Posted on 05/01/2009 4:20:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Conclusion:
So the next time someone tells you that it “strains credulity” to think that more than a few pieces of “junk DNA” could be functional in the cell — that the data only point to the lack of design and suboptimality — remind them of the rod cell nuclei of the humble mouse...
(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...
Well, it sort of suggested itself to me. Sorry to have exploded your expostulation.
And man evolved to be single minded... unfortunately a “gift” that attacks us all.
And one that destroys many it attacks.
I wonder if my ribbon awareness ribbon covers that malady?
“Ok. Now explain hemorrhoids ...”
I’d be glad to. This is going to be in the form of a play.
The part of the brain is going to be played by GG.
The part of the conscience will be played by GGG.
The part of the posterior will be played this evening by Glenn.
And introducing last but not least, playing the part of the hemorrhoid is someone intimately familiar with the subject... Coldwater!
Ready... quiet on the set... ACTION!
The creation model does not teach stasis. What it teaches is degeneration from a perfect beginning following the Fall of man, which introduced death, disease and suffering into the world.
From an evolutionary viewpoint, I would expect that if evolution can produce the marvels of the eye, innumerable hyper-complex biosystems and so forth, then eliminating simple problems like hemorrhoids should be a piece of cake. Their existence is evidence of the degenerative trend in our bodies, not some sort of waystation on an upwards evolutionary path.
Well, I guess this means Dr. Sternberg is no longer a Darwinian himself! I had the pleasure of meeting him at the 2003 BSG study conference. Brilliant man (double-Ph.D. and it shows). Good to see him coming around more to our side.
Thanks for the ping!
I really don't have a dog in this fight at all, but your response is stupid. The question SO? is a question of what are the consequences or significance of your rather juvenile and autistic observation. If your observation has no meaning or consequence, then stow it. You're wasting our time.
“I really don’t have a dog in this fight at all, but your response is stupid.”
“If your observation has no meaning or consequence, then stow it. You’re wasting our time.”
Always glad to oblige. And next time, bring your dog. Their smarter than most evolutionists... and a durn site friendlier.
And by the way, you shore do type out some purdy words fer a buzzard!
Straining at gnats.
“Ok. Now explain hemorrhoids ...”
“Straining at gnats.”
Yep... that’ll cause it if you strain for too long. Usually depends on how many gnats you’ve eaten though. Or maybe only a few if you’ve got a tiny... well you get what I’m sayin’.
“I wonder how long it took Him to think of all the little details?”
I doubt man will ever understand all the details, regardless of how much time we are given. But I don’t think it took him any time at all.
I know you are but what am I!
;)
I have not heard of this myth. Who is Darwood? I am curious about the myth. Is this the new evolution of Intelligent Design? Is Pandas and People being revised with this new "Darwood Creationism?"
Actually the image is created in the brain from information presented by the eye. If an up side down image were presented to the eye eventually the brain would right it.
If the brain doesn’t permit the eye to see, it won’t.
When I read the Origin of the Species, it was apparent to me that Charles Darwin was an intelligent man who was familiar with the subject. That doesn't mean that he was right, but I think it should predispose the reader to give some weight to his writing.
In my opinion, this all applies to the author of this article, Richard Sternberg. He is evidently an intelligent man, who is very familiar with the subject. Again, that does not mean that he is right, but the reader should give his views some weight.
As I read both sides of the debate at their highest level, it seems that the pro-evolution side is often marred by it's irrelevant attacks on religion. Those critical of evolution stick to science, logic, reason, and philosophy. Religion is not a part of their argument. (They might respond on a theological point. A response to someone elses' attack is fair enough. Religion can also be discussed AFTER the main scientific discussion has been concluded. When this is done, it is a separate and distinct topic that can be easily ignored.)
I was once told that we must accept the best naturalistic explanation - no matter how bad it might be. I think that is the critical claim. It is seldom explicit. I think it is often implicit. I reject the claim. I think it is O.K. to say that science lacks satisfactory explanations for the origin and diversity of life. This honest finding might incline some towards religion, but why should a good scientist care about that?
Since chickens had also evolved altruism she ran around trying to warn everyone else.
From a soon to written book, “Evolution, Eldorado, and Free Lunches”.
Which merely proves that your "supreme judgment" is at least as poor as your ability to recognize and answer a legitimate question.
Your little foray into psychoanalysis is merely icing on the cake, demonstrating an astoundingly arrogant presumption of claiming to know my position, which is matched only by the degree to which you are wrong.
You're not worth a moment more of my time.
“You’re not worth a moment more of my time.”
Gotcha! (betcha read this... thanks for the moment. It was really special).
I reallly do love them purdy words, evo!
“… do you guys have anything other than “Fools.” and “So?” to the conversation.” [excerpt]Don't worry about them.
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.