Posted on 05/03/2005 2:12:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Haven't read it.
Fool! How many times must I answer this question?
Along with the Intelligent Designertm there is the Cosmic Clerktm. It is the Clerk's function to keep track of how many times in the past your ancestral line has undergone mutations. This is a purely mechanical task, because the Clerk merely has to follow the Designer around and keep accurate records. Even your primitive, naturalistic mind should be able to understand.
And when some creature's ancestors have used up their alloted number of mutations, no more are permitted. It's really very simple. Why do you Satanic eeeevooo- loouuu-shunists have so much trouble with this concept? When the designed-in allowance of mutations is used up, that's it. Radiation has no effect. Chemicals in the environment have no effect. Lateral transfers from a virus have no effect. The creature's "kind" is fixed. Forever!
"As for your gorilla example, given enough time and the right pressures, a 1500 kg ape might not be out of the question."
And yet, that is only a "might" there isn't even a theory that would account for this. Let alone actual observations.
Well you've described the faith behind macro evolution. That given enough time small changes translate into entire animals evolving from one to other. Sort of an inverse 2nd law of thermodynamics. This is based on sheer speculation and faith and no evidence.
So the proper question is - what is the evidence to support macro evolution? Evolutionists have to prove macro evolution exists. I don't have to disprove it. Your logic is nuts.
Actually, "why" can often be explained in terms of causality; ie, the reason why babies are born is because people keep making them and people keep making them because 1) they want them and 2) the process for making them is quite fun.
Ok then: WHY do people want them? WHY is it fun?
The precise boundary means nothing. Sure I understand the speculation about small changes adding up and supposedly given enough time a spec of caterpillar would evolve into fire-breathing dragon in my backyard. Sure, I'm with you.
So I ask you if you have enough faith to accept that amoebas became human beings - then do you have faith that Jesus died on a cross 2,000 years ago and rose from the dead?
Fallen sparrows placemark
And it relates to the methodology involved in evolution.
Instead of claiming a source (natural selection) which is outside of science (though not disagreeing with scientific findings), leave it open for a motive.(God is also not in disagreeance with findings) Only exaplain the mechanism.
The problem is that school systems mismanage money. In the county I grew up in, the two high schools have about 1,200 students each and are a LITTLE crowded. Rather than just add on to the existing schools, they are going to build a third high school.
This will just increase costs as now there will be three principals and his staff, three cafeteria staffs, three gyms, etc rather than just two. Gross duplication of services.
Larger high schools, like the ones in suburban Atlanta (3,000 students) have the advantage of being able to group students with similar abilities and goals together. Rather than having an advanced calculus class of 30 in which only 10 people should really be there, there is an advanced class of 25 where all of the students are qualified.
Also, schools waste money buying computers and other "teaching aides". If a kid doesn't know the difference between a noun and a verb, does a computer really help?
No faith is needed. Small changes accumulate within a population, selected for by environmental and other pressures. Over time, isolated pockets of a population will accumulate changes not reflected in other populations and because of this will no longer be able to interbreed with those other populations.
Not really. You already accept that changes within a population occur. That's evolution. We're simply saying that there is no magic cutoff beyond which no more changes accumulate.
Similarly, species for whom the act of producing children was not entirely enjoyable might be less inclined to reproduce.
So? Who cares if it's enjoyable or not? If we are bent on surviving as a species, why should "enjoyment" play a part?
Best post award.
Past time for some fun.
Yes. I understand. Over time stuff happens. Again, any evidence other than pure faith to depict a rock solid case for one animal avolving into a completely different animal? I'd love to see it. I'm willing to entertain evidence and go where the real science is.
Yes. They are politically correct and fully a part of the MSM and support their political interests. They are not the "journal of record" for "science".
But that still doesn't change the fact that a significant number of climatologists (a majority, I believe), the people who actually study the climate, do not think that Global Warming is man caused, which is the issue with Kyoto and the envronmental left.
It doesn't happen overnight. You're basically asking us to prove there is no magic cutoff switch. You can't prove a negative.
Interesting. Since your education is lacking, you revert to name calling.
OK, you are just plain ducking the question.
When it comes to science I have no faith whatsoever. I don't even trust my own observations, nor does any other scientist trust his.
When it comes to my Faith...it is none of your business.
Normally I give a response but not to those who challenge rather than ask. And never to those who consistently refuse to respond to my questions.
You're trying the "my faith is (stronger/better) than yours" game and that's one I don't play.
And your claim that "micro" cannot become "macro" over enough time is a claim that at some point stuff stops happening.
It is up to you to provide an explanation as to why that would happen. Otherwise logic dictates that the changes will continue.
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.