Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution of creationism: Pseudoscience doesn't stand up to natural selection
Daytona Beach News-Journal ^ | 29 November 2004 | Editorial (unsigned)

Posted on 11/29/2004 6:52:41 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 1,841-1,857 next last
To: r9etb
could the cross-breed great-grandson of a Great Dane successfully mate with a teacup poodle?

...and if pigs had wings, they could fly. What if the cross-breeding was intended to produce a near-microscopic dog and a horse size Great Dane, and the program was kept up for 10,000 years?

Undoubtedly Yes -- which suggests (to me) that they're still the same species.

This is not in the least "undoubted". If insisting on filling the fossil gaps is sauce for the goose, it is sauce for the gander. There were once Marsupial wolves in Australia--do you think they could have been mated with timberwolves because they were about the same size?

Do you think horses, zebras and Donkeys are the same species because they can produce offspring when they mate? If you think they are really one species, how do you think they are going to be merging back together, since their mutual offspring are sterile?

821 posted on 11/30/2004 1:31:08 PM PST by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Also, what would become of Chihuahuas and Great Danes if we stopped selective breeding? Wouldn't the extremes of dogkind fade over time?

Sure. But we'd have to say the same of any micro-evolutionary process, guided or not. After all, the only difference between "natural selection" and "selective breeding" is the method of selection. If evolution is true, then we would have to grant the possibility of re-convergence, as well as divergence. In essence, for speciation to occur, the theory of evolution would seem to rely on strict separation that would prevent such reconvergence.

Now -- if you took an island-full of Great Danes, and a different island-full of Chihuahuas, you'd have a situation where two breeds were on divergent paths. Would you predict that the breeds on each island would regress to some similar "average dog," or would you instead predict continued divergence?

I would predict the latter -- chihuahuas becoming, say, more weasel-like in response to their probable rodent diet; and the morphology of great danes depending on whatever common food source was on their island.

Note, BTW, that this hypothetical is an example of how intelligent intervention and natural processes might combine. Even though it would be human-initiated, it does not seem clear that some future scientist would be able to find "scientific" evidence of that actual fact. Instead, our future scientists could no doubt find all sorts of "natural" (and wrong) explanations for these two different populations.

822 posted on 11/30/2004 1:33:25 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 820 | View Replies]

To: donh
...and if pigs had wings, they could fly. What if the cross-breeding was intended to produce a near-microscopic dog and a horse size Great Dane, and the program was kept up for 10,000 years?

Seriously -- if x-great-grandchildren can produce viable offspring, why does that not suggest "same-species" to you?

OTOH, I do see your larger point, which is that eventually the two breeding lines should become different species, such that x-great-grandchildren don't produce viable offspring.

This is not in the least "undoubted".

I was referring specifically to the possibility of mating a modern-day teacup poodles, and the crossbreed great-grandchild of a great dane. I hold that that is indeed "undoubted."

As for your other examples, I'm not going to address them, except to point out that those near-relative species do in fact exist, and can mate to produce live, if not fertile, offspring. Obviously they got that way somehow. Beyond that I will say no more, except to point you to my previous comments on this thread.

823 posted on 11/30/2004 1:45:35 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 821 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I'm satisfied with dictionary definitions if it's all right with you.

Excellent. My dictionary defines "ape" as "any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan." Now, why don't you point me to the part of evolutionary theory - heck, any evolutionist will do - that claims that chimpanzees, gorillas, gibbons, or orangutans have ever given birth to a human. That way, we'll know you're objecting to the actual theory itself, and not some junk you just made up.

824 posted on 11/30/2004 3:23:28 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 725 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The theory of evolution assumes that life originated from "natural processes,"

Nope, the theory of evolution does not, in any way, address the ultimate origins of life. Life could have had a supernatural origin, and the theory of evolution would still work.

Now, the theory of evolution itself asserts no supernatural forces intervening as a driving mechanism, but let's be fair: no scientific theory considers the supernatural because the supernatural is completely outside of the scope of scientific observation.

However, it is also true that those on the "evolution" side of the fence tend to be ignorant of their own assumptions, and the weaknesses thereof. Same crime, albeit with different symptoms.

Perhaps you could offer up such an assumption?

A rather broad brush condemnation, don't you think?

Well, I did say "many", not "all". Perhaps I should have been more specific with something like "the majority of the most vocal". After all, it might not apply to the vast majority of creationists out there, though it certainly applies to the vast majority who choose to make themselves known.

And it is clearly true that willful ignorance of "reality" is not limited to those on the "ID" side of the fence.

True, as evident when Richard Dawkins tries to discuss anything beyond his field of academic expertise. However, the majority of the most vocal creationists seem to have a knack for exposing abysmal ignorance of that on which they claim to have intimate knowledge.
825 posted on 11/30/2004 3:28:12 PM PST by Dimensio (Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
If only we could impress upon you that what's implausible to you is also unimportant. But no - it's merely a matter of time before you post that goofy table. Again.
826 posted on 11/30/2004 3:28:12 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 729 | View Replies]

To: puroresu
Name another theory in science that is treated as dogmatically as evolution with such paltry evidence to back it up.

