Posted on 10/27/2009 8:11:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Is there a Bible believing Christian that is not? (no, there isn’t)
Get out of here! You are really a geocentrist!? Thats awesome.
Be careful. Defending science will get you branded as a “liberal disruptor”.
That I cite dogs is in no way consistent with the idea that natural selection and genetic variation is insufficient to explain the OBVIOUS common descent of species (which ID admits to when they try to wear their ‘respectable scientist’ hat) and thus a ‘designer’ of some sort (wink wink) needed to intervene.
Punctuated Equilibrium is still widely accepted in the paleontology community. But only those who rely upon Creationist sources think PE is somehow a refutation of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation.
And you even invented a new delusion, that PE was somehow an explanation for or consequence of some sequences being more likely to get mutated than others.
You lack of “belief” in the theory of evolution is obvious. Your “belief” is what it is, you obviously have no actual knowledge of what the theory of evolution is, what punctuated equilibrium is, why some mutations are more likely than others, what a theory is and how it is never “proven”, or how examples of human selection can show the power of natural selection without being an advocation of a ‘god of the gaps’ argument.
It needs to be pointed out to the geocentrists, AIDS deniers, and other assorted cranks here that even PE takes place over a very large period of time (thousands of generations).
You make no distinction between macro and micro evolution. There is a big difference!
Evolutionist alternate the terms and blur the meaning to give support to the theory that one species can evolve into another.
Microevolution is something that we belive in and can be observed. It proves that there is variation within a kind. It comes from genetics. The information was already there in the genetic code of the parents. Selective breeding or enviromental factors may play a role but they did not CREATE the information.
For example, my daughter has curly hair. No one in our family has curly hair. Somewhere in our genetics their was the code for curly hair. It was somehow selected.
That is microevolution. It does not prove or even lend support to macroevolution (one species developing into another over time) But evolutionist like to say “Oh look bacteria became drug resistant, they change (micro) so humans can evolve from a ape like ancestor (macro). That is a logical fallacy.
Its Genesis Ch 1.
You have attributed items in my posts that just are not there, perhaps you dream too much. Your airplane and dog post are clear to the readers that you are confused. Evolution biologist are true believers in the theory of evolution and yet their journals are replete with examples of scientific data that does not support the theory of evolution. Because they are often critical of the theory does that make them support ID and Creation? The same can be said for paleontologist which are in agreement that the Darwin theory of evolution based on the fossil record is unsupported. They too are true believers but does their position on Darwin make them ID and Creation supporters? Interestingly the geneticist in general shy away form discussion about evolution and attempt to stay within their discipline. The same can be said for geologist. The field of medical science does not like the word mutation because when it is used in their discipline it is usually in reference to a bad outcome. I find it amusing that you have made an impetuous judgment of me and not been critical of those true believers of the theory of evolution that admit many problem with the theory of evolution. I went to my library and took of the shelf my original copy Darwin’s work and will be ready to discuss it with you.
Evidence of your “thousands of generations has never been found. - Mitochondrial evidence indicates generations in the hundreds only.
Fairy tales fall apart quickly when one demands evidence.
Macro evolution is the same thing as micro evolution, just micro evolution over long periods of time. Creationists speak of ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ evolution, Biologists speak of evolution and common descent of species.
Curly hair was not “selected” for in your daughter, unless you did a screen for the trait and were willing to abort if she did not have it.
In order to refute something, or to even credibly reject something, it would help if you understood it.
Your daughter having curly hair despite neither parent having it is not an example of microevolution UNLESS it was a new trait caused by a mutation in genes that would otherwise keep the hair straight. Otherwise it would just be an example of an expression of a recessive trait, which is NOT an example of microevolution.
It is not a logical fallacy to observe a known and measurable process and extrapolate that over time in order to see if it can be a logical mechanism to explain historical processes.
For example, the known and measurable “micro” erosion that we see, is both necessary and sufficient to explain the “macro” features of canyons caused by river erosion over millions of years.
Neither is it a logical fallacy to point out that light from an object a hundred million light years away would take a hundred million years to reach the Earth - that is science - the utilization of natural processes to explain natural phenomena in reproducible experiments that collect data that fit within a theoretical framework that is
consistent with what is known.
Yeah, my bad, I was born in 1951. I had the movie in my mind. Old age isn’t easy.
Okay, that made me smile. But you should be careful as you're starting to sound like a Bug Chaser... :-)
When proven it ceases to be a theory.
What theories do you consider proven? And how would they be adjusted by contrary data?
Or are you trying to deny that you made the claim again?
As to “S. Thrarinsson”, is one man a community? Is the theory that you are subscribing to is that fossils form naturally out of volcanic lava?
You really should stick to your areas of expertise and not draw conclusions from skimming a Google search. Mitochondrial Eve has been determined to have lived between 150,000 and 250,000 years ago. That is a minimum of 7,500 generations ago. Your "hundreds" number is derived as the interval between SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphism).Mitochondria within the cell have nearly identical DNA sequence. Within the human gnome about once every 4,000 years a stable mutation occurs in a female that is passed to a female offspring and thus can be passed to subsequent generations. This equates to the 200 generations you were bloviating about.
Which would be astrophysics?
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.