Posted on 07/14/2007 10:33:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Madonna and Bon Jovi are no match for Hawaiian flies when it comes to karaoke hits at the University of Nebraska State Museum in Lincoln. In a popular exhibit activity, visitors attempt to mimic the unique courtship calls of different species of Hawaiian Drosophila, a group of 800 different flies that may have evolved from a single species.
Fly karaoke is part of "Explore Evolution," a permanent exhibit currently at Nebraska and five other museums in the Midwest and Southwest...that explores evolutionary concepts in new ways. Such an activity is a far cry from the traditional way science museums have presented evolution, which usually included charts called phylogenies depicting ancestral relationships or a static set of fossils arranged chronologically. "Explore Evolution'' has those, too—and then some, because museum curators came to realize that they needed better ways to counter growing attacks on their integrity.
...
Under pressure from these kinds of groups, the Kansas State Board of Education in 2005 approved a curriculum that allowed the public schools to include completely unfounded challenges to the theory of evolution.
In an effort to make their case to the public, creationists raised $26 million in private donations to build the 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., which opened in late May. The institution presents the biblical history of the universe. Visitors learn that biblically, dinosaurs are best explained as creatures that roamed Earth with humans. In its first month of existence, the museum drew over 49,000 visitors, according to its Web site.
"Explore Evolution," funded by a $2.8 million grant from the National Science Foundation, is one of many recent efforts by science museums to counter such resistance to evolution...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciam.com ...
[[That’s not complaining, unless you want to define your words then intelligent conversation is impossible. Using words that have no meaning is called babbling.]]
You know full well what KINDS are- you simply dissagree that they are ligit, but you fully accept your own problem riddled phylogentic system of classifications while calling the Baraminological system mean and nasty names- Buit alas, playing symantics is a fun way of avoiding the fact that no species KIND has ever evolved beyond it’s own KIND, now right?
[[Since you appear to accept all the basic mechanics of evolution, then you need to propose a process that stops evolution from crossing he genus barrier.]]
Biology
[[Otherwise it’s like saying you can put one foot in front of the other and walk down the street, but it impossibles to cross town. What stops it?]]
The mean ole cop who doesn’t let anyone cross to the other side He’s the biological Law...man
All the steps are inplace for microevolution, but non for macroevolution. The steps for macroevolution would be systems that didn’t have species specific caps on just how far their systems could be perverted without cokmpletely breaking down, and it would need steps inplace to ensure that forced intrusions of non species specific instructions from other dissimiliar species through lateral gene transference would cause it to self destruct and burn out. Seriously, mutations are not the vehicle for evolution- lateral gene transference is the one hope for evolution ,but I msut caution, lateral gene transference has it’;s own set of impossible hurdles to cross.
[[The ToE does not argue that “everythign has a natural explanation”. It argues that living organisms of different species share common ancestors and that the different species are the result of natural selection working on inherent variations within population.]]
Fancy speak for eveythign has a natural explanation
[[It’s not a marry go round, you just don’t understand what you think you understand. I assume people keep pointing that out to you so you’ve heard this before.]]
Nope- just the game players that duck the problems do.
[[”the ONLY evolution hypothesis that doesn’t have to explain the first ‘species’ forward are those who claim God or some entity supernaturally made completed species”]]
no sir- I’m pointing out hte obvious, and that is that because the begginings are so problematic, the evo side is trying to shorten their responsibilities- and they are trying to have their cake and eat it to. Special creation isn’t a necessity to evos, and as such, everything must therefore have a naturalistic explanation
[[Give me an example of a geologist looking for intelligent design]]
I’m sorry- I meant archeologist, not geologist- good catch- it’s late, you’re typing too fast, and I’m tired
life is not above physics, it is different. That force could be G_d given or other depending on your school of thought.
I’m glad that I am not the only one here who thinks this way.
Point well taken, sir.
Evolution is a word that has many meanings. Dr. Bethe author of "Darwins Black Box" and a leader in the ID movement claims he believes in "evolution". As do I.
The word has so many meanings it has become almost useless. I use the word Darwinism to distinguish from the rather prosaic "evolution".
But when atheistic Darwinians like Richard Dawkins assert whether implicitly or explicitly that "God" or a "prime intelligence" is not required in the creation of the universe and all it contains then he indirectly by implication contradicts the second law.
The closed universe must decay to maximum entropy and any localized and/or temporal open systems require intelligently directed energy to decrease its entropy. Random bursts of undirected energy won't cut it.
Did you forget your sarcasm tag?
[[He wanted to go there, therefore the onus is on him.]]
If it isn’t impossible, then it must be possible, but yet we have no evidence that it is possible for randomness to produce complex systems, even given that natural selection works on random occurances and ‘weeds out’ thsoe that are deleterious while keeping htose that are less deleterious or neutral at best.- there is no evidnece that accumulations of mutations can produce non species specific organs or complex systems, yet it’s taken as a given that it must have happened, despite both the lack of evidence and the fact that it’s biologically and mathematically impossible. The onus really is on the evos to produce evidence that the impossible happend.
[[I think what you are talking about is Abiogenesis or Naturalism (not naturism), not the ToE. If you use words in ways that are not appropriate to their meanings, that too is babbling.]]
Then I wish you’d quit doing so as per the definitions above which you seem to be skirting and claiming don’t exist.
