Posted on 08/31/2011 8:16:15 PM PDT by RonDog
LIBERALS' VIEW OF DARWIN UNABLE TO EVOLVE
August 31, 2011Amid the hoots at Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry for saying there were "gaps" in the theory of evolution, the strongest evidence for Darwinism presented by these soi-disant rationalists was a 9-year-old boy quoted in The New York Times.
After his mother had pushed him in front of Perry on the campaign trail and made him ask if Perry believed in evolution, the trained seal beamed at his Wicked Witch of the West mother, saying, "Evolution, I think, is correct!"
That's the most extended discussion of Darwin's theory to appear in the mainstream media in a quarter-century. More people know the precepts of kabala than know the basic elements of Darwinism.
There's a reason the Darwin cult prefers catcalls to argument, even with a 9-year-old at the helm of their debate team.
Darwin's theory was that a process of random mutation, sex and death, allowing the "fittest" to survive and reproduce, and the less fit to die without reproducing, would, over the course of billions of years, produce millions of species out of inert, primordial goo.
The vast majority of mutations are deleterious to the organism, so if the mutations were really random, then for every mutation that was desirable, there ought to be a staggering number that are undesirable.
Otherwise, the mutations aren't random, they are deliberate -- and then you get into all the hocus-pocus about "intelligent design" and will probably start speaking in tongues and going to NASCAR races.
We also ought to find a colossal number of transitional organisms in the fossil record -- for example, a squirrel on its way to becoming a bat, or a bear becoming a whale. (Those are actual Darwinian claims.)
But that's not what the fossil record shows. We don't have fossils for any intermediate creatures in the process of evolving into something better. This is why the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard referred to the absence of transitional fossils as the "trade secret" of paleontology. (Lots of real scientific theories have "secrets.") Read More
LOL!
I see what you did there.
If one desires to make a lie believable [msm / scientific naturalism] simply mix truth w/ error. To brainwash the masses and turn it into a paradigm of ‘established fact’ repeat only one side of the story over and over and over.
To discredit your opponent whenever and where ever the truth re-surfaces question their background, credentials, and sanity or just resort to ridicule and name-calling.
**************************************************************
Q1: Carbon or clay.
A1: If you guessed clay then you have guessed correctly and can now advance to the next round. While the known lifeforms are commonly referred to as carbon-based they are also in fact represented by the same elemental composition as dust or clay.
**************************************************************
Q2: How many natural clocks are used to represent the old earth/universe w/ multi-billion years ages versus those indicating young ages on the order of thousands of years?
Don’t kid yourself. Even the Wikipedia listing for the pre-cambrian rabbit incorporates a hedge on Haldane’s bet. And while you continue to make allusions to some sweeping body of testable particulars, you’ve yet to present any beside a quip from a long gone “scientist” who wouldn’t even qualify as a student by modern standards.
I do understand your incentive to declare victory, and “beat feet.” Yours is the inenviable position of trying to keep your theoretical boat afloat no matter the number of holes in it, while mine is simply to legitimately punch those holes. So if it makes you feel better to “throw a flag” instead of playing the game: so be it.
I am aware that the theory of natural selection, as a narrowly-defined theory, does not address the origins of life.
However, the more generally used term “evolution” as it is commonly understood by most laymen (and therefore, by most people on or off Free Republic) involves the origins of life debate as well as the more strict natural selection issue.
It's not my boat. Evolution is well supported with very specific falsifiable tests. Understand, there's no mainstream widespread controversy over the basic foundations of evolution outside of evangelicals and Islamists. There's no great debate going on except in your little cargo cult.
You can try:
*If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
*If it could be shown that, although mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
*If it could be shown that, although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
*If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
Like I said, provide a falsificaiton of evolution and the world will beat a path to your door, and you will be the recipient of untold fame and riches.
Or you could just keep making excuses.
Shaped from clay [origin of life]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1515522/posts
Science came to the same conclusions about what was necessary for life as Scripture revealed thousands of years before by Divine revelation.
Imagine that.......
OK. Now it’s up to you to prove the contention that if enough mutations occur, often enough, over a long enough period of time, that it can account for the variety of life we see here on earth now.
Perhaps you could start by answering the questions in post 35 with something besides the derision evidenced by Oceander. After all, the questions were not even asking for predictions which should come next, but rather are asking about the changes that have occurred in the past, of which there should be evidence in the fossil record.
In the event that that is beyond your pay grade, then maybe an easier task would be to explain the changes in the number of chromosomes from the initial single celled creatures from which all life theoretically evolved, could manage to occur without causing the demise of the organism, as the changes in the number of chromosomes tends to.
There is, after all, a large range of the numbers of chromosomes in the life represented here on earth.
I can not think of a single case of a change in the number of chromosomes in a human being which does not result in debilitating conditions which either kill the off the mutation or render the organism sterile. Most changes in chromosomes are incompatible with the life form even living. How is this supposed to work and fill an entire planet with the variety we see now of successfully adapting creatures?
Has any of the work in laboratories that has allegedly resulted in a *new* creature, even if it is the same old fruit fly, resulted in an actual change in the number of chromosomes in said fruit flies?
Gotten any intelligent answer from the self-declared scientific elite on FR yet?
Exactly right. Even the theistic evolutionist must acknowledge that once G-d is put on the table as the one who created the first life from which all others evolve, then he has to see that the same G-d could have created it all. Unless of course they believe that G-d was powerful enough to create the first life but not powerful enough to create all life. They could argue that G-d just chose to create through evolution, and I guess that is one possibility, but certainly another possibility is that G-d created it all. Then the evidence becomes subject to interpretation depending on your view. One man's evidence for common descent is another man's evidence for modular design.
If you take G-d off the table and say it all must be explained by natural means, then there is no credible explanation for how life originated.
Have the bacteria mutated or been driven by ‘evolutionary pressures’ to become anything other than what they've always been? Bacteria recognizable today?
This group has about 7 to 8 thousand genes and close to 9 million base pairs in its DNA so after millions of generations does this resistance represent an acquired characteristic due to exposure to modern antibiotics? No, no and definitely no.
No evolving, no selection.
Great question, metmom! Thanks so much for asking it!
:o)
...Deep...
It’s still there.
Then what are they? How many times do I have to ask the same question before you admit you have no answer. None of your bullet-points constitute falsifiability in that none of them address the validity of how you string each discrete element together to arrive at your conclusion.
The existence of paper, lines, blueprints, and copy machines does not prove copying those plans enough times will occasionally result in the spontaneous generation of new and useful rooms in subsequent copies.
Finally, please save me the sophistry of your "...provide a falsificaiton of evolution and the world will beat a path to your door," nonsense. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" as well as "Planck's Dictum" are both well established enough to make your assertion disingenuous at best, and mendacious at worst.
“That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . ”
Yes, each one of them do quite clearly. So get to work.
“That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . . ”
Stellar response.
Par Excellant response! (standing ovation)
No matter, pun intended, how one believes or attempts to qualify “evolution”.....’ human nature ‘has not changed....in fact as people move further from their creator, as we see in our day, the more vile they become.
According to evolution we should be the picture of perfection by now, instead we see mankind go beyond the imaginable in their behavior and thoughts.
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.