Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
How do we differentiate between directed and non-directed?
Edited by whom?
Is the director intelligent?
How do we determine the director's intelligence?
Is the director a result of evolution? Or of some other natural process?
Not true. Not all DNA changes are evolutionary. Although my DNA and my mothers DNA are almost 100% identical, there are slight differences. These have no attribution to evolution. Mendelson's experiments on genetics did not prove evolution, it only proved variation. Life, on a genetic level has great variety, a trait in no way connected to evolution. Therefore my DNA differences from my ancestors is not evolutionary but diversionary. Evolution comes when a species changes genetically on a grand scale. Such as that fish that crawled out of the ocean to become a reptile. Or When small ancient horses grew into the large beasts they currently are. That is evolution. So, in conclusion, you are incorrect. Small changes in DNA are in no way evolutionary.
What?
That post made no sense to me.
Adaptation is one of the hallmarks of evolution, when a species adapts, it survives, and is able to pass that survival adaptation on to it's progeny.
So to say that adaptation is not part of evolution is, well, ridiculous.
You're welcome. One thing though: you're picturing yourself on the wrong side of the Proverbs that I posted.
I am acutely aware of my own mortality, thank you.
I'm also scientifically literate enough to know that the pro-science side of this argument is not the one espousing nonsense.
Coyoteman, an example of genetic evolution is the change of a species into another completely different species. I.E. Cromagon Man evolving into Homo Sapien. What you are attributing to genetic variety cannot be attributed to evolution. Now, to expand on this, those samples of a species that, due to the benefit of variety, develop a superior genetic makeup may eventual evolve into a new species. But in the case of Humans this has not been proven.
It wasn't Ichny who made a bald assertion about the value of science and claimed a world wide conspiracy, it was you.
Now that you have made those claims, back them up with more than unfounded assertions.
You sir know NOTHING about me,
On the contrary, I know that you "know NOTHING" about many of the topics you claim to be a whiz at, because you keep screwing up when you try to comment on them.
yet want to come on these boards and deny what I've posted about my personal life.
...because it is contradicted by your performance here. Look, if I said that I had been a Navy Seal, but I kept revealing by my posts that I was grossly ignorant of the most basic military fundamentals, you'd have every right to call "BS" on my chest-beating. Just as we have every right to point out that you have revealed that you know less about evolutionary biology than the average wino on the street, much less someone who allegedly "aced" his college biology classes.
This proves you will post ANY accusation, with NO proof whatsoever against those who disagree with you.
Actually, I have posted my proof, many times. And I have repeatedly challenged you to prove me wrong by answering any of a number of easy biology questions, yet somehow you always manage to "forget" to tackle them. Curioser and curioser. What is the astute reader to conclude, if not that you're one big ball of bluff and bluster?
You are showing what a shameful person you really are with this kind of nonsense.
Hey, *I'm* not the one pretending to have special knowledge of a field without actually knowing crap about it.
Biology was one of my TOP classes.
The more you keep screaming this, over and over again, while running away from every possible opportunity to demonstrate any competence at all on the subject, the more it's apparent that you're just making up in BS and a big mouth what you can't provide for real.
Could you explain it to me in terms I could easily understand?
Oh, look, yet *another* person who hasn't any clue whatsoever what actually is and isn't evolutionary change, but feels compelled to "correct" us on it just the same. Next up, my dog will attempt to correct my cryptographic hash algorithm...
Sorry kid, but Coyoteman was right, and you're dead wrong in your attempt to "correct" him.
Now, to expand on this, those samples of a species that, due to the benefit of variety, develop a superior genetic makeup may eventual evolve into a new species. But in the case of Humans this has not been proven.
Sure it has. It's not our fault you're just entirely ignorant of the overwhelming evidence of that proposition.
Cromagnon Man and Homo Sapien are the same thing. Just two different ways of saying it. Modern man is Homo Sapien Sapien.
Thanks, I needed that. :-)
The change from Cro to Homo sapiens is not an example of speciation. Cro is a completely modern human. Our ancestors some 100,000-160,000 years ago are called archaic humans, but they are extremely close and do not represent speciation either.
You apparently are doing the microevolution vs. macroevolution dichotomy. Its not a dichotomy at all. Its a matter of degree. From one generation to the next, differences develop in a population that is isolated. Over time these differences can add up. This is especially true with selection pressure and with complete isolation. But evolution does not require speciation. It requires change from one generation to the next.
No theory in science has ever been proved, nor can one be--by definition. They can be disproved.
But theories can only be considered theories when they have withstood a number of tests and been confirmed at each test.
The theory of evolution has withstood 150 years of testing. There were virtually no hominid fossils extant when Darwin published in 1859. The hominid fossils have confirmed, rather than disproved, the theory ever since. And, there are a lot of species going back millions of years, that appear to have evolved one into the other. At present there is no scientific evidence that this is not the case (religious belief, or rather disbelief, does not constitute scientific evidence).
The new field of genetics could have disproved the theory also, but it only supported it.
In all of these cases, the new data has supported the theory of evolution.
Yeah. And I'm not even looking to be very lofty (except I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'lofty'). No kidding, Skinner mentioned rocks in this context? I'll be darned.{ 8 ^ )
But, instead of rocks maybe it should be stardust. We all enjoy common descent from stardust. Hoagy would be fascinated.
Wrong again, but thanks for playing. Don Pardo will tell you what lovely consolation prizes you can take home with you.
Let's see what an actual biologist has to say, shall we?
"In reality, evolution is a powerful and hard-working theory used at the cutting edge of scientific inquiry in developmental biology, genome analysis, drug discovery and scientific medicine. To pretend otherwise is to shield students from the reality of how science is done today."Hell, kid, even computer science makes heavy use of evolutionary processes these days, as do aeronautic engineers, weapons contractors, mathematicians, and more.
-- Kenneth Miller
Can someone tell me when we're going to stop having continual waves of people with absolutely no knowledge of this subject, but every confidence in the world that they know all the answers? It gets really old really fast.
Wrong. Homo Sapien Sapien evolved from Homo Sapien. Neither evolved from Neandertal, according to DNA evidence. Unless somebody comes up with evidence to counter it, it stands. Neandertals are extinct, for whatever reason.
While the two species existed at the same time, Neanderthal did not evolve into Homo sapiens. This is well documented by DNA evidence.
You obviously need to study the theory of evolution a little more before you can adequately dispute it. Right now you are just looking silly.
The following chart shows what one expert thinks of the process of hominid evolution:
Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html
I think Skinner limited it to "a rock, pigeon or a radish" or some such--3 items. I wouldn't swear as to specifically which 3 but I think I'm right.
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.