[[There is no proof in science, we are just asking for evidence.]]
That’s not true- there’s plenty of proofs in science, but that is neither here nor there in htis discussion
[[yet when it comes to opposing hypothesis that state that what we know from biology and mathematics,]]
Gave the evidneces in previous post- mission accomplished.
[[And paisley monkeys are the proof that you are wrong. Now wouldn’t it be nice if I bothered to show HOW paisley monkeys made you wrong?]]
If you can do what no scientist has been able to do, show one KIND moving to another KIND, then by all means please do so- if you can show evidence of a species evolving a non species specific organ or major non species specifc system, then please do- but the evidence is lacking in thjis department I’m afraid.
[[You’re babbling again. I will now introduce the word “ganower”. I demand you explain why God killed all the ganowers which is clearly necessary if ID is correct.]]
because they sinned in His sight and wouldn’t repent. KIND is a perfectly ligit classification that goes a long way toward classifying most of hte species we know to exist or have existed i nthe past. Clkassification is a very complex issue as proven out by the difficulties and failures in the phylogentic classification system, and what we knowe of species and all their subspecies and even speciated specimens does fit very nicely into the Baraminological classification system. You may call it ‘babble’ all you like, and indeed I suppose you need to because if KINDs is a fact, then that creates problems for those trying to equate speciation and microevolution with macroevolution, which it isn’;t, so I can understand the reluctance to ceede a fact.
**”The individual species specific gene codes are incapable of creating new organs and systems because hte instructions simply are not present, nor can any alterations create combinations of instructions that could produce non species specific organs or systems”**
[[Do you mean that if you remove the genes that two species share in common, the remaining genes do not code for organs? If so, I’m not sure of your point.]]
No- i’m saying that the only way for a species to gain NEW information (non species specific information- or more simply, gain information for organs or complex systems that aren’t common to that particular species) it would need to have the instructions for those organs or complex systems laterally transfered from a different species KIND that already has those instructions. This of course is a major roadblock for the hypothesis that accumulations of small mutations could ‘create’ NEW organs or complex systems, but all tsts we have done, and all the evidence we see in studies of species show that mere alterations by mutations can not ‘create’ the instructions needed for new organs and complex systems in species that are not coded for them, nor could altering the species specific coding produce the necessary coding.
It really is late here, hot, and I’m going ot have to pick this up tomorrow
Pretty much explains the Evolutionist blockage in understanding. Jesus is the "Stumbling Block" and only us will understand.
One more then I’m doen for night
[[No I really don’t’ and clearly neither do you or you would be able to define it.]]
You know full well there is no evidence showing a species becoming anyhthing other than it’s own KIND- the sparrow is always a sparrow- no matter how you alter it, it will always be a sparrow
[[You can’t play semantics with gibberish]]
No, but you can feign dumb and pretend a subspecies is good enough to count as macroevolution, and that is always fun.
[[Actually biology says that it does. Really, go to a college and open a book titled Biology.]]
I’ll let htis little jab slide for now.
[[There is no Evolution Cop that I have ever seen proposed on either side of this argument. Would you like to define him while you’re at it?]]
Why Soytenly: “All the steps are inplace for microevolution, but none for macroevolution. The steps for macroevolution would be systems that didn’t have species specific caps on just how far their systems could be perverted without cokmpletely breaking down, and it would need steps inplace to ensure that forced intrusions of non species specific instructions from other dissimiliar species through lateral gene transference would cause it to self destruct and burn out. Seriously, mutations are not the vehicle for evolution- lateral gene transference is the one hope for evolution ,but I msut caution, lateral gene transference has it’;s own set of impossible hurdles to cross.”
Mr. Biology Cop stands on the curb across the street and tells species to please hang back and not cross because they don’t have the necessary isntructions inplace to evolve while crossing over to another species KIND
[[What are these caps of which you speak? Are they like the mean ol evolution cop?]]
Yes and no. The caps, or limits to parameters, if you will, are biological roadblocks to a species moving beyond it’s own KIND. A species, as we are fully aware, can only be altered just so far because there are protections inplace on several levels, some at the molecular level, some higher, that prevent perversion beyond certain “Instruction parameters or limits” So yes, they do kind of act like the Bad ole Biological cop (ansd just for hte record, he’s a officer of biology, not evolution). But they are also different from the biology traffic cop. The biology cop needs to see a species present non species specific instructions that it got from another species KIND before he’ll allow the species to cross- the caps, or instruction parameters or limits, work a bit differently, they prevent the species from utilizing laterally transfered instruction from other different species KINDS, and perverting hte original species too far.
Yes, I know the cops examples are kinda silly, but they illustrate key points about biological facts- The hypothesis for evolution knows of these biological roadblocks, but put their faith in the hopes that it must have not always been so in the past. The newer lines of evolution study are keying in on things like lateral gene transference because they are starting to recognize that the only hope for a species gainging complex non species specific information/instructions is to have htem laterally transfered. Beleive it or not, lateral gene transference is possible in a forced non natural manner in the lab between different KINDS of species- Goats were given the gene instructions of spiders and produced silk in hteir milk- however, as mentioned, this produced problems, (As one can imagine) and lateral gene transference has never been observed to happen naturally between dissimiliar KINDS
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.