Posted on 11/02/2005 10:54:52 AM PST by PatrickHenry
XenuDidit placemark
Just because they were living together in the past doesn't mean the calls were the same. It's speculation. The business about genes is a red herring. Are you suggesting you can tell what kind of mating call they had in the past, based on DNA?
Ha ha ha ha, ho, ha, hee, ha, ha, ha ha ha ha, ho, ha, hee, ha, ha!!! Too funny.
Oh, wait. You were serious.
It sounds like you are reaching. For there to have been only one flood, many physical laws would have to be suspended. There is no way for creationists to explain the dating differences of the layers combined with the types of fossils found in the layers. The separation of fossils is not along any lines that make sense if you assume a single catastrophic event.
If you want just so stories, consider the various speculations by the so-called creation scientists. They not on make up just-so stories, they suspend just about all we know and accept of a number of physical laws including the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Many extreme pressure tests have been conducted on radioactive materials. No significant changes to their decay rates have been found, certainly nothing that would result in errors as large as creation supposes. Have you considered the enormous heat that would result from increased decay rates? If decay rates of any of the materials used in radiometric dating were fast enough during the flood, the energy released would have boiled the oceans and every living thing on the ark. At the end, there would be no water left (the heat would break the water molecules apart and most of the hydrogen would escape) and no life left.
Me personally, no, I'm not an evolutionary biologist.
However, there is a wealth of information out there regarding what course evolution has taken in the distant past. There is a wealth of information showing that genome is equipped to make evolutionary changes and evidence in the inherent structure of our DNA that it has done so in the past. All the data intersects at the same conclusion - that life on earth has evolved and it continues to do so.
You have a case of a mere 8000 years (a blink of an eye in the earth's history) producing a marked case of speciation - the first step of evolution. What mechanism do you believe exists that would prevent further change (call it "adaptation" or whatever you want) from happening? Do you think it's possible that frogs and toads have a common ancestor? Or did God create frogs and toads in their different "present forms"?
As I've mentioned before, extreme pressure and temperature tests have been done and no appreciable change in decay rates have been found. Leaching can be controlled as long as the properties of the layers the fossils are found in is known. Multiple strata does require long times to solidify. A single flood would not explain the evidence of tilt followed by erosion followed by sediment deposition followed by lava. Nor would it explain the lack of very distinctive pillow lavas that should occur if everything was water covered.
"fossil fish scream out rapid burial and preservation/hardening, the are preserved with no sign of decay.
Conditions for this to happen are observed today. It does not take a flood for this to happen.
Inherited resistance to virii is a good example of evolution in action.
Waterborne gonorrhea? Find me some of that and a lot of disreptuable men now have a credible excuse to give their wives.
If I understand what you are trying to say, you feel that all females in the previous single population responded to more than one call. If the females in one of the two populations only respond to one specific call, while females in the other group only respond to the other call, gene flow is disrupted and they are confirmed as two different species.
However, mating calls are very specific and generally tell a female which male belongs to her group and will not respond to other calls. Unless these particular frogs are an anomaly in this respect we conclude they had only one call. However, the number of initial calls is not relevant to speciation, the response or non-response to a call determines whether gene flow is disrupted.
DNA can not tell whether they had a single call or not, but that is not what I said. DNA will tell us if they in fact were a single intra-breeding population and mDNA will tell us when they separated. The thing about the genes was not a red herring, you simply didn't understand the significance of the mention of them.
Just a few hundred thousand years ago, our ancestors were primates, and we're still primates, so I guess that means you're a living example of Homo ergaster. Right?
You: Do you see this as a political or scientific matter? I think it is more political for you.
Me: It gets quite comic at times. You are like one of the characters in a Smullyan logical puzzle who only entertains false beliefs. This matter is 100% scientific. Religious folks of all political persuasions attack evolution because they think (perhaps correctly though many Christians say not) that it attacks the basis of their faith. The characteristic the evolution nay-sayers tend to share is a total lack of interest in the evidence, and a pretence that they are interested in science.
You: Again, you didn't answer the question. But your insults are quite amusing. I think you fear right-wing religious Americans. You would prefer American become like England - it won't.
You aren't very good at this reading thing yet, are you. Obviously the work of a legal secretary doesn't require comprehension skills. Feel free to provide any example of me not answering one of your questions. It is easy to see how scientific evidence passes you by... You don't seem to be capable of reading and understanding your own posts, let alone mine.
And I don't fear right-wing religious Americans. Lots of them post on the evo side in this forum. Bible Idolators are a different matter however.
You agreed that you reject the earth sciences. Then you went back to saying that your only beef is with evolution, specifically from apes to people. You need to make your mind up which parts of science you accept and which parts you reject.
I don't totally reject earth science and think it is quite interesting.
"A welcome break from the trial."I'll second that.Good article.This is a very good example of evolution at work.
But nevertheless you reject most of it. You seem to have a Chinese Buffet approach to science, where you pick and choose only small smidgens that seem of "interest" to you.
Nobody cares what you're interested in.
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.