Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jennyp

In general, isn't a model of species an upside down tree shape? I've never understood that in evolutionary theory. Do you know a brief explanation?

thanks..


12 posted on 04/02/2006 3:27:49 AM PDT by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: D-fendr; jennyp
In general, isn't a model of species an upside down tree shape? I've never understood that in evolutionary theory. Do you know a brief explanation?

I think you're going to have to explain this question in more detail before jennyp or anyone else can answer it for you. What do you mean by "a model of a species", and what is an "upside down tree shape"?

I've answered a lot of questions about evolution and written a lot of articles about it, and I can't figure out what you're trying to ask here.

15 posted on 04/02/2006 3:37:11 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: D-fendr
Do you know a brief explanation?




Are you kidding???

A brief explanation might make sense and be understandable.
They have to ramble on and on and on and on filled
scientific words like maybe, might,could have ,possibly,etc,etc,etc. Never making a coherent statement
to prove how brilliant they and there theories are.
example

The distinctions between theism and polytheism would have been less powerfully made, and less clear an object lesson to the original hearers of Genesis, if they had been introduced along with an entirely new cosmology.

It is precisely because the cosmology is otherwise the same as that of surrounding, polytheistic, cultures that the central point -- animals, celestial objects, etc, are mere objects devoid of inherent divinity, and only their (singular and transcendent) Creator is worthy of worship -- is made stark and obvious by comparison.

Well, stark and obvious to the original hearers anyway. Modern antievolutionary creationists seem to entirely miss the point, focusing obsessively on the details of the cosmology rather than on the central teaching to which the cosmological details are only incidental. In this miss-focus, Hyers argues, creationists actually compromise scripture through the demeaning (and pointless) task of trying to make it fit with modern, secular science.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1605656/posts

DNA "could" modify itself with no outside help, say biologists
"may" also actively modify themselves
"some" single strands of DNA are "capable" of
it raises the possibility
has the potential to
We can only speculate
"If" we have indeed found one way that DNA can change itself spontaneously,
18 posted on 04/02/2006 3:44:36 AM PDT by WKB (Take care not to make intellect our god; Albert Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson