Posted on 11/01/2009 4:02:49 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Life is not a naturalistic phenomenon with unlimited evolutionary potential as Darwin proposed. It is intelligently designed, ruled by immutable laws, and survives only because it has a built-in
facilitated variation mechanism for continually adapting to internal and external challenges and changes. The essential components are: functional molecular architecture and machinery, modular switching cascades that control the machinery and a signal network that coordinates everything. All three are required for survival, so they must have been present from the beginning—a conclusion that demands intelligent design. Life’s built-in ability to adapt and diversify looks like Darwinian evolution, but it is not. Darwin’s theory of speciation via natural selection of natural variation is correct in principle, but it cannot be extrapolated to universal ancestry. What we see instead is different kinds of organisms having been designed for different kinds of lifestyles, with enormous potential for diversification built-in at the beginning, but with time this potential for diversification has become depleted by selection and degraded by mutations so that we are now rapidly heading towards extinction. Intelligent design and rapid decay point to recent Creation and Fall, as the Bible tells us...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Send an insulting e-mail, it worked so well here, “On the Myths about Charles Darwin”, right?
How about you show the empirical evidence in this article that supports a 6 day creation, and a 6,000 year old earth?
This is another case of GGG moving the goal posts. Had you provided a detailed step-by-step process flow he would have rejected it because it didn't include balanced chemical equations (that he wouldn't understand). You don't answer to him anyway. There are plenty of us on these threads who are interested in what you have to say. We might even disagree from time to time without being too disagreeable.
You really don't want to get into it on the news / activism thread without the Religion Mod to protect you. I might have to reveal what a vile, rude little "potty reference" you really are.
Thank you. I only bring to the threads what a lifetime of learning and observation have taught me.
Accordingly, for the requisite proof that GGG claims he wants, I am aware that nothing will suffice. I must content myself with pointing out his fallacies that fly in the face of common sense, and hope that at some point he will develop the intellectual honesty to admit it.
The world is a wonderful, unlimited diaspora of radiating creation. The spark of life that was initiated so long ago continues to dazzle and grow.
It seems petty somehow to try to muzzle that force for a narrow, bigoted purpose of corralling public opinion into a channel controlled by a few.
We can all independently marvel at the wonder of continuing creation without getting or requiring the approval of someone who only wants to tell us exactly where to sit so that he can have order as he passes around the collection plate.
If you can imagine a world in which the likes of C-Y-C, GGG, and ES have positions of real authority and influence you can appreciate what turned Charles Darwin against organized religion.
The sad thing is that the likes of C-Y-C, GGG, and ES failed to recognize that they equated themselves with God when they proclaimed that their rejections was a rejection of God.
Thanks for the ping!
I was led to this page by using Google, and your phrase, "step-by-step example of macroevolution", so it should by rights have information that we both would find interesting or fascinating by various degrees.
Note that the researchers consider the facts and evidence thoroughly, dispassionately, and without regard to the direction in which those facts seem to lead. What more could one ask in a search for truth?
Here is a passage of relevance to our discussion. I have bolded the portion which relates to my above description of chromosomes becoming longer. :
"... the common descent hypothesis would have been falsified if the universal phylogenetic trees determined from the independent molecular and morphological evidence did not match with statistical significance. Furthermore, we are now in a position to begin construction of phylogenetic trees based on other independent lines of data, such as chromosomal organization. In a very general sense, chromosome number and length and the chromosomal position of genes are all causally independent of both morphology and of sequence identity. Phylogenies constructed from these data should recapitulate the standard phylogenetic tree as well ..."Curiously, you may have had great confidence in the likelihood of my failing to find bolstering information for my hypothesis, but I found it surprisingly easy to do.
Perhaps you would be better advised to seek such information yourself before posting comments from individuals obviously no better qualified to comment on these matters than am I, and ones much more likely to be mistaken for having a biased viewpoint to begin with.
I don't think the author cares which one chooses.
In principle, we are still on Day Seven. Depends on how you 'read' the Bible. It mentions he rested. There is no day Eight.
When I pointed out wherein one of your self identified myths about Darwin was, in fact, wrong and I provided evidence of same, the only thing you could do is compare it to digging through trash and have your off-color comments pulled by the Mods. This on the “religion” forum mind.
Since the proper thing to do would have been to apologize to all you chose to send an insulting e-mail saying that somehow I was attempting to “stifle” discussion.
If being told you're wrong offends you, you're going to be offended often. Like now: I don't need any protection as I can and do defend myself quite well and don't need to hide behind e-mails.
Your comments are revealing of you not me.
Thanks.
An interesting source for some good thought and examination.
I second that.
We might even disagree from time to time without being too disagreeable.
Well said.
First, your link leads back to Free Republic and gives the message “document not found.” Second, what is it that you think your dataless, contextless paragraph proves exactly?
My pleasure :o)
You are correct that I messed up that link. I apologize for that. Since I had provided exactly the scenario under which the link was to have been established however, I was easily able to find it again. Here it is.
"Second, what is it that you think your dataless, contextless paragraph proves exactly?"
I think that what it establishes is that my conjecture about chromosomes occasionally getting twisted in their reproduction phase such that some progeny are left with duplicated material is a sound one because tracking back such patterns of reproduced material puts one precisely on the map developed by different methods of establishing familial relationships. That seemed clear enough to me.
The quotation was part of a rigorous demonstration that all forms of analysis of genetic relationships between animals coalesce into a single pattern proving irrefutably that the map being produced is the correct path.
Now that the link has been reestablished, I would invite you to study the page referred to. It is quite informative and profoundly insightful.
See? Just like it says in Genesis! The End.
I'm sure that this article was peer-reviewed, right?
“I thought God created life? “
Actually, they have to be Machiavellian here. ID’ers can’t say that God is the creator/designer or else they will expose ID as the Trojan horse for creationism that it is.
Why would you use a link that loops back to FR if you are quoting from “29+ Evidences”? And why would you select a paragraph that is nothing more than a conclusion devoid of empirical evidence in response to my challenge to demonstrate “step-by-step example of macroevolution using any of your proposed mechanisms”? And finally, surely you are aware that creation scientists have thoroughly debunked Theobald’s “29+ Evidences” point for point???
This is one of the funniest things you have ever written on FR! Also, you misspelled evolution. Use the spell checker.
- 1.) Why would you use a link that loops back to FR if you are quoting from “29+ Evidences”?
- 2.) And why would you select a paragraph that is nothing more than a conclusion devoid of empirical evidence in response to my challenge to demonstrate “step-by-step example of macroevolution using any of your proposed mechanisms”?
- 3.) And finally, surely you are aware that creation scientists have thoroughly debunked Theobald’s “29+ Evidences” point for point???
1.) I have already explained and apologized for having messed up that link. Let's move on.
2.) "a paragraph that is nothing more than a conclusion devoid of empirical evidence" as part of a section dealing with possible falsification, (proof against the theoretical contention), would logically not contain empirical evidence, as such empirical evidence would constitute a refutation, and cause further study before publication.
Secondly, it is not up to you to pose challenges to those questioning or finding fault with your spurious contentions, with which you build your personal fortification against logic, it is rather for you to defend your allegations if possible. That's the way real science works.
3.) And no, I am not aware that "creation scientists", (a colossal oxymoron if ever there was one), have ever even made any kind of case to support their so-called "science", much less produced a refutation of any real science.
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.