Posted on 02/13/2004 3:14:29 AM PST by The Raven
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:51:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"
Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Ever read Kipling's "Just So Stories"? In there is the story of how the elephant got its long nose. In brief, elephants didn't used to have long trunks. They used to have little noses until a little young elephant was tricked by a monkey to get close to a river. A crocodile popped up out of the water and grabbed the little elephant's nose. He cried out and tried keeping the croc from dragging him in the water, his mom ran over and started pulling him back harder and harder. The more she and the croc pulled, the longer and longer his nose got. Finally she pulled him free and he had this big long nose that stretched to the ground. Ever since then, elephants have had a long trunk.
This is how many people view evolution - a change happens to an individual and it is passed down from then on.
Instead, early elephants with slightly elongated trunks had a better chance of surviving and reproducing. These then produced elephants with longer trunks, which survived even better, producing elephants with even longer trunks. The genetic combination from generation to generation made for a greater chance of longer and longer trunks.
So the individual doesn't change - cutting off a dogs tail, like they do with some breeds, does not produce short tail dogs in the future. If dogs with genetically short tails (if this were a survival trait), would mate - with a greater likelihood of even shorter tails resulting.
Thus the statement individuals do not evolve, populations do.
Not necessarily.
The death could have been for any number of unrelated reasons...
I believe you have it backwards, sonny. Evolutionists and other atheists have been suppressing Christianity for decades. If you were honest you would have said,
"Kill the Bible Thumpers! Burn the Christians! No thought not approved by the totalitarian leftists. No Book but Darwin. Believe only what we tell you to Believe.
Yes, there is luck. Individuals die because they are at the wrong place at the wrong time. But this will affect all members of a population equally, regardless of their genes. Evolution is about the statistical survival and reproductive success of populations having variety in there genes.
This is why populations that get too small are at risk of extinction. Without variety the population cannot adapt to environmental changes.
If you serious, DADDY, I would have been laughing - but it so pathetic. Oh yeah - those evil atheist evolutions have been running around closing down Christian churches and burning books that mention creation.
Funny how it is only certain "Christians" who in the past made teaching evolution a crime and are trying do so again. Why is it that these "Christians" are suppressing evolution?
Because nobody can have a thought that these "Christians" don't approve. Sounds like a theocratic totalitarianism.
Oh thank you so very much, A-G, for citing Hebrews 1:3 here -- these verses are so stunningly beautiful in their radiant truth....
Thank you also for your kind words. Hugs!
To be fair, Gould was one of the atheists who did such things. I would say he has passed on to a better place, but I don't know where atheists go. Maybe it's something like the men in Lord of the Rings.
LOL!!!
This is an interesting theory, balrog. (Who are these great thinkers?)
Then again, maybe God just wanted to have a beloved.
Who can really, truly say, balrog? What mortal knows the mind of God?
I'm tempted to name him, but he hasn't posted on these threads for a while, so I'll bite my tongue. Suffice to say, there are those who are quite self-assurred.
To be fair, Gould was one of the atheists who did such things.
When would that have been? If you are talking about Stephen J. Gould, then he was one who fought against the efforts in Kansas and Arkansas to make the teaching of evolution illegal (an example of fundamentalist Christians trying to suppress evolution) and the House bill in Ohio that was going to make teaching 'theological conception' in biology classes (a blatant violation of the first amendment) but how can you construe that as suppression of Christianity when he was fighting the opposite?
It's interesting how none of the articles on his death or the obits mentioned his religion, maybe it was one of the slanders that usually goes along with "evolutionist" even though there isn't such a thing.
The designation of Adam in Gensis 2 as being made in G-d's image refers to the fact that Adam, alone in creation, had free will-- and a mind to use that free will.
The souless men, by this theory, survived until the Flood-- interbreeding with Adam's line to create the Nefillim (Giants) .
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.