Posted on 08/20/2003 6:24:57 PM PDT by new cruelty
I've never found that a convincing reason why scripture is so sketchy regarding science. Even we, limited as we are, can take a totally ignorant 6-year-old and in a mere 10 years that child is ready to do college-level science work. If the kid is bright and the teachers are good, it can be done in less than 10 years. And if we can do it, there's no reason why God couldn't have done it -- if that was the intent. So it's very clear to me (in my always humble opinion) that scripture was never intended to be a science text, and it's a mistake to read it that way. There are many things which have been left for us to figure out, and we're doing rather well.
Yes, but the six-year-old kid has learned English already, so it doesn't take all that long. And during the next 10 years of his education, he will learn many more words to expand his vocabulary. We can take a child from a primitive tribe in the rain forest and raise him to be quite functional in our society. So the younger generation of a bronze-age group of people could have been trained to be scientifically literate, if that had been desired. (They would have had some problems inter-acting with their neighbors, but that's okay. We have trouble inter-acting with tribesmen from Afghanistan.)
How come evolution had won over nearly all scientists by 1910? Was the education establishment Marxist here, in England, in Germany, Japan, etc.? Hardly.
When molecular biology was developed in the last century, it *confirmed* what biologists had already concluded about the relationships between various animals and plants. See Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics especially the chart in section 4.7.
From this we can make a falsifiable prediction: any mutation (or pseudogene, fossilized virus, whatever) that is found in the dna of both cows and whales will also be found in hippos. AFAIK, this prediction is true - it has never been contradicted.
Until creationism or id can make and pass predictions at this level of detail, they won't be considered a viable replacement for standard biology.
There is no observation which, in principle, *could* falsify creationism or ID - any observation can be 'explained' by saying "that's just the way [the designer] did it". That's one of the reasons they're not considered scientific - they have zero predictive power, as they are consistent with any observation.
A real scientific theory, like evolution, could be disproved by making observations that the theory predicts can't be; see #187 above.
So what would you prefer?
Why shouldn't there be? Seriously, demonstrate your mastery of Darwinism and show how the ToE predicts there should not be animals after a speciation event that resemble the species that split. Good luck.
The problem lies not with us, but with (pardon the expression) creationist websites: ICR Tenets of Creationism. (From Institute for Creation Research)
Let's leave the apes for a minute. Let's ask a better question - if the reason for species evolving is necessity (natural selection, survival of the fittest and all that jazz) then how come bacteria, who are reputed by evolutionists to be the first creatures, are also the most abundant, the most prolific, the most adaptable, the most long lived species and also constitute, in spite of their very small size - much smaller than a single human cell - some 90% of the biologic mass on earth?
Explain that one.
When evolutionists can prove to me that needing a million dollars results in a million dollars being deposited in my bank account, I will start believing in evolution.
Well, that's an excuse for not answering the question. Not a good one, but an excuse nevertheless for a question which evolutionists cannot answer because there is no need for evolution to have ever happened.
Just in case anyone reading this thread mistook sophistry for an intelligent question:
if the reason for species evolving is necessity (natural selection, survival of the fittest and all that jazz) then how come bacteria:
1. who (sic: which) are reputed by evolutionists to be the first creatures,
The carbon-dated fossil record seems to indicate that the earliest life forms were some various sorts of primitive prokaryotic bacteria. There is no evidence yet known of more developed creatures prior to or even contemporary to those early single-celled creatures.
2. are also the most abundant,
where's the contradiction? Almost all forms of prokaryotic and eukaryotic bacteria reproduce by cellular fission (mitotic division) and do so very rapidly, their generations measured in minutes under ideal conditions, and continue until the bacterial consumption of biological resources equals or exceeds the supply, at which point the explosive reproduction rate plateaus, even falls back. The only thing bacteria can do is eat and replicate. That's all they do, and they do it well.
3. the most prolific,
Again, where's the contradiction? See above.
