Posted on 07/16/2009 10:35:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Sigh. Why are evolutionists so simple-minded and uneducated?
When I used the term "magic tricks" to describe evolution, I was actually referring to the underlying worldview that describes evolutionism. It's interesting how often evolutionists will refer to evolution teleologically - as if evolution were an intelligent actor, doing what it does with a definite set of ends in view (just look at the way many evos will speak about evolution - "it developed this structure in the eye", "it developed the whale's fin", "birds developed this ability over millions of years so they could _fill in blank_", etc.) There is a reason for this - deep down inside, every creature with even a modicum of intelligence understands that you don't get life from non-life, and you don't get increased organisation for free. "Something" has to account for these things. Theists account this "something" as "God." Evolutionists reckon this "something" to be....evolution. In other words, though their reasoning is entirely circular and self-referential, it still belies a teleological "Maker", operationally speaking.
Now, if "God" is not this "Maker", but instead evolution's "Maker" is entirely naturalistic, arising from within the cosmos while yet being a product of the same cosmos, which yet acts via a less-than-random driving principle, this still makes evolutionism's view of the cosmos to not be that unlike that posited by the Stoics. In other words, evolutionism posits an essentially pantheistic universe, only with naturalism forming the "theistic" in pantheistic. Evolution suggests, then, that the spontaneous appearance of life and order was the result of the universe working with itself, which is a sympathetic action which is basically the same as that posited by the Stoics as well, and which was common to the Greco-Roman classical worldview, which in turn was a justification for all kinds of things which depended upon the sympathetic interaction of the universe with itself for a teleological end - things like astrology and magic. Hence, the "magic tricks" comment.
While the basic assertion is untrue on its face, this comment also shows that you're not exactly aware of what "circular reasoning" means.
Irrelevant. The Bible clearly indicates these to be "miraculous", which by definition makes then non-normative. In other words, you don't have Christians running around thinking that every donkey they see is going to start talking to them, or every snake is going to sprout legs and start offering them foodstuffs.
To be an evolutionist, on the other hand, you have to believe that - against all laws of chemistry and in spite of what chemists learn in sophomore organic chemistry - you somehow had the spontaneous generation of life from precursor molecules. You have to believe that Louis Pasteur got it all wrong when he refuted spontaneous generation. You have to believe - despite the complete lack of empirical evidence for it - that lifeforms make drastic leaps between types of lifeforms even up to the Order level. You have to believe that peccary bones can be pieced together to form the skeletons of "proto-human ancestors." You have to believe an awful lot of, frankly, ridiculous and incredible nonsense.
And not only that, you have to believe it is normative. You have to believe that such things describe the history of life on this planet all along the whole shebang. You have to believe that, in many cases, the "process" is still going on today, even with the convenient out that it's "too slow to see" (faith-based position, anyone?) You have to believe that the miraculous - just a different kind of miracle - is going on all around us. You have to believe that evolution essentially acts teleologically towards an end engineered by the physical laws of naturalism, and acts sympathetically within the sum total of the universe - which is "magic" by the classical definition. In short, to be an evolutionist is to live in a demon-haunted world of your own.
Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.
“Oh yes, Thomas Jefferson, who died 34 years before Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of the Species” was so brilliant that he refuted each and every point made by Charles Darwin decades before Darwin had made them.”
—He didn’t bring up a single point made by Darwin. And had Jefferson lived long enough, he could have become a Darwinist and still believed everything quoted in the article.
I suppose it can be, but the theory of evolution doesn't imply that any more than the theory of gravity or relativity implies gravitism or relativityism.
Tell us, Sonny, what is your definition of evolution, then?
Well, Pops, I'm happy with any of these:
...change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual....The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next....the change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
... descent with modification.
This link should go into more detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkED8cWRu4Q&feature=player_embedded
“Tell us, Sonny, what is your definition of evolution, then?”
Here ya go:
Variations.
1. Variations exist with in all populations.
2. Some of that variation is heritable
3. Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4. Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via “Crossing over” During meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pair on a chromosome.
5. Copying errors (mutations) can also arise; because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
6. These recombination’s and errors produce a tendency for successfully increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.
Selection
7. Some of the heritable variations have an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
8. Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organisms offspring that are able to reproduce in turn; tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
9. Unrepresentative samplings which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles can occur in populations for reasons other than survival / reproduction advantages, a process known as” genetic drift”.
10. Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the “recipient” population.
Speciation
11. Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can “favor” different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
12. A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when sub-population acquires characteristics, which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternative population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.
Sufficiency
13. The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.
14. Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.
That’s what Evolution IS! If you have a problem with Evolution you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide any evidence of any of the points that are incorrect.
While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologist and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things – although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish “living” from “non-living”
Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variations may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture…but without evidence, they aren’t science.
Other peoples opinions presented in the form of quotes are not evidence against the theory of evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions, which turn out to be false. So lets stick to the facts.
Perhaps you have some ideas about to how remove the politics and fraud from science today.
Determining what is legitimate science, and what is "politics and fraud" is an exercise in acceptance or rejection, and conveyance of official approval. I don't know any way anyone can do one without the other.
Which ones? Please be specific and use examples
1. Not a homologous gene
2. unique function, specific for what it does.
Homology is a strawman type of challenge as the narrator knows similar appearing genes can serve different functions in different species rather ilke the words lead, the metal. and lead, to go if front of. They look the same but have different functions in a sentence.
And not all genes encode for proteins.
Specific, unique function.
The gene sequence HACNS 1 is a human specific gene enhancer that is responsible for the formation of the human hand.
The article at pubmed 2658639 attributes the uniqueness of the sequence to evolution but that assumption is just that, an assumption.
I'm aware that evolution is fact and that the Earth is not 6,000 years old, so I'm not really worried about questions regarding my credibility with those who believe otherwise.
That’s good, because you don’t have any.
Believe what you want; the world needs ditch diggers too.
Whatever Thomas Jefferson might have had to say on the subject, we simply cannot take his word as definitive. His mere name is used as a red herring; it confers no scientific credibility ... especially given that Charles Darwin was only 14 years old at the time Jefferson said it.
You may choose to differ, but that will not change the reality. Jefferson repeatedly premised his particular views in those documents which by his own testimony most clearly defined him, upon a fundamental belief in a Creator, whom he defined in terms of Christian principles.
Yes, he had a mistrust of the clergy in most organized denominations. That does not undermine his fundamental belief that the Christian God was the Creator, who endowed Man with his essential rights & nature. Why do you want to argue with anyone on this? You may disagree with elements of Jefferson's theology, but how can you deny his repeated avowals of his personal Faith? And again, why on earth would you want to?
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.