Posted on 02/08/2005 3:50:43 AM PST by PatrickHenry
You are perhaps thinking of how your #1 website guru says that Genesis is correct because the flood really happened ergo evolution is false ...
Demvolution.
I would suggest that there is no really good definition of species. (At least, I heard that over 50 years ago; it's gotten worse.) "Species" is not a property of an individual (or even a group); I suggested calling assuming so, the Cladistic Fallacy. It is a result of our classification methods.
Of course, to make things worse, the real world doesn't give clear boundaries among what we might like to call species. Things are even more complicated with plants and bacteria.
Entire books have been written debunking that creationist pap. There's no need to do it again simply because you demand it.
I'm sure you will respond now with some kind of accusation that somehow I am incapable of responding to your brilliant post. Sorry to disappoint, but I'm really just too lazy to waste my time arguing with a fencepost.
Why would God design an imperfect "reproductive system" for humans in which there is a high probability of an aborted fertilized egg each time unprotected sex occurs?
ok, I'll bite:
one of the principal tests of the utility/viability of a theory (an explanation of available data) is its accuracy as a predictive model for data not available when the theory is coined.
Evolutionary theory has been confirmed as a useful predictor thousands of times by the biological and other physical sciences.
Creation "theory" cannot claim even ONE such confirmation.
Given the history of this (and many other CREVO threads), I sincerely doubt this data set shall make any change in your stance. So be it.
It would be useful to me, and the others here, if you would deign to clearly define what you would consider sufficient proof of evolutionary theory's utility/viability/scientific accuracy. After years of battling leftists in political debate, I have no love to spare for anyone's propensity to use mobile goalposts in a debate of science, so answer the question definitively and finally. After all, you know where WE stand - where do you?
I sadly recognize these facts... it just galls the precision machinist in me.
Since the bibul has no real meaning at all, literal or otherwise, it is a waste of time to print it, as it belongs in the dark corner of a museum. What needs to be said is that it is an almost complete waste of time to use your eyesight to read it at all. It is just a tool used to lay a guilt trip on people and to force morality on people.
"Don't take the bibul literally" is a very dumb statement, it should be replaced by "don't waste your time in the bibul at all"
Read Asimov or Huxley instead.
Alleles are alternative characteristics at a particular loci (place) on the chromosome. Mendel's pea experiments illustrate alleles. You might have white flowers or yellow flowers. One might be dominate and the other recessive. This gives rise to hybrids.
A mutation might occur that makes a red flower. Then there is a third allele. An individual can only have a pair of alleles. Populations have the total allele alternatives for a given loci. Each gene loci might have a number of different alleles (short or tall, big leaf or little leaf etc)
There may be tens or hundreds of different alleles for the same loci. As the total percentage of each allele changes or by the addition of new alleles through mutation or other mechanisms, evolution in the population occurs. As natural selection operates on these alternatives, the optimum mixture for survival in the enviroment of the population begins to emerge.
You also need to understand the difference between phenotype and genotype.
And that is why the understanding of allele frequency change is crucial to understanding evolution. It is evolution.
OK nite nite
This is where you're mistaken. With computerized DNA sequencing technology, bacteria genomes can be assembled in a matter of weeks and compared with other previously assembled genomes within hours. Bacteria are relatively simple organisms, their DNA has been well-studied and their life cycles are well known. Cultures of bacteria are first sequenced and then exposed to a set of stressful environmental conditions. After the experiments are complete, DNA samples are taken from the surviving bacteria, run through the sequencing machines, and compared with that of their ancestors. From these experiments, the rate of change in bacteria DNA is objectively measured. From these experiments, predictions may be made and conclusions can be reached about if, or how far a certain trait might progress through several generations. The results are predictable and repeatable.
How can you honestly subject evolution to the scientific method and consider it anything more than a theory?
Consider that relativity and quantum mechanics are "nothing more than theories" too. A theory in scientific term does not mean exactly the same thing to the scientist that it does to the layman. When most people in these debates says theory, what they really mean to say is something more like "conjecture." To the scientist a theory is much more than conjecture, or even hypothesis.
Some of the people on this thread who are opposed to evolutionary theory clearly believe it is at best conjecture or at worst fraud. Often, evolution is dismissed as "only a theory." However, this is not only a misunderstanding of science, but it lessens other valuable scientific theories including the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics (upon which rests much of our technology of computers and electronics) and the theory of plate tectonics (upon which rests much of our sciences of geology and technology of oil exploration). Much of medical sciences rests directly on top of the theories of Charles Darwin and Gregor Medel. Without their contributions, it is unlikely that we would have the more recent contributions of scientists such as James Watson and Francis Crick.
Forget it. Your continuous ridiculing of God and His design have gotten too tiring. I suppose your contention is that God either doesn't exist, is a bad designer, or is not sovereign. This perverted worldview of yours affects how you interpret things, as demonstrated in this and many of your posts.
Pat yourself on the back. I'm quitting this discussion. You win.
Mean. I like it.
I have no idea where you stand. And I don't think "We" is an appropriate word to use when discussing communal beliefs of creationists.
Are you a "six day" creationist? Or an "old earth" creationist. Perhaps one of those that thinks there was "micro" evolution or one who thinks that there is no evolution at all.
Perhaps you're a creationist that goes to Mass, or one that thinks ill of papists. Perhaps you're a Moslem creationist, or Jewish creationist.
Just how many religious denominations are there anyway?
There is no "We" about what creationists believe, which is one reason why I put credence in science when the subject at hand is the history of the physical world. At least science pays attention to Gods creation, while creationists only concoct conflicting meanings from the same set of words and ignore the physical evidence.
hrmn...
do you consider the known and measured incidence of random mutation to gametogenic DNA due to radiation, chemical exposure, viral infection, and other causes to be "theoretical"?
do you consider the known fact that mutations can be recessive, non-lethal, beneficial, subliminal under some conditions but distinct in others (careful: I carry SEVERAL inherited mutations of this sort), as well as harmful, dominant, and lethal to be "theoretical"?
do you consider the observable fact that geographically separated individuals tend not to interbreed anywhere near as often as they do with readily accessable individuals to be "theoretical"?
do you consider the observable fact that these above givens lead to concentrations of genetic mutations unique to or at least quite distinctive of populations in one region but not in another to be "theoretical"?
do you consider the observable fact that these above givens lead to genetically distinct sub-populations to be "theoretical"?
do you believe that genetic sequencing pinpointing the time when a mutation or set of characteristics arrived in a particular population through genetic assay of the remains of ancestors to be "theoretical"?
forgive me if I err, but it truly does seem to me that you consider "theoretical" any evidence which counters your worldview.
When did whales stop breathing air? ;)
ah, sorry: I am not a creationist.
I accept the evidence pointing to the mechanisms of speciation.
I was directly answering Jaysun, but pinging the other "evolutionists" or "anti-creationists" (his words, his and those of his ilk) who have been active in this thread.
I was asking Jaysun to set the bar: what DOES rise to the level of "proof" in his dimension?
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.