4. the most adaptable,
Yet again, where's the contradiction? They are incredibly simple organisms which replicate by mitotic division. This means that the parent bacterium itself is the literal source of the material of two daughter cells. Any non-lethal change in any bacterial cell's DNA will be passed down to all of that cell's descendants. The parent cell ceases to exist as an individual upon the first mitosis, replaced by two "daughters" with identical DNA. Those two daughters undergo mitosis and give rise to four cells, which in turn make eight, and they in turn make 16, etc... so long as environmental conditions permit. The DNA of bacteria are just as subject to random transcription error and environmentally induced mutation as that of somatic and gametogenitor cells in a more advanced organism. The difference lies in the rate of generational replication and the abovenoted fact that the DNA is passed directly to the daughter cells. (Genetic changes in bacterial DNA also occur due to transduction, conjugation and transformation - an explanation of which would require several web pages). In an advanced sexually-reproduced creature, the mutation must be located in the gametogenitor cells for it to have any chance of being inherited, and the odds of the gamete of any particular mutant gametogenitor being used to create offspring are quite low. Daughter strains containing non-lethal mutations which are also not disadvantageous survive. As environments change, and as new environments are colonized, new strains come to dominate the new environmental niches. The end result is that bacteria speciate far more rapidly than do larger, more complex creatures.
5. the most long lived species,
Ah. Now that's a load of bull. Individual unicellular and multicellular bacteria are generally very short-lived. See above: the parent cell CEASES TO EXIST AS AN INDIVIDUAL upon mitotic division. A point which might lead to confusion: many forms of bacteria have the capacity to go dormant if in a non-hostile and non-nourishing environment. Like certain amphibians, fish, and arthropoda which can be frozen solid, all activities of active life are suspended until the environment becomes less austere. Another point which might give rise to confusion: species dependant upon mitotic division for continuance do not have replication restrictions encoded in their DNA, unlike somatic cells in advanced creatures. In sloppy layman's terms: they are not "programmed to die", and we are.
6. and also constitute, in spite of their very small size - much smaller than a single human cell - some 90% of the biologic mass on earth?
Well, let's see, now: Photoplankton (cyanophytes) constitute the largest segment of bacterial biomass. They inhabit in vast quantities all of the temperate and tropical waters on Earth. They are present in all soils. The Earth's surface is over 75% covered by water. The rest is largely covered in soil. Does this begin to clarify this last quibble, Grasshopper? Is anyone similarly upset that insects, ants especially, which individually mass far less than a human being, constitute the overwhelming percentage of the animal biomass on Earth? This was a very silly quibble.
I will add that it is the hallmark of the dogmatist to pester an opponent with a glom of many different questions phrased as a single, simple question. Liars, Lawyers, and politicians argue thus. When you see it, automatically suspect dishonesty and malice.
Which only verifies my statement that bacteria are reputed to be the earliest life form. Why you post the above as a contradiction of what I said is beyond me.
where's the contradiction? Almost all forms of prokaryotic and eukaryotic bacteria reproduce by cellular fission (mitotic division) and do so very rapidly, their generations measured in minutes under ideal conditions, and continue until the bacterial consumption of biological resources equals or exceeds the supply, at which point the explosive reproduction rate plateaus, even falls back. The only thing bacteria can do is eat and replicate. That's all they do, and they do it well.
You are still agreeing with me.
3. the most prolific,-me-
Again, where's the contradiction? See above.
Still agreeing with me.
The most adaptable.-me-
Yet again, where's the contradiction?
If a species can adapt to almost any environmental condition then it does not need to transform itself into another species. Get it now? There is no need for evolution, species can adapt themselves to environmental conditions without transforming themselves into more complex species.
Evolution is supposed to be driven by environmental changes and necessities. The complete viability of bacteria shows very well that there is no need for species have transformed themselves into more complex creatures. In fact the large success of bacteria show quite well that transformation into greater complexity is detrimental to success. Many species have come and gone, but bacteria are stil around.
5. the most long lived species,-me-
Ah. Now that's a load of bull. Individual unicellular and multicellular bacteria are generally very short-lived.
Of course I did not mean it in the sense of their life span, I meant it in the sense of having been the longest inhabitants on Earth. Which shows quite well my point, you do not need to mutate to survive. Adaptability is an intrinsic part of species and this totally destroys the evolutionary argument that mutation is necessary for the survival of species.
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.