Posted on 10/20/2005 8:00:33 PM PDT by Rudder
I ignored the threat for a long time. I groaned at the letters to the editor in our local paper that dismissed evolution as "just a theory" and proclaimed the superiority of "Intelligent Design" (ID) to explain the world around us. When a particular emeritus professor pestered me with e-mails asking how I explained this or that aspect of the fossil record (How could a flying bird evolve from a non-flying species? Did I think feathered dinosaurs were real?), I answered him time and again—until I realized that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I suggested. When this same man stood up, yet again, after a lecture to read a "question" that was actually a prepared statement about ID, I rolled my eyes.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanscientist.org ...
The reason that I see that there are genetic similarities is that we are carbon based life forms living in a nitrogen/oxygen environment. Of course there has to be similarities. Almost all creatures have similar structures and the genetic blueprint for those structures would need to be similar. Since humans closely resemble monkeys/apes physically, you would expect there to be genetic material that matches. It doesn't "prove" evolution or common descent, it just proves that certain genetic sequences work well to produce certain physical charateristics. If a certain sequence produces color of hair/fur, I'd expect to find that sequence in any animal that has the same coloring.
So, if you have ID then it would make sense that the designer would use the same sequence in every creature because it works so well.
You went into a big spiel and largely said nothing we're not used to hearing. Nothing, in other words. Fossil evidence does anything but point to evolution. It can be used to point to any number of things and support any number of things. And DNA is a relatively recent thing compared to Evolution. Evolution, as I noted, is an explanation looking for an observation. Gravity is an observation seeking an explanation. You can state this to be incorrect, but we are not without a historical marker (eg, Darwin) to point to in noting this fact. Darwin posited an idea and then asked people to go find some evidence for it. They went forth and now everything is attempted to be viewed in light of his idea. You've proceeded from your conclusions from day one.
That's the historical record. You can utter nonsense to the contrary; but, that's the record. If you want to deny it, that's your business; but, it doesn't mean we're all stupid enough to go along for the ride.
Actually, you have considerable merit in your criticism. The same argument was raised by me when I was a student in the midst of ardent evolutionists. Not that I disputed the arguments for evolution, but that many published scientifc reserach articles were couched as if their findings must prove evolution. Forty years later I still find that as a fault of many scientists.
However, the data, from many, many different fields (from geology, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, physiology, and more) all srongly support the concept of evolution. There are scant, if any, data which support an alternative theory. While it has its detractors, evolutionary theory has no viable scientifc alternatives.
Nevertheless, all scientists should proceed as nothing is a given.
That's what I get for giving a plain answer. Well, good night.
Give me time to digest the information in your reply.
"However, the data, from many, many different fields (from geology, comparative anatomy, biochemistry, genetics, paleontology, physiology, and more) all srongly support the concept of evolution. There are scant, if any, data which support an alternative theory. While it has its detractors, evolutionary theory has no viable scientifc alternatives.
Nevertheless, all scientists should proceed as nothing is a given."
Interesting point. While there is not much evidence to support an alternative theory NOW, doesn't mean there never will be. Just because there are no better or viable alternatives doesn't mean we have to or should be accepting evolution as fact, as some would have us do. What's frustrating is that the minute creation or ID is mentioned, it's immediately dismissed as non-science and not even considered by many evolutionists. That closes the door on the possibilty that something might be discovered if science was willing to give it a serious look. Science doesn't consider things that are "supernatural" because they are outside the realm of science but if creation/ID is then investigated "outside" of science then science dismisses it because it's "Not Scientific". It's a lose/lose situation.
It will be once they do research and produce data. Until then, nada.
No they don't actually say that, and what you don't know about petroleum geology would obviously fill volumes.
Hint: The vast majority of petroleum is from *plant* matter. So is coal.
What say you about that?
How does a planet like mars get its atmosphere "boiled away". The answer is random chance over billions of years. What happens is that the air molecules colide with each other. And once in a while, 1 molecule will get hit by another and another and another, etc. in just the right manner that it accumulates enough energy that it can achieve escape velocity (25k mph on earth). That is a really unlikely event, but over a billion years, and with about 10 to the 30th power or so number of molecules, it happens a lot.
This is also how water evaporates below boiling point. Most of the water does not boil, but a few molecules get hit again and again in just the right way so their "temperature" is above boiling for a few molecules and they evaporate or boil away.
This is also how life could possibly arise from a bag of chemicals. This is also how life could possibly make occasional quantum leaps in evolution by passing all the "missing links". It is not a proof of evolution, but it makes sense to me.
This stuff is put out by the black race baiters who think the US govt. created aids to kill blacks and gays.
I do think you need to wear your tin foil hat more often as those govt. rays are getting to your brain.
Tell that to the Russians who are finding petroleum reserves at a depth of 6-7 miles. What you know about petroleum geology you were taught back in the 70's and 80's by people who wanted to alarm you that "fossil fuels" were running out. Go research the latest findings on petroleum geology then get back to me.
just posing a question, not soliciting insults....
Hint: Oil is being discovered at 30,000 feet, far below the 18,000 feet where organic matter is no longer found.
Hint: Oil wells pumped dry have been found to be replenished.
Hint: The volume of oil pumped thus far is not accountable from organic material alone according to models of organic material growth from Cambrian period to present.
Hint: There might be plant matter between your ears.
On one level it makes sense to say that humans and all life for that matter are just a series of complex chemical reactions that are moving along in response to "the laws of nature", physical, chemical and environmental stimuli. Since we all share a significant portion of DNA, one could make the arguement that we in the animal kingdom are all related and some way evolved from one another as evidenced in the similarity of our biological make up. Another way to look at it could be that the reason that we are so similar to the other parts of the animal kingdom is that given the environment we all live in, the chemical processes that make up our species are the only ones that can exist. So are we genetically similar because we came from each other through evolution or are we similar because we are all made up of the only combinations of cells and proteins and chemical reactions that are possible given this particular environment? I think that both theories are incomplete at best and to pass judgement with out at least considering all the possibilities is irresponsible and narrow minded of anyone. I really don't see how they have come to be mutually exclusive in so many peoples' eyes. Exploring the theory of evolution does nothing to refute the existence of God. If anything it bolsters the argument. And divinity doesn't rule out the possibility of Evolution. If God can create all the creatures in the heavans and the earth is not at all possible that he could create animals capable of Evolution?
So, it's best to not waste fossil fuels. They are not renewable; they can't really be made again. We can save fossil fuels by conserving energy.
The above was a quote from: http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter08.html
This is why I object to how science is taught in High School. Kids are taught that this is fact, not theory, that "fossil fuels" take millions of years to make and are non-renewable. There is no mention of alternative theories to oil production. This is psuedo-science, not science, and is why young people get suckered into doom and gloom theories like "Peak Oil", etc.
It's superstition posing as truth. Evolution is superstition posing as truth, too....
Well I had sausage and scrambled eggs for breakfast. Nobody told me to save the links for evidence.
..."I would say that if a million couplings took place, one or two might have viable offspring...."
Well - I ain't volunteering!
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.