Posted on 08/04/2005 12:43:01 PM PDT by Crackingham
The gene that produces vitimin C in mammals is broken in the same place in chimpanzees, gorillas and humans. Is why we get scurvy if we don't get vitimin C in diet.
"According to FReeper bayourod, Santorum is an "Anti". An "Anti" is a member of the Republican Party who disagrees with President Bush on any issue."
Well it aint so, so why bring it up?
"My point is slavery is wrong. "
Devil's advocate question: On what moral basis is slavery wrong in your view?
You're saying the law of gravity is part of the evolutionary theory that is contested by creationists?
Your example is ludicrous and nonsensical.
Rom 1:21 - "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
II Tim 3:7 - "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."
(FYI, these are quotes from the Bible, New Testament)
The following may contain some fossil evidence, but it contains a lot more ...
Ichneumon has some decent starter information he's compiled, so I'll point you to some postings he's made on various threads recently:
He had a much longer post with more information recently, but it was so big it was removed ...
There's a bunch of links in his post, I'm sure it'll take a while to examine.
And, as Ive stated before, while some of this may be evidence that supports the theory of evolution, nothing can conclusively prove any theory, so if you go in with the minset that things need to be proven, you'll find nothing there to convince you.
If, however, you look at a scientific theory as just the best possible explanation for the evidence we have, you might, at least, understand why others think it's a good theory, even if you do not.
.
Show me beetle turning into cockroach, a plant all of sudden breathing, anything happening right now that you can say, "Look, evolution said this would happen and its happening!".
Evolution does not say those things would happen, especially the all of a sudden part. Perhaps you are using exagerration, but please realize that you will not be taken very seriously when you are arguing against a scientific theory unless you argue against the actual theory.
(You did allude to the fact that your science teacher in public school may not have had a solid grasp of TOE ... so I can;t blame you.)
I am not claiming that all of TOE is crap, just that parts of it, i.e. ape to man is simply speculation based on a few bones and common genes found over a million years. I just don't buy it.
Why not? What parts of the actual theory of revolution do you think currently hold possible, and which parts can you disprove?
(No, I'm not being sarcastic here, I wish someone who was anti-evolution WOULD present some evidence that could be used to revise the theory of evolution ... find some data that makes the new TOE state that humans were an exception ... but the evidence we've (well, other people) have found so far does not show any reason why we should think humans were outside of the effects posited by the theory of evolution.
And it has to, as we really don't know what the catalyst is, although there are several theories.
The theory of evolution could certainly be effected by certain theories of how everything began gaining ground ... if a strong theory comes up that we're all a computer program, the theory of evolution would have to take that into consideration. However, if everything in the computer program acted, respinded, and appeared as if changes in mateable animals over time were allowed to propagate in offspring or not due to environmental conditions (oversimplification alert!), then the theory of evolution might still be valid with little change ...
I don't need to know how a gun got in a room to determine if it was the gun used to shoot the body lying on the floor next to it.
Certainly, there would be questions as to how the gun got there, if the shooting was intentional, if someone planned the death, etc., but for the purposes of the little bit of the puzzle TOE tries to understand, it's just like trying to figure out if this gun shot this person.
I'd prefer we stick to the actual science involved when questioning scientific theories, and will allow other people to argue the politics behind ID vs. evolution.
Rubbish. Utter total rubbish?
That's your scientific answer? Hardly qualifies for debunking evidence.
Also, temper....temper! Why do evolutionists get so unhinged when their theories are questioned or we simply want to expose people to an Intelligent Design view of life? You guys go ballistic on us. Methinks you protest too much and you realize your theory(s) are flawed but don't want to be confronted with it.
Rom 1:21 - "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools."
II Tim 3:7 - "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"
The article you posted suggests no such thing. Even so, something more up to date:
Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis (1999)
Humans and other primates have no functional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase that catalyzes the last step of L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis. The 164-nucleotide sequence of exon X of the gene was compared among human, chimpanzee, orangutan, and macaque, and it was found that nucleotide substitutions had occurred at random throughout the sequence with a single nucleotide deletion, indicating that the primate L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase genes are a typical example of pseudogene.
Much of the argument is about the non-scientific beliefs held by various proponents. Of course, the Turkish biologists being hounded (in the usual Islamic extremist way) by the BWV (or whatever Mustafa's organization is called) have the same scientific attitudes as do the Christian biologists, atheist biologists, Hindu biologists, Buddhist biologists, etc. One advantage of science is that the results are identical across ethnic and religious boundaries (although the creationists and their postmodernist soulmates would deny this.) When I was in college, the liberal teachers were big on how science (and math for that matter) differs for different ethnic groups.
What evidence? You just claimed "Every example of discoveries of prehistoric "man" have been exposed as hoaxes and frauds!" which is just false. How would you respond if someone claimed all roman artifacts ever found have been exposed as hoaxes and frauds?
Why do evolutionists get so unhinged when their theories are questioned or we simply want to expose people to an Intelligent Design view of life?
You aren't questioning any theories, you are throwing out ignorant and incorrect statements.
It tells me that the problem with the theory of evolution is NOT the issue that it's "just a theory", as otherwise we would have a more general sticker (or, preferably, a nice chapter in the book itself) outlining what a scientific theory actually is, and how it differs from fact ...
The focus on TOE itself shows this is a political/religious issue, and not a scientific one.
This should give you a pretty good idea of how evolution is being taught in public schools.
None of which invalidates the theory of evolution itself, or validates the proto-theory of ID.
I'm sorry, based on all that I have read about ape to man evolution, I am just not buying it.
Why be sorry? I'd just ask that you read some more on the topic, and perhaps determine what parts, if any, of TOE make sense to you, and which seem implausible. If it's ALL wrong, there's some major problems with science.
But the (other) ape to man (still an ape!) transition does seem to be the hardest part to swallow, and it is sometimes due to religious/moral/philosophical issues. We like to think we are better or separated from other animals, and for some people, us having gotten to humanity through transitional forms (whether by accident, or God, or space aliens) seems to counter that assumption ... when it really shouldn't.
But, as I've said before, even if you don't "buy into" TOE from reading more about it (I suggest reading arguments from scientists favoring TOE, to get their viewpoint), you can at least have a more solid understanding from which to make your counterarguments.
And if you make your arguments against the actual TOE, using scientific reasoning and evidence, real scientists will have to consider your arguments.
Too many of those against TOE want to fight it in courtrooms, where even if they win they'll lose, which is why I appreciate you trying to interject science into your side of the argument. It leads to better questions about TOE that way.
(Wow, I hope I didn't seem condescending ... it's almost bedtime.)
Oh and your statements are completely credible and airtight? I don't think so!
I believe the original poster meant 2 TRILLION, which is why they are such a potential meance.
What transitional forms do you need a link between? I'm sure if you ask, someone on this board could see if one has been found. (I can't, I'm not all that up to date with fossil finds.)
Of course, if you are HOPING that missing link think is a show-stopper, realize that any time a "missing link" is found between two forms, there iss then the ability to proclaim that there are now two NEW missing links (between the middle form and the one on each side)>
Interesting how you think attacking my statements somehow validates your infactual statements.
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.