Posted on 06/27/2006 5:06:32 AM PDT by 7thson
Ann Coulter states in her book on page 201 -
Darwins theory of evolution says life on Earth began with single-celled life forms, which evolved into multicelled life forms, which over countless aeons evolved into higher life forms, including man, all as the result of the chance process of random mutation followed by natural selection, without guidance or assistance from any intelligent entity like God of the Department of Agriculture. Which is to say, evolution I the eminently plausible theory that the human eye, the complete works of Shakespeare, and Ronal Reagan (among other things) all came into existence purely be accident.
On page 202, she states The theory of evolution is:
1. Random mutation of desirable attributes (highly implausible)
2. Natural selection weeding out the less fit animals (pointless tautology)
3. Leading to the creation of new species (no evidence after 150 years of looking)
My question is she correct in her statements? Is that Darwins theory?
On the ligher side, check out the first paragraph on page 212. LOL Funny!
Never heard of him.
He's full of it, of course, as you point out. In addition, 60-70% of the primary productivity today comes from the ocean and certainly that was closer to 100% before land plants. Primary productivity is a direct measurement of oxygen production. Stromatolites go way back and they are partly the products of blue green algae - i.e. oceanic oxygen production. BGA are still responsible for close to half of the primary productivity even today.
How would you like me to justify the claim? The idea that the universe is here as a result of natural causes vs super natural causes is not a new idea and needs no proof. I do not dispute your statement that the Big Bang is not the only natural explanation for the universe though. It's just a popular one due to red shift.
By this "logic", the Orkin Man is just like Hitler, because both directed a program of "extermination".
OK that helps. It's a matter of terminology. If the word evolution had never been used there would certainly still be a big bang theory. That theory came out as red shift was discovered. By that time it seems that the term evolution was already abundantlly in use to describe all natural processes and the advancement of the universe from a simpler state to it's current state. The key to the whole natural process is spontaneous, ie without external interference.
So the seed is the power of the term evolution. It encompases all of nature and spontaneous change leading from hydrogen atoms to man.
Carl Sagans series has that quote "These are some of the things hydrogen atoms do given billions of years".
Straight question: Can someone guide me toward some articles or books that explain why DNA/RNA seems to be the only game in town? Why, on such a planet full of life forms, are the building blocks always the same?
Youre missing the point of my reply ... many Christians are offended that a leader of a mainstream church would distort Biblical truth just to get along with, what is considered, mainstream scientific view.
Papal Infallibility is a primary Catholic doctrine. When the leader of this church speaks, many hold it to be the final truth, especially those who do not have access the Holy Bible and those that cant read. That is why many Christians were offended by that declaration from the Pope.
(BTW, you're the one who brought up the Pope. I was simply replying to your post)
That's great stuff, but certain assumptions go into the creation of the research that directly determine its findings. This is fine, but a certain caution should exist that those assumptions may not be correct (like the evolution of carbon 12 dating). My understanding is that in certain examinations mitochondrial DNA is examined in a given population, a constant past mutation factor is assumed from current mutation observation and this gives an idea of past population diversity in time. The other method I'm aware of are studies done on male DNA, which provides a statistically much higher rate of mutation. But I haven't read how either answers "why".
Genetic drift is not exactly what I described. Genetic drift assumes random mutation, not progressive mutation along several lines of DNA.
In any event, I'm convinced of two things.
1. I'm not hallucinating. The condescension and venom coming from many here make discussion essentially impossible.
2. I'd like to do more reading on this work, but given #1 I'll have to do it without the benefit of any discussions on FR.
Good day.
I'm not sure what you mean, but genetic drift can be responsible for phenotypic changes such as a change in size or length of a body part.
Youre missing the point of my reply ... many Christians are offended that a leader of a mainstream church would distort Biblical truth just to get along with, what is considered, mainstream scientific view.
Why would "many Christians" be more qualified than the Pope to interpret "Biblical truth," and therefore capable of determining the Pope was "distorting" it? Please be specific.
You've missed my point -- it's entirely possible to be a serious Christian and not reject the Theory of Evolution. That "many offended Christians" don't agree with JPII is irrelevent. I'm not saying JPII was right about this, I'm saying that unless you want to say the JPII was not serious about religion, or wrong, you'd better be prepared to demonstrate how. And how you'll demonstrate he was wrong about Catholic doctrine is an event I eagerly await.
Papal Infallibility is a primary Catholic doctrine. When the leader of this church speaks, many hold it to be the final truth, especially those who do not have access the Holy Bible and those that cant read. That is why many Christians were offended by that declaration from the Pope.
Don't preseme I'm ignorant of the doctrine of Papal infallibility or how it works. You are the one who made a howler of a post that seemed to confuse Papal infallibility with being "without sin."
Do you know what the Pope actually wrote about evolution, btw? (It's on the internet, but it requires no little concentration to parse. This could present a problem).
(BTW, you're the one who brought up the Pope. I was simply replying to your post)
I was responding to your post 383, which was directed to steve_b.
No, I am (for the purpose of demonstrating the inanity of your claim that acceptance of the science behind the theory of evolution is the province of atheists and weak Christians).
He won't get it. Did you know the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility means the Pope is without sin?
Do you understand the difference between an observation and a prescription?
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.