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
Evolution should try joining mainstream science where best answers coalesce when one observes, measures, replicates by experiment, and computes formulas for a phenomenon. Examinations for many physical events have not reached this four-fold rationality.
One example is String Theory, or the “theory of everything”; everything for atomic, micro-processes. Mathematical models utilize eleven dimensions to unify gravitational, electromagnetic, and nuclear strong and weak forces. Here is computation without experiment, measurement, or observation. Niels Bohr would say, “Yes, yes you have the mathematics. But does it make sense?” Notable critics say scientists utilizing mathematics inadvertently venture into philosophy and/or religion.
The other extreme is Macroevolution, where all is observation. Rigorous measurements and experiments would require 1,000 to 10,000 times recorded history. Advocates contemplate observed phenomenon, and decide Macroevolution explains everything. Yet this theory fails computational testing, with vanishing small probabilities using Thermodynamics, which covers all macro-processes.
Evolution advocates should consider natural processes in open systems, as required by natural selection, and note consistent increased disorder, release of energy, and increased entropy. Absent intentionality, even huge energy inputs result in Katrina, and not the Brooklyn Bridge.
For just one hypothesis biased in their favor, assume that during a time span one minute short of eternity there are 182,000,000 steps through the vagaries of chemical reaction, environment, and predator events from the first one cell animal to man. If 181,999,500 steps have an absolute certainty of occurring, and the remaining 500 have a 90% probability of occurring, then the chance Macroevolution explains the presence of humans is 0.000000000000000000000013220708.
Rigorous debate continues concerning String Theory, but debate is prohibited concerning Macroevolution. Advocates contend contrary arguments require the intrusion of God. Yet good theologians of desert religions would say a god hedged in by observation, measurement, experiment, and computation equates to the Golden Calf the Israelites constructed in the Wilderness. Their God can only be found by mystical, faith encounters.
Basic reason and understanding of the evolution process dictates that evolution is not the explanation of all species
Evolution requires a species to act on
So evolution must always start with a "seed species", some living thing that could not of evolution...it requires at least one but it is not limited to one
To say otherwise is a "divide by zero" error of logic...
There is nothing for evolution process to act on or "divide" in to different species in the first place
This dictates that the must be another mechanism that create species without evolution for evolution to have a species to act on
That's not God' dictate... that a dictate of the logic of evolution own process
Transitional fossils and taxonomic groups are subjective terms that help our understanding of the process. It doesn’t change the fact that evolution is ongoing and constant, hence you and I are the transitional fossil between an early primate and whatever homo-sapien evolves into in several hundred million years.
If you don't understand creationism, there's plenty of folks here that can help you.
Yes, the TOE is the very foundation from which liberalism got planted a few decades ago in their houses of worship, the public school houses. They will NOT even let the little children be taught the Ten Commandments anymore. And wonder of wonders we have wholesale theft, I mean redistribution of wealth taking place right in the public square, all born out of this notion government is god that decides who is the 'fittest' to survive...
There is NO literal evidence of what the new and improved Darwinism initially and off teleprompter claims. Want to watch the Darwinists scatter for the covers, well bring up their origins theory of a hot steamy sex pot of primordial soup producing one cell that got hot and bothered eons ago and reproduced itself... and 'bang' there was life.
There is no liberal walking this earth with a more haughty arrogant attitude than these of the cult of Darwin.
“Godless” covered evolution as well. But “Demonic” is her best.
He has no idea, but he’s quite certain that it all ends up like the Avatar movie.
How are you dismissing equalibria to make such a gratuitous assertion?
I’m not dismissing it at all.
BTTT
Hiya Syncro~! See ya in Tampa!
This is the dumbest post I’ve ever read. Please, if you’re still in college... quit... you’re an idiot and they’re taking advantage of you. The soma wagon is on its way.
You MUST be dismissing it to gratuitously assert we are still in transition.
It is a logical requirement.
What is to understand? Their errors allowed the godless liberals to plant their religious doctrine into their publicly funded houses of worship... the public school. Two wrongs have never turned out well for any civilized society. And the arrogant evolutionists will never accept responsibility for what their religious doctrines have wrought this nation. Well, that is until their rugs get ripped out from under them by the Creator that created their very souls. Time is a ticking.
Not at all. When did Gould ever say that we are no longer evolving?
Indeed.
You must not question settled science
Two more: Cambrian Explosion.
Yep, you are correct.
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.