Posted on 05/21/2009 7:05:50 AM PDT by topcat54
Claiming that evolution is merely change is a common tactic of evolutionists. Tim Berra, professor of zoology at Ohio State University, exhibits the equivocation fallacy when compares biological evolution with the evolution of the Corvette:
“Everything evolves, in the sense of ‘descent with modification,’ whether it be government policy, religion, sports cars, or organisms. The revolutionary fiberglass Corvette evolved from more mundane automotive ancestors in 1953. Other high points in the Corvette’s evolutionary refinement included the 1962 model, in which the original 102-inch was shortened to 98 inches and the new closed-coupe Stingray model was introduced; the 1968 model, the forerunner of today’s Corvette morphology, which emerged with removable roof panels; and the 1978 silver anniversary model, with fastback styling. Today’s version continues the stepwise refinements that have been accumulating since 1953. The point is that the Corvette evolved through a selection process acting on variations that resulted in a series of transitional forms and an endpoint rather distinct from the starting point. A similar process shapes the evolution of organisms.”Berra’s definition of automotive evolution is in no way similar to non-directed biological evolution whereby life arose from nonlife and changes within a species resulted in gradual changes so that a new species is said to have evolved. The first Corvette was designed by someone as was each new model thereafter. Evolution begins with the premise that there is no designer and change is random, or as Richard Dawkins describes it, “blind.” From initial conception to the first production model, the Corvette does not have a random item in it. There’s nothing blind about it.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanvision.org ...
A Corvette is still a Corvette, not a Mustang. And a horse is still a horse and a fruit fly still a fruit fly despite all the genetic micro-modifications.
Look, take ‘evolution’ down to a molecular level and it falls apart. It cannot be mathematically explained by mutations. Absolute nonsense. Evolution’s main purpose is push atheism on to us.
No, actually it doesn't. Even if the horse and buggy -> Corvette "evolution" was considered, no one would argue that intelligent design was not behind the process.
But that's not the analogy the evolutionist quoted in the article is claiming. It was all “intra-species”. A Corvette is still a Corvette. But thanks for playing.
But that was the offering from a professor of zoology at Ohio State University.
As I said, even if you go back to the horse and buggy, there was still intelligent, directed motivation behind the evolution. Whatever analogy you pick will fail to meet the criteria of evolutionist’s presuppositions.
In spite of its recent short comings, GM is still far more intelligent than the prime mover of dogmatic evolution.
The Darwinian faith takes whatever encouragement it can. The lemur/monkey fossil is to Darwinians as the Shroud is to some Christians. Both are interesting, and both stop short of proving anything other than their existence. Was the Shroud the burial cloth of Christ? I think it could be, but it could be something else. Is this new fossil a transitional species? The Darwinians think so, but it could be something else.
This is my favorite line.
The author is admitting that he's an ignoramus, and the nonsense that permeates this article is further proof.
If the author is truly clueless about the subject, a five minute conversation with any paleontologist would be a good start, followed by some time in the library.
Over 58 years, I've heard all the arguments. They get weaker as we go along. For decades we have looked at extinct pigs, extinct Orangutans, extinct monkeys, ect. They are just extinct species of animal versions we have now. I can't see they are connected to humans in any way. If their were a "missing link", it seems we would have fossil evidence of such a being. If it happened over millions of years, it also seems we would have many examples of it. The Dodo bird is just an extinct bird. It doesn't show it's related to anything by being extinct. People may say it's related to other "flightless" birds, but being extinct doesn't prove anything. It's just an example of a flightless bird that has died out. That doesn't even mean it's related to an Emu, pigeon, dove, or any other bird. It's a Dodo and that's it.
Thank you. There is the bald face fact about what is really going on here.
The author would fit right in on the OJ Simpson criminal jury -- what happened back in the past without any witnesses is an impenetrable mystery; therefore, the pointy-headed experts with their "reconstructions" based on "forensic evidence" can be ignored.
With your logic, I could say all you need is a 5 minute conversation with Obama to learn about governing and economics. Time spent in a library also would show not everyone agrees what went on 47 million years ago, or even if there WAS a 47 million years ago. Your the one that is selective in what you read in the library.
Any accredited paleontologist agrees that there WAS a 47 million years ago. Anything else is fantasy; and you're right, I don't read fantasy.
. . . reveal the existence of embryonic, infant and juvenile Corvettes.
After all, in order to evolve, it must REPRODUCE.
The only way to understand the reasoning of Darwinists is to view them as practitioners of blind faith. I know they like to paint creationists as unscientific and ignorant religionists, but the fact is, evolution isn’t science. It is the faith of modern scientists, or some of them. The difference is that science can thrive just fine in the absence of evolution, but civil society doesn’t do well without God. However, science can flourish just fine in the presence of creation. ...When it comes to teaching science, as in chemistry, biology, zoology, botany, and so on, the subject of origins is a distraction. Too many students are making it to college with a philosophical understanding of evolution and little of the knowledge they need for science classes.
Then that would make you ignorant. You are uninformed on what the arguments are on the subject if you willingly keep yourself in the dark.
And another thing, there are many "accredited paleontologists" that don't agree on many things, including the age of the universe. If you read more, maybe you would know that.
Name one.
Name one not affiliated with the Discovery Institute or some other creationist front that thinks the universe is not billions of years old.
Why should I do your research for you? Watch Ben Stein’s movie if you want to. There are plenty of scientists there that disagree with Darwin.
Taken with a grain of salt. It's not repeatable. It's not falsifiable. It's still only a guess.
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.