Posted on 11/09/2004 11:21:22 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
But a corallary to your statement is (in effect) there is no such thing as a bad article in support of evolutionary theory.
An example for you (assuming you are sane, intelligent, and willing to allow reason to take its course).
Suppose I write an article opposing the flat earth theory. Let us assume my evidence in support of round earth is that a ship my leave port, disappear over the horizon, then subsequently return safely. Let us assume I conclude my article by saying the evidence is overwhelming against the flat earth theory.
If I were to do such a thing, the article would be a poor one, despite espousing a superior scientific position.
So. Are you able to admit that there is such a thing as a bad pro-evolution article?
If that's true, then so is forensics.
You need some medical help. Where did the term "biogenesis" first appear in this discussion? Post #53 - your post.
Secondly, the NG article, along with the post to which I replied, attempt to state that evolution theory provides an all-encompassing explanation on the ORIGIN and development of species. You should read the article and the entire discussion before you start blathering.
Humans. Plus about a million others.
Wrong. It says we EVOLVED from hominids, etc. But it can't explain how life begins.
This is verbatim from the original post I replied to:
"There is almost no serious debate within the scientific community about whether evolutionary change is responsible for the origin of new species."
Let me put this in words you'll understand: Ahem.
I gave you one: Homo sapiens.
I quit reading National Geographic years ago because I noticed that every article seemed to pay lip service to the hypothesis of evolution, even when it was unnecessary to the subject.
>> At some point, that which is clearly silly (ID) can be reasonably brushed aside in favor of that which is clearly reasonable.
>But a corallary to your statement is (in effect) there is no such thing as a bad article in support of evolutionary theory.
No. Remember, I said "That which is clearly reasonable." An article about evolutionary theory as understood by a Crteationist, for example (the usual bunk about one chance in a bajillion that an amoeba would turn into a human, that sort of thing), or Lamarckian evolution, would *not* be reasonable given the state of knowledge availabel today.
> Are you able to admit that there is such a thing as a bad pro-evolution article?
Certainly, as described above.
Jenny! The operative word is ORIGIN. You're wrong on this score. There is not a single species whose ORIGIN can be explained by evolution.
Bottom line: How does life BEGIN? No one know for sure.
Evolution Theory is indeed very important, but it's not all encompassing as its advocates say. You might want to check out Darwin's Black Box by Professor Michael Behe. He gives Darwin credit where it's due, but he details serious limitations to evolutionary theory.
> You need some medical help. Where did the term "biogenesis" first appear in this discussion?
You mentioned the origins of life. That *IS* "biogenesis." Try some schooling, son.
> evolution theory provides an all-encompassing explanation on the ORIGIN and development of species.
The origin of species is not the origion of life.
origin of new species =/ origin of life
Pick one. Any one.
Personally, I was always fond of the silly explanation they gave for WHY this thing started flying ...
It was using its wings as a bug catching net.
I suppose thats why most engineers are creationists, because they have to actually design, build, and make something work.
The biologist is free to envision explanations and if enough other biologists think it is a reasonable explanation, it makes it into a science textbook as fact.
You make my case for me - check out Post #13, to which I replied. That Freeper said evolutionary theory explains the origin of life, not me. What a dope.
My schooling taught me to get the facts before I responded. And yours?
I saw the article. They still use the discredited finch argument.
PMFJI to your conversation with Orion, but the phrase "origin of new species" refers to how a species came into existence, not to the overall origin of life itself.
Each species out there split off from a parent species thru one or more evolutionary methods - basically either sympatric or allopatric speciation. There's always much argument over whether a specific species separated from the other mostly because of natural selection or gene drift. But for species for whom there's a lot of data, it's obvious that it was because of evolution.
Absolutely false.
Memo to Darwin:
Species are not living things, per oroinblamblam.
Tell me you voted for Kerry.
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.