Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
And all of them have been debunked. Most were never evidence of evolution. Most are simply observations like homologies that fit equally within a common design as a common descent model. Some that evolutionists claim supports evolution are actually evidence against evolution. Like vestigial organs or that stupid and desceptive skull chart that Dr. Theobald has in his 29 evidences.
You forgot the /sarcasm tag.
That would have been handy, because otherwise what you posted is complete drivel.
Yet "evolution" is a very useful concept. In the world of ideas, that is. Ideas do evolve.
Posted on this thread, as well as on a thread three days ago ===> Placemarker <===
(Sometimes learning requires repetition.)
Perhaps you can give us some examples from Coyne's work where he cites an example of macro-evolution having a practical use other than explaining where we came from?
Al Franken is evidence of deevolution. Man isn't coming from the apes, he's going to them.
Proverbs 17:22 - A merry heart doeth good like a medicine: but a broken spirit drieth the bones.
If God in the Bible says medicine does good, then my faith is in medicine because it's endorsed by God and the Bible. And I have little faith in Charismatic preachers who dismiss medicine contrary to the Bible.
What??? With that antediluvian sphere of water up there???
some people (not all) could see the rings as if they were horns, or a scythe.
I rather doubt that, no human eye has the angular resolution needed to resolve that fine a detail.
I'd be more inclined to believe that an even more ancient civilization invented the telescope. Sadly that would push civilization back further than 4004 BC. Far enough back that not only were all physical examples of a telescopes lost, but the very concept of telescopes was forgotten.
Most of what you eat is a result of polyploidy within historical times (< 10,000 years ago).
That would the "debunking" where (among other things) you claim a 100,000+ year old skull was the result of a death by an "8mm gunshot wound"?
That was definitely classic material. Completely wrong, of course.
Unfortunately for Soviet agriculture and science, Stalin didn't accept standard biological evolution and genetics and instead used the power of the state to enforce a false theory, Lysenkoism.
"Most of what you eat is a result of polyploidy within historical times (< 10,000 years ago)."-JS1138
polyploid –adjective 1. having a chromosome number that is more than double the basic or haploid number. polyploidy n : the condition of being polyploid
So? How did this result in evolution having a practical use? I hope you aren't suggesting that breeding experiments prior to evolutionary theory even existing were the result of evolutionary theory being applied by scientists.
False premise, from which it is impossible to derive anything.
A recent practical application was the discovery of Tiktaalik: the ToE was used to predict what an intermediate between fish and amphibians would look like, when it lived, and what sort of habitat it lived in. When strata formed in that era and habitat were examined, a fossil was found that looked like the predicted one.
This is merely one example out of thousands.
It will not be possible to take ID or creationism seriously until they can duplicate these feats and do a better job of it. So far, nothing.
Do you deny that gravity exists?
This is a very misleading analogy.
In common usage, gravity is interchangeable as both hypothesis and observation. There's no denying that variation exists within species, just as there's no denying that if I hold my hand out and drop a penny, it will accelerate downward. Both observations are true and self evident.
The hypothesis of common descent, like the many hypotheses of gravity, have yet to be demonstrated. So in accordance with these terms, I would say yes, to your question.
Unless of course, you can demonstrate the gravity hypothesis of your choosing [and in so doing, falsify all the remaining hypotheses] and how it is compatible with relativity, and in particular, the equivalence principle.
So, without further adieu, the stage is yours.
Put up, or shut up...since I'm tired of seeing this inappropriate analogy constantly being bandied about...
Now you're talking!!! There's a lot of folks on this thread who (if they would be honest with us) think just that.
You asked about macro-evolution, and I gave examples of known instances that have proven useful. Many of the instances have been selected by humans after occurring naturally.
We know they occurred after human cultivation started because they can't sustain themselves without cultivation.
Now you can quibble about the naturalness of this, but the fact is that until recent decades, all such mutations were natural, and humans simply changed the rules for selecting which variants got to produce the most offspring.
The principles of evolution can be useful without being written down in books, just as people could make music befor the invention of notation.
The TOE does make a lot of predictions like that. Most of which are never found. And much of what is found, is questionable. And often forced fit into what evolution predicted. Like skull 1470 being reconstructed out of 100 pieces to look like a man-ape with a flat face when it was just an ape with a sloping face.
Tiktaalik is indeed an excellent example. Did you perhaps miss all the threads debunking this as a missing link? And showing the simliarities to existing shallow water fish.
--EvoDude
It's not the naturalness about it that I question. I question what it has to do with evolution. So man conducts breeding experiments and practices artificial selection to produce plants and animals with specific traits. That's selection, but it's not evolution. That's simply selecting the already existing gene pool to heighten certain traits. And man was doing this thousands of years before evolutionary theory was dreamed up.
Evolutionary theory didn't have squat to do with it.
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.