Posted on 01/18/2005 9:49:17 AM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Top flight scientists have something to tell you about evolution. Such statements will never be found in the popular magazines, alonside georgeous paintings of ape-man and Big Bangs and solemn pronuncements about millions of years for this rock and that fish. Instead they are generally reesrved only for professional books and journals.
Most scientists are working in very narrow fields; they do not see the overall picture, and assume, even though their field does not prove evolution, that perhaps other areas of science probably vindicate it. They are well-meaning men. The biologists and geneticists know their facts, and research does not prove evolution, but assume that geology does. The geologists know their field does not prove veolution, but hope that the biologists and geneticists have proven it. Those who do know the facts, fear to disclose them to the general public, lest they be fired. But they do write articles in their own professional journals and books, condemning evolutionary theory.
Included below are a number of admissions by leading evolutionists of earlier decades, such as *Charles Darwin*, *Austin Clark, or *Fred Hoyle. The truth is that evolutionits cannot make scientific facts fit the theory.
An asterisk (*) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this encyclopedia is based on (see BOOKSTORE), only 164 statements are by creationists.
(Excerpt) Read more at pathlights.com ...
The point here is that while there are scientists on all sides of the question, only one side is deemed Constitutional to present to students. That defines Evolutionists as Politicians serving the ideology of Evolutionism.
So answer me this: do you REALLY want an openly-hostile Leftist teaching your kids about religion? You think they'll stick to the written word? Got news for ya.
That abiogenisis is possible. I say no way.
> That abiogenisis is possible. I say no way.
Why? When it's been done in the lab?
Scientists have created living polio virii out of non-living raw materials. Since scientists do not have access to magical, supernatural or god-like powers, that shows that life from lifelessness through entirely naturalistic means is possible.
Similarly, the Urey experiments showed how amino acids can be created in early-Earth conditions, and the Fox experiments showed how the same conditions can turn those same amino acids into something *arguably* alive.
This is not Darwinian evolution... it is just complex chemistry.
An honest question!!
You state that the first quote regarding the origin of life has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Why not?
Is not the very beginning of the evolutionary chain of importance?
FTR - I am not a creationist, nor am I an evolutionist. I beleive the "truth" lies somewhere in between. I can not prove my belief - nor can I "defend" it. It is "my" theory based on the scientific and historical evidence I am familiar with. So please, no flames or battles - my interest is genuine.
Does this mean my computer really isn't here? And isn't working?"
Why don't you prove to us that it is?
My use of the term "missing link" does not refer to the transitional form per se, instead to the traditional "where did we split from the apes" (which by definition would also be transitional I guess :-) ).
I concur that the fossil record can never be "complete" - which neither proves nor disproves the theory of evolution.
> is not a good argument for abiogenisis.
The polio case, yes. Going from chemistry to a relatively complex virus in one step is more than a hell of a stretch for the natural world. But the poitn was that it showed that no magic or "life force" or "breath of God" was needed to turn glop into life
> The more complexity, the less likely it is that it would be a spontaneous thing.
Yes, that's why I also mentioend the Urey and Fox experiments, whech went from basic chemicals (methane, CO2 and whatnot) and produced *argueably* protoife without the scientists going in and meddlign on the molecular/genetic level. They showed the life could fairly easily form of it's own accord, depnding of course on what you considered the threshold for "alive."
They should be the same. Precise, universal definitions are essential to good science. We don't define a meter differently depending on whether we are observing a meter in Europe or in America, or whether we are talking about a meter in sedimentary layers or in a laboratory.
And, of course, we should be seeing more than speciation. There should be an observable rate of organisms moving into new genuses as well as new orders, classes, families, etc.
You see, evolution also requires not just speciation, but phylum, family, class, order, and genus creation as well.
So what should the definition of species within a genus be?
"They should be the same."
Then come up with a definition of species that can be used on both living organisms and fossils. If you claim it can be done, then do what noone else has been able to do.
Noone has even been able to come up with a definition of species that fits living organisms alone, that doesn't have contradictions.
"And, of course, we should be seeing more than speciation. There should be an observable rate of organisms moving into new genuses as well as new orders, classes, families, etc."
This would take far longer than even speciation. Ring species already show speciation to be a fact of life. Are you going to even address ring species?
Easy. The definition of species in living organisms is the same as that used in the fossil record. Fossil speciation is 100% morphologically determined, therefore living speciation shall be 100% morphologically determined.
It's not that biologists can't use the same definition, it's that they won't. The question then becomes: Why not?
Are you going to even address ring species
I give up. I've stated at least three times now that the prediction is to find a percentage of speciation occuring AT PRESENT. Ring species do not qualify for the very fact it is a reconstruction of supposed PAST speciations.
The same principle of steady state processes also predicts a certain percentage of the biosphere will be undergoing a genus shift at any given moment, though the percentage will be far lower.
I'm done with this thread. Feel free to have the final word.
My final word.
You claim that living speciation should be 100% morphologically determined. If this was the case poodles and dalmations would be classified as different species due to their morphological differences. Therefore by your definition of morphology speciation has already been observed occuring.
In reality species are a man made grouping in an attempt to divide up organisms on earth into distinct groups. But in nature there really are no distinct groups. There will always be animals that cross any lines you come up with. Ring species are an excellent example of this. Mutations can cause two populations to be no longer capable of interbreeding. Further mutations can diverge the morphology of those populations. There is no known barrier on how far this change can go, and it is entirely likely that it goes as far as explaining the documented changes in the fossil record.
That hypothesis gets tested all the time. And it never fails:
All present and fossilized animals found should conform to the standard evolutionary tree. And they do.
Fossilized intermediates should appear in the "correct" chronological order on the standard tree.
Species that are more closely related should share a greater portion of their DNA..
Non sequitur
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.