every tree we make based upon data shows that humans and chimps are closer than either is to a gorilla. "

Now I know you're making this up! Only God can make a tree.

(Humor break)

[CottShop]

Not that I should even bother responding to you- because you simply don’t pay attention to the facts, and try to make mountains out of issues that aren’t being discussed- but what I quoted is the central issue- IF you have a rebuttal to what was posted- then post it- otherwise- your little tangent rabbit trail isworthless diversion that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the FACTS that were posted. Either refute the facts- or continue on being ignored as irrelevent to thios discussion

[NicknamedBob]

"Macroe is a far different animal than micro biologically speaking."

Not really. Under the microscope most cells look the same.

[CottShop]

[[So, it’s pretty much the consensus that the folks at FR have debunked modern scientific thought?]]

All of science? Of course not

[[Why is it that it hasn’t convinced the scientific community or society at large?]]

Golly, Adent devotion to somethign htey’ve invested their careers and reputaitons in comes to mind?

[[Science thrives on being challenged and changing its theories to incorporate new facts.]]

No sir it doesn’t- not when it comes to naturalism- to state otherwise is to display a blatant disregard for the obvious.

[[ So, if you think you’ve won the argument, there isn’t any proof of it.]]

We have, it’s just a few holdouts who are also apparently deeply invested in naturalism that don’t care to confess the obvious.

[NicknamedBob]

"Not that I should even bother responding to you- because you simply don’t pay attention to the facts, and try to make mountains out of issues that aren’t being discussed- but what I quoted is the central issue- IF you have a rebuttal to what was posted- then post it- otherwise- your little tangent rabbit trail isworthless diversion that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the FACTS that were posted. Either refute the facts- or continue on being ignored as irrelevent to thios discussion "

That is simply amazing! I knew you could do it if you tried!

Thanks for putting forth the effort. My eyes thank you.

[CottShop]

[[What’s fascinating is that species were all created to look exactly as if they were descended from common ancestors. Remarkable.]]

Exactly? Really? No differences at all eh? Are you perhaps refering to a FEW morphological/homological similarities and trying to claim they amount to ‘almost exactly’?

[[We know that that’s not how human designers work,]]

They don’t? Seems to me that an automobile has many similarities to a go-cart, but the two are entirely different KINDS

You’re reachign now JS

[[All of them can instantly be identified as designed because their genomes do not conform to the rules of common descent.]]

Hmmm- Seems to me that even the ‘closest’ man and ape have billions of genetic differences- Are you suggestign that a geneticist couldn’t tell one genome from another because they are ‘almost exactly alike’?

[NicknamedBob]

"Hmmm- Seems to me that even the ‘closest’ man and ape have billions of genetic differences- Are you suggestign that a geneticist couldn’t tell one genome from another because they are ‘almost exactly alike’?"

How many differences do you suppose they had a million years ago?

[Dog Gone]

Well, here’s a clue. If you had won, evolutionists would be suing today to get it taught in the classroom.

Museums of Natural History would be changing their exhibits, putting all those fake dinosaur bones in the warehouse, or better yet, crushing them.

Oil companies would no longer explore for hydrocarbons based on the ages of the rocks and what organic material would have existed at the time. They’d just ask God where he put the stuff.

Of course, if that worked, it’s not clear why the oil isn’t primarily located in the Christian nations and Israel, is it?

You haven’t lost the argument entirely, but you’re losing it more and more every year. You can claim you’re winning, but that’s not what the scoreboard says.

[CottShop]

[[“Where? I must have missed those submissions? Perhaps you can just briefly recap those claims- then I’ll better be able to address this question?”]]

As I said earlier, there are indeed miracles today, however, they are of a nature that might also be dismissed as ‘naturally occuring’ even though the scientist has no answer for how it could happen- whereas Christ’s miracles were TRUE undeniable miracles meant ot be observed so that they couldn’t be denied, and it couldn’t be denied that He was the Christ. Today’s miracles are not on the same level as the true miracles Christ performed- perhaps True is the wrong word- Christ’s miracles were indeed true miracles, but today, we ascribe miracles to far too many instances- Perhaps ‘undeniable’ woudl be a better term. Miracles today I guess fall into the ‘could be’ category I guess- (But again we DO have a lot of charlatan ‘miracle workers’ claiming miracles that are nothign but scams- which is why I sued the word ‘TRUE’ prteviously). Whiel some miracles today can be denied- they can’t be either proven or disproven really (althoguh this will change right before end times)- they can however be studied and reasonable conclusions can be drawn

You said [[It’s been submitted that the “Evos” aren’t being “objective” because they don’t accept particular events]]

I would have to agree with htis- IF a scientist simply dismisses a ‘miracle’ out of hand, and claims, without any proof, that it must have had natural causes, then Yes, they are being subjective- and not objective- There are however many doctors and scientists I imagine who do take an objective stand onm tthe issue, and simply state, I don’t know.

you then asked how it could be measured? Objectively and statistically- could htere be strict controls put in place while studying? Sure. Could you come to an absolute conclusion one way or hte other when the tests were completed? No- I don’t think so, however, you could come to reasonable conclusions- which brings us back to the difference between the miracles of hte bible and the ones now in the church age-

Let me ask you this- IF you saw the kinds of miracles Christ performed, woudl you stil lthen doubt and state that we ‘couldn’t measure them;’ that they couldn’t be true miracles? I mean, it could be I suppose, that the blind had temporary conditions, and Christ knew the time when they would regain their sight, and also knew that a positive force and encouragement in hteir lives might facilitate more rapid healing, right?

[allmendream]

I don’t think I will ever see
anything more parsimonious than
a phylogenetic tree.

[CottShop]

[[Well, here’s a clue. If you had won, evolutionists would be suing today to get it taught in the classroom.]]

We have won- it’s just as I’ve said, there are a few holdouts who are so heavily invested in their false beleifs that they can’t admit hte obvious, and sadly, they have hte activist courts behind htem for now- So listen- enjoy your little temporary victory- it woudl seem you woudl be content that you have hte ear of activist courts, and woudl rest easy, but no, you don’t- you’re hear every day fighting it out trying to prove your side- but I tell you the truth- The TRUTH stands on it’s own merrits, and it’s the TRUTH that matters- not soem activist’s court descisions- The fact is that the world would rather beleive a lie than the truth- and ya know what? We’re ok with that- really, but that doesn’t mean we lay down and just let the lies deceits and misrepresentations have their way uncontested.

[[You haven’t lost the argument entirely, but you’re losing it more and more every year.]]

You might want to check out that statement a little more carefully by examining recent descisions in certain states- And as I said- IF the world prefers to beleive the lies of TOE- that’s their problem- but again- we’ll keep marchign on, exposing hte deceptions of TOE for htose hwo aren’t blinded to the facts- Again though- you shoudl be out ‘celebrating’, not in here worrying about your position if you feel it’s so secure? No?

[CottShop]

[[How many differences do you suppose they had a million years ago?]]

Who says hte world was around millions of years ago? If you have evidnece they were muchg much more exactly alike ‘millions of years ago’, please do submit that evidence here.

[CottShop]

Actually- it was a fluke Bob- It happens from time to time- but don’t get used to it- sometimes, for whatever reason, My fingers don’t stumble when typing- but most of the time, I’m too exhausted and too busy really to really care :)