Loaded request. Evolution does not have "paltry evidence" backing it up, it has mountains of evidence backing it up.
827 posted on 11/30/2004 3:28:55 PM PST by Dimensio (Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Festival of the Raging Trolls


828 posted on 11/30/2004 3:34:18 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 600 | View Replies]

To: stremba
Example: Law of gravity

What is even more interesting is that a "law" such as the law of gravity is not necessarily correct in all "ways". For instance, the law of gravity assumes instantaneous action at a distance which has been superseded by the theory of relativity.

829 posted on 11/30/2004 3:48:07 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 738 | View Replies]

To: balrog666

I just posted:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1291515/posts


830 posted on 11/30/2004 4:04:47 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer
What is even more interesting is that a "law" such as the law of gravity is not necessarily correct in all "ways".

That can't be! It's a "Law"! That means that it's been proven true beyond all doubt!
831 posted on 11/30/2004 4:17:28 PM PST by Dimensio (Join the Monthly Internet Flash Mob: http://www.aa419.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 829 | View Replies]

To: william clark

Evolution isn't dogma. Its science. Sigh...


832 posted on 11/30/2004 4:22:24 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Sounds like you're presuming the two terms to be mutually exclusive. Bearing history in mind, are you sure you want to do that?


833 posted on 11/30/2004 4:46:05 PM PST by william clark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 832 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Now, why don't you point me to the part of evolutionary theory - heck, any evolutionist will do - that claims that chimpanzees, gorillas, gibbons, or orangutans have ever given birth to a human.

No evolutionist would be so brazen as to propose a direct, immediate transition. Millions of years are needed so we "understand" the transition was so gradual no one has ever seen it. Has any evolutionist demonstrated under strict scientific contditions the transition from an ape to anything slightly closer to human? Has any evolutionist proposed at what point the ape becomes human as opposed to ape?

834 posted on 11/30/2004 4:48:18 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 824 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
No evolutionist would be so brazen as to propose a direct, immediate transition.

Then why are you asking to see it as "proof" of evolution? I mean, if you're going to invent chimeras and demand to see them as "proof", at least get creative. Ask for a unicorn or a cherub or a leprechaun or something.

835 posted on 11/30/2004 4:58:26 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 834 | View Replies]

To: general_re

I am not asking for proof. I am asserting that evolution cannot, in its widest sense, be scientifically observed and tested. It never has been and it never will be. I am not so dull as to request the impossible of people.


836 posted on 11/30/2004 5:05:13 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 835 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
I am not so dull as to request the impossible of people.

Shall I retrieve the posts where you asked for something you now admit doesn't exist?

837 posted on 11/30/2004 5:07:53 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 836 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Sure. Please show me the point at which I wished to be shown an ape giving birth to a human. As far as I can tell that was your idea. But I would like to review those interrogatives if you can provide them. If indeed, I have asked for the impossible, namely proof of evolution in the wide sense, I would be happy also to entertain your retrieval of those posts where proof has been given.

Otherwise, theories of evolution must be treated as such: speculation based on unobserved, untestable phenomena.

838 posted on 11/30/2004 5:17:27 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 837 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew
Really, Chester - it was less than 24 hours ago. Pretending you didn't say what you said works a lot better if you let a bit of time pass so everyone can forget the details:

To: general_re
Nobody can make you see things you don't want to see.

I've always thought one of the primary tenets of real science follows the line "Seeing is believing." I haven't seen an ape beget a human, and neither you nor any scientist will very likely make me. Historic comparisons of genetic material do not a scientific experiment make.

It's not a matter of my personal feelings or beliefs. It is a matter of fact based on my short life in this world. But . . . I'd like to keep an open mind. If you can show me, please do. By that time, however, the resurrection of the dead will have taken place, and your understanding of the bigger picture will have changed somewhat.

691 posted on 11/30/2004 12:53:53 AM EST by Fester Chugabrew

To: Fester Chugabrew
If you can show me, please do.

Show you what?

692 posted on 11/30/2004 12:56:07 AM EST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)

To: general_re

An ape begetting a human. Heck. You don't even have to show me one in the present day. Just show me some scientific record of such a phenomenon. As long as you confine yourself to recorded history I can believe it.

693 posted on 11/30/2004 1:03:44 AM EST by Fester Chugabrew

So, now - what was that about not asking for the impossible again? How about asking for that which you admit doesn't exist - is that asking for the impossible, wanting to be shown something that doesn't exist?

Really, asking for the impossible as your standard of evidence is a good way of insuring that you're never convinced, of insuring that no matter how good the evidence is, it's just never, ever quite good enough. Of course, one might wonder why the pretense is worth bothering with - just say right up front that nothing anyone ever brings you will ever, ever convince you that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth, and be done with it. Sure, it'll seem closeminded to some, but who cares? State your piece, stand your ground, and let the chips fall where they may.

839 posted on 11/30/2004 5:40:29 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 838 | View Replies]

To: william clark

Yes, science will discard the Theory of Evolution in a minute, if it is falsified.

If you find some human bones intermixed with dinosaurs in a strata (not buried in a funeral humans) let me know.


840 posted on 11/30/2004 5:59:59 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 833 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 801-820821-840841-860 ... 1,841-1,857 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson