Evolution Is Practically Useless, Admits Darwinist

Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 08/30/06 | Creation Evolution Headlines

[A. Pole]

Where has anyone on this thread said genomes anticipate need? That is Lamarckianism -- rejected in the last century.

It might return in a new form. Science evolves too.

[MeanWestTexan]

The study of evolution and/or history are both the study of the past, and both only useful indirectly.

Note this is not an opinon re: evolution, just an opinion that I disagree that the study of evolutionary process (or whatever happened) itself is useless.

Obviously, something is going on and/or went on to give us these sequential fossils, and to refuse to study it because "it is useless" is to ignore something God did, merely because one disagrees with the prevailing explaination.

To me, that is spitting in God's eye.

He created a wonderful Universe. We should explore it high and low, past and future.

[js1138]

You have a theory? We have good laboratory evidence of evolution occurring where every possible point mutation occurs on the gene responsible for a trait.

A few such experiments do not exhaust all possibilities, but they do demonstrate that successful adaptation to change can occur simply by trying every possible mutation.

[muawiyah]

"less change"? You mean the discovery of DNA and viruses meant nothing?

We now know you didn't get all your genes from your ancestors ~ or even from mutations.

[muawiyah]

Look, where there's no causal link.............. doesn't matter what the weather is, it's simply not hooked into my DNA.

[muawiyah]

The fact that Saturn had "rings" was discovered by Galileo. The fact that it had "other" characteristics out to the side was known since ancient times.

It's like craters on the Moon ~ even the ancients could see them even if they didn't know what they were.

Here, with Saturn, we have a feature that could not be clearly seen, but that doesn't meanno one noticed something.

[muawiyah]

What is thread stalking? The claim was made on this thread. Presumably you started at the beginning and read every post.

[js1138]

"less change"? You mean the discovery of DNA and viruses meant nothing?

Did not affect the concepts of common descent and variation and selection, just as Newton and Einstein did not change the concept of the earth revolving around the sun.

[js1138]

The claim was made on this thread. Presumably you started at the beginning and read every post.

Then it will be easy for you to find it.

You haven't been able to read my posts correctly, so I have little faith that going back will yield what you claim.

Give me a post number.

[js1138]

Look, where there's no causal link.............. doesn't matter what the weather is, it's simply not hooked into my DNA.,p>As I said, welcome to mainsream biology.

[muawiyah]

RE: The core issue to which the creationists object is common descent.: It doesn't matter whether creationists object to it or not, evidence to the contrary is met with total derision on the part of evolutionists.

Look, the human genome project demonstrated that our line of critters managed to pick up genes from bacteria and viruses along the way ~ this is true of all the critters we've studied.

The trick is you or I could pick up genes from a virus (through some as yet unknown mechanism) that get inserted into our genome, which we could pass on to our descendants, but your genes would NOT have a common origin with mine in that case, nor would those of our descendants.

Still, presumably we'd all be the same species.

I really doubt the creationists want to believe bug genes can be picked up, but why are evolutionists so aghast that this could be the case? Why do they hang onto some sort of pristine "common origin" idea when it's been so handily refuted.

[svcw]

Logic? Well, I was just thinking about it the other day (evolution) and it seems if that if a person subscribes to evolution, survival of the fittest and all, that one would not use medical intervention to be healthy or for that matter save a sick persons life.
Could it be that we have intervened in evolutionary progress by keeping alive those humans that are not the 'fittest'. in days past the weak died off, now we keep them alive. Thats all.

[muawiyah]

Try 168. He made yet other posts that equated any change with evolution. Hence my points about substituting "evolution" for "change" and coming up with ridiculous statements.

[muawiyah]

Now you are on both sides of the question.

[microgood]

What I said about the Nazis is that they were motivated by religion rather than science.

I would have expected better of you. Your knowledge of history is appalling and this statement is as despicable as anyone blaming Darwin for the Nazis. People hijack ideas for their own end all the time, and to blame it on religion is to show how ignorant you are about that era in history.

[RightWhale]

Aristotle, botanist, had quite a garden, especially with the new plants he brought back from Persia. He knew the names of maybe 1/4 of the plants in his garden.

[js1138]

Evolution is every single little change even if there's "no change" only because you are defining it that way.
The problem as I see it is stirring a can of paint would be "evolution" under your definition, and I simply will not accept that.

We need to keep the word "evolution" meaning something other than "change" or we'll have a situation where some jerksilly postal bureaucrat comes up with a new name for the "change of address" form ~ she'll want to call it "address evolution", and then where will we be?

Lost!

This post seems to be where you lost your way on the word "change".

Evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Evolution is not a property of individuals. It is a property of populations. What changes is the percentage of a population having specific traits.

The source of variation is not crucial to the dynamics of change. It could be stochastic or it could be engineered by humans. What makes the change significant to evolution is whether the change results in differential reproductive success. And of course that can involve human intervention. In the long run the dynamics are the same.

[GourmetDan]

Apparently you don't know how flu vaccines are made.

IDers try to predict which *existing* strains will become a problem and *create* vaccines for those.

'Evolution' has no power to *predict* which flu strain will emerge for the flu season.

[js1138]

People hijack ideas for their own end all the time, and to blame it on religion is to show how ignorant you are about that era in history.

Tell that to the Darwin caused Hitler crowd. The fact is that Hitler hijacked religion AND science to prop up his power, but his targets were selected according to longstanding religious prejudice. If you want an example of science being abused in the name of eugenics it would be better to look to Sweden, or even the United States. Both have sterilized the retarded.