Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The theory predicted a universe would be found. It was. The story isn't over yet. God wins. Creation is a fact. Get over it.
You should not have made the mistake in the first place if you really taught biology. Second you have merely asserted my misunderstanding, but I was quoting Darwin not interpreting Darwin. However, it is fairly clear what this means. ---- Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection, if it be a true principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure.
Truth is your problem not mine. You cannot even recognize Darwin's qoutes.
AARRRRGGGGGHHHH Creation is NOT part of the Theory of Evolution. I believe in Creation by God, and am a lot more informed about it than you will ever be.
"You should not have made the mistake in the first place if you really taught biology"
Where did you learn to be such a good and tolerant person?
I suppose you have never made an error? Yes, I can tell my your formidable posts that you are perfect, an Adonis of accuracy, a veritable fount of misinformation.
"However, it is fairly clear what this means. ---- Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being; and as modern geology has almost banished such views as the excavation of a great valley by a single diluvial wave, so will natural selection, if it be a true principle, banish the belief of the continued creation of new organic beings, or of any great and sudden modification in their structure."
OK Andy. What's it mean?
What a hilarious comment. You were the one chastised for your attacks. Remember? You must be a DemocraticUnderground plant.
I've repeatedly told you, I won't play your games. The quotation is clear and needs no interpretation.
Andy, you are much more plant-like than I am (or anyone else on this thread for that matter).
Chastised? LOL Did you report me? I report you everytime you post. I am sure they are building up enough evidence to prosecute you soon.
OK, what it says is there was no global flood and that special creation isn't a good explanation, either. I think Darwin hit it pretty well, don't you?
It also says that accumulated microevolution events result in macroevolution. You agree with that too, eh?
"I've repeatedly told you, I won't play your games"
I think what he is telling me is, he really doesn't know what anything means and doesn't want to humiliate himself by demonstrating that fact.
"You cannot even recognize Darwin's qoutes."
Two things:
1. You made a mistake. I take back that stuff about you being perfect.
2. It is against copywrite law to quote Darwin or any author without citing the reference.
"It is against copywrite law to quote Darwin or any author without citing the reference."
Incorrect on two counts. (1) Darwin is pre-1906, which means that he is in the public domain and not copyrighted. (2) citing references has very little to do (but not nothing) with the legality of quotations.
Nope. I did not even get the misfortune of reading the deleted post.
Go ahead, report all you want. You are the one treading on thin ice. Just a friendly warning.
We already know you lie about me.
So sue me and see who wins. I clearly denote that it was special. Guess how?
I will accept your liberal use of words Darwin did not use. But you fail to mention a requirement of those accumulating events. You fail as a biology teacher. Modifiers are very important.
I just was explaining what your Darwin quote meant.
No, you omitted extremely germane modifiers that were important to Darwin. Words mean things.
accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited modifications, each profitable to the preserved being
Nope, they are "infintesimally" small. They accumulate in large numbers. You know, there is not much difference in the DNA of one species to another (daughter species).
Yes, "infintesimally" small and so is the added function. Consequently, there is no driving force to explain evolution. You need selection but without the added function you don't get selection. Specific mutations are required to lead to function. Given the vast number of possible mutations, the probability of added function arising naturally is just too small.
"Specific mutations are required to lead to function. Given the vast number of possible mutations, the probability of added function arising naturally is just too small."
What just in your opinion or do you actually have calculations to back that up? I suspect not.
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.