Posted on 11/15/2019 10:22:05 AM PST by fishtank
(sighs) Do you even know what a molecular clock *is*...?
I’ll add you to the list.
In the middle-ages the church persecuted scientists for claiming the sun circled the earth. Maybe you should sharpen your pitchfork and burn some witches?
God made the world. It’s pretty arrogant to believe you know exactly how he did it...
Bookmark
So a change in estimated times of speciations proves what, now?
I believe in science and that scientific “facts” change and get updated all the time. Remember, science use to say the earth was flat, and they had scientific “facts” to back it up.
Are there bone/fossils ..timeline of sorts.. that prove giraffes once had much shorter necks..how about medium length necks?
I hear their necks are a result of evolution..so there must be proof this is the case?
Rather, it tends to undercut the very basis of comparative molecular clocks on the time scales in questions. The underlying chemistry of RNA and DNA is independent of the environment; so the base rate of changes to the allele within each new generation can't change.
Which then means the previously alleged "Because it's SCIENCE!"TM (looks down over glasses at the questioner) description of the specific environmental changes to produce the observed changes in the allele between one species and the next,...all go out the window.
That's a broad brush, and there are significant additional considerations, but it's good enough to start with.
In what way?
That's significant - but hardly the undercutting of naturalism that the article insinuates.
Well, here:
“We have some ‘ scientists’ who are not using the scientific method, therefore we shouldn’t believe any science.”
Who said “therefore we shouldn’t believe any science”? Not the original poster or the author of the article. You just invented that yourself as something convenient for you to argue against. That’s a strawman.
How about Tiktaalik... sarcopterygian fish from the Devonian with limb anatomy analogous to amphibians and other tetrapods with limbs showing a one bone-two bone many bone structure encased in a fish fin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8ttoKGxEKc
The article seems to be more about lampooning and insinuating than about drawing any well defined conclusions. Red meat for the creationist base, as it were.
Isn’t the main thrust of the article not to believe science?
I should be more specific, isn’t the main thrust of the article, and in many articles from the same source, don’t believe science in how things came to be?
No feet? Perhaps a species that lived in shallow water and went extinct. Any other steps in this species found with further changes? A different species of fish doesn’t prove that it continued to evolve into a land dwelling air breather. More scientific proof would be needed, correct? Perhaps it has yet to be discovered. Or do they just THEORIZE that this is an evolutionary step.
Don’t know much about it but here is one critical look at Tiktaalikhttps://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_1/j21_1_53-57.pdf
>>MichaelRDanger said: “In the middle-ages the church persecuted scientists for claiming the sun circled the earth. Maybe you should sharpen your pitchfork and burn some witches?
I believe it was the scientific establishment of the middle-ages that was persecuting other scientists, much like the scientific establishment of today.
Mr. Kalamata
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.