Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
Sorry, but you're incorrect. Traits can emerge under environmental pressure in populations in which they did not originally exist.
Just read some of their pontifications right here in this thread.
Hocking a loogie is "evolution" in their minds.
Think areal hard ~ how does the critter know the pressures are there, and what does he do to adjust his genome?
Show me a link to that. I have made mistakes, but I can't remember or imagine saying that.
I recall saying many things on those threads, but not that.
Among other things, I often point out that Darwin got the idea for natural selection from studying changes brought about through domestication of plants and animals.
I have pointed out many times that natural selection is exactly the same process as artificial selection -- just lacking human intervention.
What I said about the Nazis is that they were motivated by religion rather than science. A scientific breeder would not kill off the best specimens and breed the worst.
Beware of those of the 29+ evidences that rely on bootstrapping or other resampling techniques. They really prove nothing other than the biases of those who use them.
On the other hand, those of the 29+ evidences that deal with transitional fossils and correlation of the column with progression of species are quite compelling.
But to be fair to creationists, it should be acknowledged that evolution is a theory that has been evolving. It's rather difficult to critique a theory that morphs into something else before one's eyes.
bump
Where has anyone on this thread said genomes anticipate need? That is Lamarckianism -- rejected in the last century.
But all populations have variation, and all populations acquire new alleles through mutation. During any period of environmental change, the frequency of alleles in the population shifts to accommodate the change. If the necessary traits do not exist, the population goes extinct.
Point me to an example on this thread of a non-inherited change being called evolution.
In any case, individual posts on FreeRepublic can not necessarily be taken as proven representations of the consensus opinion of the scientific establishment.
There's a lot of assertions being made on this thread that are simply, objectively untrue.
Environmental pressure DOES NOT CAUSE changes in the genome.
You must have missed last evening. It was claimed that all change is evolution.
The core issue to which the creationists object is common descent. That's the real target of their cultural cleansing campaign, and it hasn't moved one inch.
Beyond that, Darwinism hasn't really changed much at all. The details have been fleshed out, and sometimes debated vigorously, but I don't think there's anything in Darwin's Origin of Species that hasn't stood the test of time. Certainly the core arguments remain unaltered.
Can you connect the dots for me on that one? I'm not seeing the analogy.
So I did. Help me out with a link to such a post.
That would include all of science. Consider heliocentrism. Firs it included epicycles, then elliptical orbits, then universal gravitation, then general relativity. And it's not done yet.
Evolution is a forensic statement about the history of life, and it is a collection of phenomena and processes comprising a theory to explain the history. Few scientific theories have undergone less fundamental changes in the last 150 years than variation and natural selection.
Welcome to the club. You are not on board with mainstream science. Try googling "midwife toad".
This is thread stalking, and it is against FR rules. If you want to make such a claim, back it up with links.
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.