Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Then, examine why it is so important for you to think that you are right, and that you find it necessary to belittle others. Perhaps you just haven't evolved as much as other decent folk. Maybe you should consult a Therapist. I have to go now, hopefully you get the help you need to overcome your personlity disorders. Good luck on becoming a fossil someday.
No.
Sure sounds familiar to my digital ears, and the Great Speciator has been strangely quiet...Surely you're not hiding under a new name after forbidding me to post to you?
Then that's yet *another* thing you're wrong about.
Why would anyone want to choose a nomdeplume of such a depressing insect?
Because it's a fascinating one.
We can.
When Darwin discovered evolution, did evolution get upset and decide to stop in it's tracks?
No, but a lot of folks decided to start asking some really lame questions...
Yes! I laugh at your pomposity! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
</creationism mode>
"Senatus Bloatus"
What I see here is a post completely devoid of substance. "I know people(anonymous) who laugh at (unspecified) stuff (for no reason given)." Cool.
Relatedness of life is an easy thing for even a Superstitious mind to manage--it's the insistence of "See? I'M RIGHT. IT ALL HAPPENED THIS WAY." Well, that's not acceptable and it is not scientific. You not only do not know how it happened, but you'll likely never know. You'll only see bits and pieces of that whole picture, some of which is illuminating, and some that is just a veil.
I read a good bit of lit in the pharm industry, in which I invest. Evo scientists would do well to learn to qualify their language with a little humility as the writers of new medicines do. Certainly, people who invent life-saving meds do not boast extravagantly of "Creating New Species" when they cannot and have not. Those pharm scientists also run the risk of killing people with their errors--they are accountable--they are not Voodoo Speculators. When you compare the cautious language of those who have to account for their assertions with real lives, you quickly see the difference between a Scientist and a fabricator of fairy tales.
Buy a clue. Evolution does not cover the origin of life. It only details how life changes over time. One need not know the origin of the atmosphere to study the weather.
Depends on the environmental pressures in the future. Also, humans are likely to engage in genetic engineering on our own species in the future to adapt humans to low-gravity environments and the like. We'll be responsible for our own evolution in the future, most likely.
Well here you go then. Photosynthetic bacteria.
I think maybe you need to fix your computer, or rethink what the internet is.
I tested 20 links and two came up blank. There are all kinds of possible reasons for a link being down other than its being invalid. It is impossible to give a list of links and be certain that all of them will work all the time.
An awful shame--all those fascinating creatures, now extinct.
I am. :-)
because from what I can see, your chances of convincing your chief interlocutor and his smirking friends of the soundness of any results of evolution studies are about the same as convincing them that they need remedial thinking lessons.
True, but every once in a long while one does surprise me. But I'm not writing for their benefit, I'm writing for the benefit of the lurkers who might be "on the fence". Plus, I'm always fascinated by seeing the many ways in which "certain folks" can find to dodge.
Willful blindness is almost always an incurable malady.
Or as the old saying goes, "you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into in the first place."
There's also usually a strong measure of this involved:
"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."
- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy (1828-1910)
Dogs are an interesting example. We've been messing with their characteristics for only a few thousand years and we already have breeds, such as the chihuauhua and Great Dane, that cannot breed with one another naturally. Continue this trend for hundreds of thousands or millions of years and the descendants of chihuahuas and Great Danes will most certainly be considered separate species of animal.
That would probably raise the level of conversation in your house.
This happens to be unnecessary because "creation scientists" have (if implicitly) conceded the point that DNA can be repackaged and chromosome numbers change within a single "created kind".
Although creationists frequently cannot decide the boundaries of kinds, even in the case of the "clearly separate" categories of humans and apes (see the chart I posted above), there is at least one case where there seems to be universal agreement. Horses, the living members of the Family Equidae, are commonly cited as the paradigmatic example of a "created kind". Yet look at the chromosome numbers:
Ah, well I can't find a simple chart, but suffice to say that there are (IIRC, and not counting those of hybrids) at least ten distinct karyotypes among the Equids, with 2n chromosome numbers ranging from 32 to 66.
ROFL! Sorry, but that doesn't even *begin* to address the actual challenge. If that's the "best" you can do, don't bother.
Simple.
Simple things for simple minds.
Life was created, and life forms were created intact and complete.
You still haven't attempted to tackle the challenge. You'll need to explain how/why, for example, your scenario would cause the specific pattern of shared endogenous retroviruses which is found in comparative DNA studies. (Hint: It wouldn't, unless the "creator" was INTENTIONALLY BEING MISLEADING and trying to "fake us out" into falsely *believing* that evolution had occurred when it hadn't. Are you sure you want to go there?)
And that's just one of literally MILLIONS of evidenciary observations your "alternative" scenario to evolution will have to account for. You've got your work cut out for you.
Changes that occur within species is nothing more then genetic variation, not evolution.
Not real clear on the definition of the word "evolution", are you?
And that is good science.
How can your simplistic "explanation" be "good science" when it doesn't explain the evidence, makes no testable predictions, and is not falsifiable?
Come back when you have more of a clue.
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.