Posted on 09/26/2005 3:27:53 AM PDT by Crackingham
The usual BS disclaimer. I've been watching you for years now and can tell what I'm seeing.
Go back and read post #98.
Right!
And all I see in the article is that God created a chimp on the sixth day of creation, and He then created man, also on the sixth day. And God used a 96% similarity in the genome. He is able to do that without any evolution from a chimp to a man.
More importantly, God put within the man the ability (spirit) to know Him who created him, in a personal way. This God did not give to the primates, who would enjoy creation without the duty, responsibility or rewards of tending it. The chimp will not answer for the way he responds to his creator. Man will.
Paranoid and obsessed, are we? (we meaning you)
OK, and...?
(we meaning you)
Science has proven that the materials in a 2005 Ford are 98% identical to the materials found in a 1904 Oldsmobile. It's obvious that evolution is the reason.
I appreciate your compliments. But I am no expert; I know these things because for a few years, just for personal interest I've read a variety of books on biology, including books on genetics, evolution, and intelligent design. Also, I sometimes hang out at the local tavern with a colleague where I teach who is an entomologist. (He studies insect communication and how it affects evolution.) He was actually the one who told me about the problem with Mendelian genetics from a Darwinian point of view.
Curious to see exactly what this problem is, I searched back to post 122. I can see why people have no problem with it. It's fine as history. It doesn't work quite so well as an exposition of a problem. In particular, what's the problem?
Darwin knew nothing of genetics. (We might add that Mendel knew nothing of evolution.) The "Neo-Darwinian Synthesis" of genetics and classical evolution only occurred in mid-20th century, yes. As you note, there have been exciting advances since then. There is certainly still work to be done in identifying the fine genetic details of the speciation process. Is that the problem?
I don't think I mentioned lies anywhere in my mesage and, as for errors, it seems reasonable to me for the human writers of the Bible to have made some. Review Leviticus chp 11 wherein bats are referred to as birds, review Joshua, chp 10 (I think) where it described the sun going around the earth. The mistakes and errors do not detract from the ethical and moral message and guidance extractable from the Bible.
Also, it might be better if you refrain from assuming any intentions on my part other than those you can know about. My message was a simple and direct statement about my view of the bible. Lastly, and for your education, the construction, "you must understand.." is not a command but a simple figure of speech people use in conversational English. I am sorry if you are new to this sort of discourse.
"Cordially"
There certainly is work to be done on the problem of speciation. My colleague I mentioned works on certain issues in the problem of speciation: he studies sympatric speciation, where new species form in the same ecological system from a parent species. (This is therefore different than allopatric speciation, where a species finds itself occupying different ecological systems, and speciation occurs when one of the ecological systems changes over time and the population in that system changes with it. If I'm not garbling this. What's interesting is that there are few examples of sympatric evolution.)
Yes. This kind of thing. Lots of issues remain about details of mechanism and what scenarios are most common, etc.
No.
Mendel, in fact, sent a reprint of his paper to Darwin.
Back then manuscripts came from the printer uncut. To read them one had to slice open the pages.
Darwin's copy of the manuscript Mendel sent him was found uncut.
Darwin never even bothered to open Mendel's manuscript.
In fairness to Darwin, he got lots of mail by that time, and Mendel remained in obscurity for years after he published.
Cuba. Miserly. Broke and broker.
Mexico. Miserly. Dirt poor by that miserliness.
European Union. Miserly. Falling down fast.
Three strikes plus. You're out.
Baseball is a chartible game. Also why it succeeds.
I don't need a faux history lesson. Just give me the scientific test of your prediction.
That was it. Had it peer reveiwed too.
Also, there really aren't that many instances of ring species, so even if you count them as sympatric there still aren't many sympatrics.
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.