Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Yes, all of them. DNA changes all the time; it isn't even exactly the same all over your body. Every time an animal reproduces, there isn't only a shuffling of the chromosomal cards, but even the transmitted chromosomes themselves are subtly different.
I don't buy punc. eqilibrium, so what else could account for why we don't seem to have evolution in progress (evolution from one species to another, not adaptation).
If you don't buy punk-eek, then you are left with gradualism. In that case, the difference between two closely related species is simply the accumulation, over a long time, of all those subtle changes. You can't "see" it happening for the same reason you can't "see" the sun travelling around the galaxy, or a mountain growing, or a continent moving. The timescale is just too long to notice the differences, except in particular cases.
"He's not on this thread. Here, it is just a strawman for a Christmas present."
You did not limit your question to those active in the thread. I provided an answer. No strawman. Be precise in your requests for information, and you'll get your answers. Be vague, and you'll get an answer, as well.
Trust me, the Scientologists would love to have their bogus religion taught in the schools. So would the Muslims. All religions seem to seek expansion. Sad.
" Actually, it is true."
No, it isn't. Show us where ALL economists followed Marx, and forbade any dissent. Show where all psychologists followed Freud, and allowed no dissent.
"Your asserting to the contrary without any supporting facts notwithstanding."
You're the one making sweeping generalizations without anything to back them up.
" Once again, outside of evolutionary science, asserting something to be true does not make it so."
Just because you say that every economist followed Marx, or that every psychologist followed Freud, does not make it so. Provide your evidence.
I see life as a trapdoor algorithm or encryption for which the key has been lost.
This does not imply the key is particularly complex or unlikely. It just means it can't be found in the message.
It could take quite a while to find an equivalent key, but then science has had problems that took centuries. Science does not look at difficult problems and give up.
I see life as a trapdoor algorithm or encryption for which the key has been lost.
This does not imply the key is particularly complex or unlikely. It just means it can't be found in the message.
It could take quite a while to find an equivalent key, but then science has had problems that took centuries. Science does not look at difficult problems and give up.
Science concerns itself with the physical world. People who attempt to misuse science to either prove or disprove the existence of God are doing themselves, science and religion a great disfavor.
Tell that to Judge Jones. He espouses the view that God is, and must be, forever and wholly outside the purview of science. That is not the same thing as "ignoring the issue."
I'm a believer.
Hey, hey! We're all monkeys!
None of those people is me.
Sorry, a scientific theory is never proved.
Sorry, your opinion on that is just that. Maybe you can take a stab at telling me the difference between "scientific theory" and theory. All the rest have scoffed,,,,and then retreated.
What you are saying is that atomic energy was never speculated about before it was used by men. And germs didn't get theorized about before they were shown to cause illness. If I misstate, please educate me.
Edward Hubble revealed that the radiation could be left over from the explosion, but without exact evidence, without being there personally, we cannot assume it as fact. He was seeing this with telescopes (granted highly advanced telescopes), though he did not have any of that particle with him to study up close. If the theory were true, we would most likely be able to find the same residue in our own solar system. If someoene were able to find it, it would answer a lot of questions, but we would still not be able to prove it as fact. We can say that it is because evidence tends to look at it that way, but without actual presence there, again it remains just a theory. Explain how it is anisotrophic? Also, still, doesn't mean we observed the big bang, we only observed what may or may not be the resulting explosion.
"Tell that to Judge Jones. He espouses the view that God is, and must be, forever and wholly outside the purview of science."
Yes, God is outside the purview of science, until someone comes up with a falsifiable test for the presence of God. So science proceeds to ignore God, and anyone dragging God in gets asked for a falsifiable test, and starts whining just as you're doing now.
That's clear enough and I thank you for clarifying your position. All that I said to you previously still stands. ID does not belong in the science classroom as it is only warmed over creationism. The theory would best be addressed in other classes such as philosophy. Importing non scientific religious indoctrination into the science classroom does not further science. What you propose is not equal discussion of competing theories but the overthrow of scientific enquiry by stating a theory with no research and no supporting scientific documentation should be taught as though it were scientifically on a par with evolution. No thanks. The judge made the right decision.
If they aren't, it doesn't matter. In fact, nothing matters. There are just actions and consequences.
Why not less complex?
You are aware, aren't you, that Origin of Species was written in response to the ID argument presented by William Paley in 1802. All the arguments used by modern creationists were developed in this book.
As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs’ election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the ID Policy.It's not wise to lie under oath in a federal court.
"However, it should be noted that the theory of evolution requires both new, more complex species AND new, more complex classes."
No, it does not require that at all. Again, a misinterpretation of the Theory of Evolution. There is no requirement whatever for increased complexity, just for change and adaptation.
You see, we still have unicellular life on this planet, which negates your statement. In SOME cases lifeforms evolved to be more complex. In others, the level of complexity remained the same, but adaptations evolved to suit new or changed environments.
Increased complexity CAN occur through evolution, but evolution does not REQUIRE it to occur. Only change and adaptation.
Think of all the unicellular life forms on this planet. The number of species in that class outnumber all the rest of the lifeforms. Increased complexity is a rare occurrence in evolution.
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.