Evolution Is Practically Useless, Admits Darwinist

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

[muawiyah]

They do? Creationists believe evolution can do everything?

Might try that statement over.

[caffe]

Perhaps you should question these so-called facts once in a while. Even Gould had to admit that the fossil record shows no trend toward increased complexity. "Most structural complexity entered in a grand burst at the Cambrian explosion, and the history of Phanerozoic life since then has largely been a tale of endless variation upon a set of basic body plans...So was'nt Darwin's theory based upon a clear progression from simple to complex? Try and find your evidence that the Cambrian explosion was predicted by Darwin....it remains one of the evolutionists biggest problems ...alas until we're now able to study biochemistry and see so much disturbing complexity. LOL

[onedoug]

"Evolution is a scientific theory...."

Though it doesn't unify as well with other scientifc diciplines. I wouldn't want to use it to drive my car.

It's like abortion is held as a Constitutional right: to be used rarely???

[stormer]

"Every now and then, in ancient times, when conditions were right, one of these guys would look at Saturn and notice that it had associated elements."

While it is true that there are variations in visual acuity between individuals, the likelihood that an individual with extraordinary eyesight (think Chuck Yeager) would see the occasional (at best) phenomena as anything other than an aberration is, I believe, low. Even after this rare event had taken place, that person is then tasked with explaining to his contemporaneous that he can see thing that others cannot, no small undertaking.

"That didn't keep him from describing the rings as 'horns'."

Here is Galileo's description of his observation of the rings of Saturn:

"I have observed the highest planet [Saturn] to be tripled-bodied. This is to say that to my very great amazement Saturn was seen to me to be not a single star, but three together, which almost touch each other".

From: Historical background of Saturn's rings http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/saturn/back.html

[Quark2005]

They do? Creationists believe evolution can do everything?

Might try that statement over.

Um, no. No one in their right mind believes. Anyone who knows anything about evolution knows it has definite constraints. If it didn't, physical data would be useless in our research into the subject.

My statement is accurate. Creationists seem to think that data is open to any 'interpretation' they can dream up, and that reading a few websites or pop science books gives them more insight into the subject than the teams of PhD's and technical researchers specifically trained to deal with the subject.

It's not just creationists that do this. There's all sorts of loons and cranks out there. None of it should try to seriously pass itself off as science.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I am a bit ignorant, so please answer as possible:

a) When you speak of these flu microbes "mutating", are you saying they actually change DNA/# of chromosomes?

b) How did the Darwin idea help this flu process? Seems to me flu scientists are merely observing what's been happening "NOW" (i.e., within the last century) with microbes, in the interest of controlling flu. I doubt they approached the flu as "evolutionists" interested in proving evolution. And then 1 could argue if anything, their current activities are back-proving ancient evolution, which was not their intention. How did ancient fossils LEAD to doctors/pharma controlling the flu? Seems to me the cart is before the horse here, and evolution really didn't play into it; again, more that "EVOs" are using the pharma industry to prove their macro theory.

[Coyoteman]

It can't be any better than archaeology of primitive tribal camps.

Hey, don't be knockin' archaeology. Some of us around here do that for a living!

[RobRoy]

>>Then what exactly did you mean by we don't know whether gravity is a "push or a pull"??<<

I meant exactly - EXACTLY - what I said. We do not KNOW.

[muawiyah]

BTW, the ability to detect "red" with above average accuity gives you an edge in hunting game. That sort of thing makes you very, very valuable, and they'll believe you quite readily.

BTW, being familiar with the phenomenon, I will assure you I can find a red-head at distances virtually unheard of. (when given the choice) I purchase only red cars, and red is the only truly "bright" color.

[muawiyah]

I thought you were talking about evolution for a moment ~ could have fooled me ~ but you were talking about creationists.

Rules of grammar help us get through the obfuscation.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I'm not knocking it, and actually it's a poor analogy - the only really "useless" arch I can think of has to do with remote ancient tribes who (appear to) have no link with anything well-known.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Um.....wouldn't gravity tend to be a pull? Who is arguing this?

[the OlLine Rebel]

Yellow isn't?

[muawiyah]

Look, without blue cones, and an excess of red cones, yellow is white when illuminated by blue light. In full spectrum light, it's just yellow. Nothing bright about it at all ~ no strong signal.

[Quark2005]

I meant exactly - EXACTLY - what I said. We do not KNOW.

Actually, we have a very good description about the nature of gravity on all but the quantum level. It's called the Theory of General Relativity. Speaking strictly of the classical Newtonian Theory (which I believe you are), it's a moot point whether it's a 'push' or a 'pull' so long as Newton's 3rd Law holds. It's a force, and that's all that matters - the sign ambiguity cancels.

[null and void]

I bet you thought I didn't know about the "water sphere" concept.

On he contrary. I expected you to believe in it.

BBL

[Quark2005]

Rules of grammar help us get through the obfuscation.

Ok. I take it by the distracting change of subject, here, that my comment about evolution following specific constraints that are best understood by those specifically trained to study them is a correct one.

[RobRoy]

>>Um.....wouldn't gravity tend to be a pull?<<

That would seem to be the case. But it is just a theory. We are not really sure how it works. I actually read a "serious" article that posited the concept that it is a much stronger force "leaking" from another dimension.

And people think the Bible sounds goofy.

[csense]

What I object to is this notion that the apple falls from the tree, therefore, evolution must be true

Maybe such people should contact the ad agency for guinness beer:

character 1: "I've just found a way to prove the theory of evolution using only a coin and the force of gravity."
character 2: "...prove the existence of evolution at the drop of a dime! BRILLIANT!!"

[RobRoy]

>>it's a moot point whether it's a 'push' or a 'pull' so long as Newton's 3rd Law holds.<<

True, if one is not curious. But KNOWING which it is could greatly impact our understanding of the physical universe and how it works. And the more we know about it, the more we can manipulate it.