Online free. It took a lot of work putting that together. Unlike your brethren who speak about finding Hobbits, like the "press hounds" that they are. Clown boxers.
I could have been a contender.
Posted on 01/18/2005 9:49:17 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
I still don't think that evolution can be called a steady-state process, but I see what you're saying. I'm not sure about the math, though. It is generally assumed that genetic mutations are the source of mutations in the evolutionary process. As such, evolution would predict that smaller organisms (with less genetic information) would mutate faster than large organisms.
I'm not an evolutionary (or any kind of) biologist, but from what I understand of evolution, this prediction would be made. As such, the rate of speciation should be weighted toward the smaller species. Figuring out how the weighting would go is beyond my knowledge, but I think we would agree that it should be there if the evolutionary hypothesis is correct, and the source of mutations is genetic mutation.
The point this is bringing me to, is that I'm not sure that we are observing these small (I'm referring to single-celled organisms, bacteria, etc.) organisms closely enough to really notice all speciations that may occur. Even in the case of insects, I think that, as a previous poster pointed out, we find new species fairly regularly without being able to say if they're new species or newly developed species.
So I agree that this avenue of analysis is valid and is a good way to test the theory of evolution, but you seem to be assuming it has been done and has failed, while I don't believe it's been done yet.
Hypotheses that collide with reality should be junked. Believe if you will that God keeps making new species; the fossil record shows their appearance beyond doubt, but over time they are tending to get more complex (in general) not simpler. Also there is a strong tendency for the later species to be similar to earlier ones from the immediately lower strata. I wonder what that might suggest?
I'll start giving creationism/ID serious consideration when they start publishing in peer-reviewed journals, or at least doing actual research other than skimming through other researchers' works looking for quotes to take out of context.
And don't give me that claptrap about funding for research. That freeloading bastard, Matthew Lesko, says he can get you thousands of dollars of government money for just about anything.
We know, however, why creation "scientists" don't do research: Who are the Creation "Scientists?"
Oh look! The usual suspects headed by Duane Gish. Why am I not surprised by your mild dishonesty here? Since these think-tanks are surfacing "daily" perhaps you can supply details of 10 that have appeared in the last 3 months and don't include the same endlessly recycled list of people. (ie 10% of your claimed rate)
Their views are propagated over the the internet (a handy vehicle for the propagation of frauds), and the only capitalism involved is the sale of bogus tracts and books. As for the alternative prize, at least one has already been suggested:
http://www.oaoa.com/columns/bill090201.htm
You have confused the triumph of a scientific concept in the marketplace with the number of suckers who buy the flotsam spun off by a scam. An accurate measure of the marketplace success of an idea is its usefulness to legitimate business.
Care to list the creation science "ideas" that are actually being used in, say, the oil & gas, drug manufacturing, agricultural, animal husbandry, and medical fields? I'd be interested.
The species question is a red herring, because the concept of species has always been fuzzy. Darwin called species "strong varieties". That was in 1860. It hasn't gotten any less fuzzy.
That won't take him long. He should read Glenn Morton on the subject:
I took a poll of my ICR graduate friends who have worked in the oil industry. I asked them one question.
"From your oil industry experience, did any fact that you were taught at ICR, which challenged current geological thinking, turn out in the long run to be true? ,"
That is a very simple question. One man, Steve Robertson, who worked for Shell grew real silent on the phone, sighed and softly said 'No!' A very close friend that I had hired at Arco, after hearing the question, exclaimed, "Wait a minute. There has to be one!" But he could not name one. I can not name one. No one else could either. One man I could not reach, to ask that question, had a crisis of faith about two years after coming into the oil industry. I do not know what his spiritual state is now but he was in bad shape the last time I talked to him.
Those of us trained or literate in the sciences seem to have trouble following why Creationists-by-Argument (as opposed to Creationists_by-Faith, with whom I have no argument and for whom I have much respect) cannot follow what is to us fairly simple and clear reasoning.
I think it is because they (Creationists-by-Argument) are trying to use science to 'prove' their religious theory of creation (in part by attempting to disprove evolution). They are trying to drape their religious belief in the robes of science. I think they are doing this to try to proselytize their belief.
Creationists_by-Faith accept that their belief is an article of faith and they are not trying to use science to proselytize their faith. They are not attacking science. I too respect Creationists_by-Faith. They understand the separation between science and religion.
Creationists-by-Argument are not interested in simple and clear reasoning. IMO, they are proselytizing religious fanatics.
I like your distinction between faith and argument. I think there are many warnings in the Bible, both Old and New Testamants, against trying to reach God through understanding.
When I see people arguing about hidden messages, Bible codes, 128 bit encryption (I'm not making this up), obscure translations of particular words -- I want to throw up my hands and say, Stop! Haven't any of these people ever read the Bible with their hearts? Do they really believe that only people who chant the right words are eligible for membership?
Do they really believe that only people who chant the right words are eligible for membership?
Those videos of male children rocking back and forth in the madrasses while chanting passages from the Koran pops into my mind.
Available for purchase. LOL.
"...I think it is because they (Creationists-by-Argument) are trying to use science to 'prove' their religious theory of creation (in part by attempting to disprove evolution). They are trying to drape their religious belief in the robes of science. I think they are doing this to try to proselytize their belief...."
I agree, at least in part. Some are clearly charletans, others may be so emotionally (not religiously) attached to their position that they need to blind themselves, and some may just not "get" it. And I am troubled by all proselytizing by pressure...either political or violent.
I was referring to reputable scientists joining Creation Science think-tanks. Sorry for the miscommunication. And yes, this is happening daily. 365 in a year is being conservative.
Especially now that we have species complexes.
I need rather a bit of taxonomy in my work and great fun can be had in attempting to identify some of the fungi, asters or suchlike Not.
Online free. It took a lot of work putting that together. Unlike your brethren who speak about finding Hobbits, like the "press hounds" that they are. Clown boxers.
I could have been a contender.
Ah, another tired variation of endlessly refuted argument citing dead people most of whom died or were old men before ToE was proposed. I guessed that without even visiting the link.
Why do you keep using these useless arguments? Don't you understand how feeble it makes your position look?
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.