Posted on 09/24/2001 1:12:24 PM PDT by ThinkPlease
Tonight is the beginning of the Evolution Series on PBS. I thought I'd open up some threads of discussion here prior, during and after the telecast of the episodes.
Here's PBS's homepage for the telecast:
And Here's something from the Discovery Institute, who is evidently irritated about turning down free publicity on the telecast. (They were offered time on the final night of the telecast, and turned down PBS.)
Insufficient, expecially when it comes to the higher species. For example, evolutionists now say that the ancestor of both man and monkey is some 10 million years in the past. Now that sounds like a long time but it is only about a million generations. Now how many individuals do you wish to count in each generation? Let's be over generous and say there were a billion each generation. So that gives you 10 to the 15th power of opportunities for getting a new functional gene. The chances for a random creation of a small functional gene are greater than 1 to the 65th power. Of course there is always the chance of a lucky strike at the beginning so one gene would be possible though somewhat improbable. However the difference between man and monkey is 2% of the genes. That sounds small but it means some 600 genes. Since even one new gene in 10 million years is improbable, 600 is a complete impossibility.
Now answer the questions I asked you.
Perhaps when you start talking like a human being you will get an answer.
How many different people have used the "gore3000" screen name to post on FR from May until present?
Everyone? You mean PEOPLE?? I almost can't believe even one of the evos made such a claim.
We're all transitional? From what? I mean, they've demonstrated that we cannot have descended from the neanderthal and all other hominids are much further from us both in time and morphology THAN the neanderthal. That leaves nothing on Earth as a plausible ancestor for modern man.
The other question is To what? The genome project has also shown that the only difference between Bantus and Germans is frequency of genes present in both groups, i.e. there is in actual fact only one human race and thus no evidence whatsoever of any group of humans in any process of evolving into anything else.
Thus, there is zero evidence on the planet of modern man ever having been involved in any sort of a process which could be called evolution.
No, evolution simply denies that God created life as it exists today,
You left out the point that evolution denies that God created man and that is in the Bible. However, it does deny that God created life, though it is too dishonest to say so explicitly. If God created life then why would he stop? Why would he not have created man if He does exist?
Evolution is very hypocritical, and this is one of its greatest hypocresies. Darwin was an atheist, though he refused to say so. Just about all his dear friends and comrades in promoting evolution were atheists also but they continue to deny that evolution is against religion because like the devil they want to suck in believers into their false ideology.
Slimes prove nothing. Darwin said that man descended from monkeys and science has proven that statement wrong. That is proof against evolution no matter how many times you scream shout and insult. You cannot hide the truth with screams, insults and character assassination - no matter what Clinton and Goebbels believed.
No, you're not. You're lying. There's nothing that anyone can say to you that would dissuade you from your beliefs, and there's no point in discussing it further.
I'm still trying to figure out what gazongas are!
I had nothing to do with post #121. Discussing anything with you is a total waste of bandwidth.
Semi-politely, they are large on Dolly Parton and non-existent on Michael Jackson(as of this moment).
In, a single generation, it is about the same probability as the probability that the sun won't rise in the morning. Please go to another thread and argue about some subject on which you might have some hope of being knowledgeable.
No, science has proven that statement largely right. At a minimum we branched off the primate family somewhere, millions of years ago. Whether it was from the direct ancestors of today’s monkeys or not is still an open question. You can say this is wrong until you are blue in the face but that is YOUR PROBLEM. Out of 1,000 scientists you might get one or two to agree with you. Science is not on your side and you know it, otherwise you Creationists wouldn't be so sensitive about it. Deal with it. Oh and by the way, in your vernacular, I admit that I slime occasionally but so do you. Why is it that when you insult an Evolutionist it is not a slime? You born again Christians have a real problem with being real.
That's right. They've been futily combing the Earth to find one for 150 years now
No, no one's even been looking for them. There's no such thing. Either that, or every species is an "intermediate species." Either way, it's irrelevant to the theory of natural selection.
You pegged Gore3000 perfectly. Note to self: never get in a flame war with Central Scrutiniser.
Oh arrogant unwise one, those who are ignorant are the first to apply ad hominem. However small the probability of the discussed birth it is still non-zero. Natural selection cannot function alone. And I did not mention natural selection, you did. You are the one with deficient knowledge of statistical inference. Since you are not the traffic cop here why don't you follow your own advice and bugger off. You posted to me uninvited and have done nothing but insult when asked for any semblance of logical discourse. Here are your pearls of nitwit in order.
No, one shouldn't, unless one is totally ignorant of statistics and the nature of genetic mutations.
No, it doesn't. It only sounds logical if you're utterly ignorant of genetics in general, the human genome in particular, and the process of natural selection.
There is essentially zero chance of a human having a chimpanzee offspring. Speciation doesn't occur in a single birth, and the subject remains irrelevant to natural selection.
It is not ad hominem to describe a reasonable inference of your knowledge level based directly on the contents of your posts.
That is bovine scatology. An refutation to an argument requires no refence to the opponent unless that opponent uses such reference as support. I did no such thing.
I have refuted your arguments. That you're too ignorant to recognize it is no fault of mine.
Sorry Capt Picard, saying "make it so" does not make it so. My argument was
After all, there is only a 2% difference in the DNA which came about in 5 million years, therefore, randomly, one should expect 1/5,000,000th chance of that in 1 year. Those are lottery odds. (actually the odds are much worse, but you figure them out, and be careful, random things have no direction)
leading to
You now have the golden opportunity to put your numbers where your opinion is.
Which you have yet to do.
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.