Posted on 05/03/2005 2:12:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Right. climatologists are an exception and make little noise. the point being mainstream academic and scientific communities accept both global warming and evolution as fact. And the real evidence for either is sketchy.
Enough of this. I've said I was willing to entertain evidence. If you have any significant nuggets you've found that directly get at my question then go ahead and point me to them. Seems a reasonable question for a skeptic to ask of someone like yourself who apparently is convinced. Everything I've seen deals with minor changes here and there and nothing pertaining to macro evolution. This "stuff happens over time" argument is not enough for me. Sorry.
You're the one who acknowledged that "stuff happens". All I ask is for evidence that it stops.
I have never seen even the slimest excuse for a "species limiting gene" that prevents evolution from continuing unabated for as long as life does.
But, and I repeat myself, you are not specifying what evidence you would find convincing.
"I have never seen even the slimest excuse for a "species limiting gene" that prevents evolution from continuing unabated for as long as life does."
Of course, we would find this, HOW? Did you think we came upon unlocking the human genome that we had all the answers? Nothing supports "unlimited change", everything supports "viable change"
Nope. Its the other way around. For people to accept evolution as fact you have to prove it. I don't have to disprove it. Apparently it does stop or there wouldn't be creatures unchanged for millions of years flying around us.
see post 281.
You've already acknowledged evolution. But you claim that at some point it stops, but you do not describe the mechanism that causes it to stop.
Sorry. That's just illogical.
"Because most animals, best we can tell, don't have the mental capability to comprehend a thought as complex as "surviving as a species is good", and the pleasure of sexual activity came about before we developed the mental ability to develop such thoughts."
Then why do WE have it?
"And why assume that this cause is "higher"? What properties do you assume of this ultimate cause, and why?"
Properties that are not observable by conventional methods. (Hint, it's HIGHER than us. Metaphysically speaking)
I assume these properties are not observable (conventionally) because we have not yet observed them. What would you posit?
If contrary, why? What would lead one to believe in "nothing"?
Then
how
does
one
know
they
got
it
right?
Actually, I don't think humans have such a drive to keep the species alive either.
Europe and Russia have a declining population, and perhaps Japan. And I think the US would be about at zero growth, except for the "border problem".
Darwin did not propose a theory of the origin of life in the beginning... Evolutionary theory was not proposed to account for the origins of living beings, only the process of change once life exists.
The study of how life might have arisen is not the same as the study of how life changes over time, just as I and others have been saying all along.
However, many have thought that the theory of evolution logically requires a beginning of life, which is true. Of those, many have thought that a natural account of the origin of life is necessary, and some have proposed models which have borne up or not as research proceeds.
Sure, it's an interesting question and one that deserves study, but hypotheses and theories surrounding a naturalistic origin of life is not the same study of evolution. Evolution is the study of the rates of change in patterns of genes in populations of creatures that occur over time.
You can't have it both ways.
I welcome your most cordial accusation of hypocrisy. :\
"Significant nuggets."
OK...ring species.
I'm pretty sure PatrickHenry has links.
If he doesn't I'll provide one.
No, I've acknowledged small changes in species. That's a different kettle of fish than a monkey turning into a human. Or an amoeba evolving into man. What's irrational is assuming that little changes automatically translate into macro evolution without evidence. Its faith. Its your religion.
what links? Don't believe I've seen any links posted.
And cannot tell me why you think those changes will stop.
What's irrational is assuming that little changes automatically translate into macro evolution without evidence. Its faith. Its your religion.
Ok. I admit it. I have faith that time exists.
phew, that was tough
post 268, if that helps.
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.