Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Oh, I read your question too hastily in making my prior answer. You are asking if the dinos have descendants today. I don't know. Clearly there are many extinct species. Some could be dead-ends. I don't have an answer for you.
What do you make of the occasional whale born with legs? Where did those genes come from?
I don't know the evolutionist's response to this. I've seen evolutionists talking about how eyes and other structures can develop numerous times, in numerous ways, in unrelated creatures (recently unrelated, anyway). Mammary glands could undergo the same (random?) re-evolution, time and again, I suppose. One wonders where creation leaves off and allegedly unguided mutation begins in such cases. But as I said, I don't know.
My "church" is doing all the scientific inquiry and has all the scientists who are still asking questions [that "I" consider valid].
Your post confirms that creationists think everything's about religion. That's why the people who are still creationists make lousy scientists. They're the people who have stopped asking questions, or maybe never were asking questions. The people who still are asking questions stopped being creationists in the 19th century.
Not necessarily true. There is an assumed "valid" or "proper" in your sentence. People still ask questions, but it is the evolution-as-fact lobby that has ceased to ask questions.
I don't have a problem with "YEC" science being criticized as being non-scientific. I do, however, have a problem with religious-atheists attacking anything secular or non-secular that challenges their presupposition that their pet theory is unquestionable.
My post merely, and rightly IMO, makes the point that the rabid defense of a specific hypothesis, or even "theory" is not science either. Once you refuse to question it, then it becomes doctrine.
You may have missed the point of my participation here. I'm accepting Vade's challenge. He said that a creationist can't pretend to be an evolutionist, and I'm doing my best to demonstrate that I can recite the evolutionist's dogma, and even do so with a degree of comprehension. So in that mode, my answer to you would be: "Yes, certainly," but in reality, I don't think it means anything more than the fact that a palm tree can't generate vitimin C either, and I'm no kin to the palm tree. Nor are you, I assume.
A few things like the eye seem to have arisen independently in more than one line. Insect eyes, for instance, are very different from ours. Mostly, this is easy to spot although there can be problems if all you have are fossils.
Here's another point you may not be considering. An innovation, mammary glands, appears in one place on the tree. Can it move down? Can it move to the side?
Where can you find it later on?
You're really forcing me to delve deeply into this evolutionist's mode of thought. I shall continue, but only for a little while longer. As I said, I just wanted to play with your challenge, not to change my worldview. Anyway, if the genetic material from which mammary glands originally developed (mutated, whatever) is present in the "tree", wherever that may be, I suppose the potential exists for such material to be expressed again, although in a different species. I just don't know. Well, yes, there's the platypus, isn't there. I suppose, if the platypus isn't a separate creation of the lord, then it's a separate expression of the same mutated genetic stuff that resulted in mammals. Clumsy explanation, but probably acceptable to an evolutionist.
What, besides insanity, do you inherit from your children?
is like a vegetarian that eats meat---human flesh too--maybe!
...half cannibal and half vegetarian...bi--faith/religion---intellectualism(mixed/confused-up)?
If you believe in God you are required to believe in a creator--creation---no matter what you call it!
Maybe you're a Gaist--nature lover...
you must have God on the back burner---refrigerator---freezer...over-fried in the oven---microwave!
At the dump--landfill...you could be more honest---accurate with what you are doing--believe in.
Eating your cake and having it too!
Amazing. The exact same mutation, just, happened, and by some kind of coincidence, just happened in species that were already thought to be related on anatomical grounds.
You're distracting yourself overly. If mammary glands arise in multiple places on the tree, you'll suspect it because more kinds of animals will have them and the glands in one kind will be substantially different from the ones in another. I mentioned eyes. All crazy sorts of animals have eyes and there are all crazy kinds of eyes. Some are obviously related to others and some aren't.
Just in general, you don't assume coincidence unless there's evidence that forces you. In the case of mammary glands, all the animals that have them are very significantly related in other ways. No reason at all to think there was more than one invention.
As the very first week of any beginning science course emphasizes, scientific theories cannot be "proved": that's not the way it works. They can only be disproved. I have to believe Darwin was aware of this and therefor never made the statement attributed to him.
As far as transitional types are concerned, the record is full of them, including the famous moth which got darker as the air got dirtier.
Can mammary glands, if only invented once, jump from branch to branch or go down the tree?
‘After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.’ (1 Kings 19:12).
"A glance at who the famous people of the world are, will reveal that we are accustomed to choosing tough and tempestuous types, for our heroes. Fire and thunder is more suited to the imagination, than a gentle breeze. Timid fold are seldom in the headlines. In the 16th century, Martin Luther was a rough-hewn kind of man, and he is most remembered, even though his quiet friend, Melancthon was probably just as effective."
"The heroes of the Biblical world were those who were great in Battle; Samson, Joshua, and David. In our culture, sporting heroes are our idols. Not because of their supreme delicacy! We admire them because they are not delicate. Indeed, we lionize them for their ruthlessness in the arena."
"God is not necessarily like those who are popularly admired. On the contrary, he seems to have a preference for what is less prominent. His style is unique. He chooses to align himself with the less notable; less spectacular. Size and strength do not mesmerize him. He distinguishes himself from that which others look to, for getting things done. Unlike the moguls of the advertisement world, he avoids celebrity, and big names. Find something, or someone that others have overlooked on account of their frailty, ignorance, or weakness, and there you will have found the exact instrument that God is likely to choose. This is good news. It means hope for us."
Actually, evolutionists will tell you the progenitor of the eye arose only once and the variations of eyes found throughout nature are the result of local selection. The prediction here is that the gene encoding eyes will be similar -- NOT IDENTICAL (that's so gore3000 cannot twist my words later) -- in all animals (it is) and that all animals possess this gene, even if they do not express it.
The answer is, no. It is thought that eye spots have been around for half a billion to a billion years. (The evidence from conserved homeobox genes says that the common ancestor of mammals and insects had a light detector.) But, photosynthesis is far older. We know this because of algae fossils, and from the idea that plants and bacteria would have inherited photosynthesis from a common ancestor. And besides, early life would have run out of organic molecules if it didn't learn to make its own with photosynthesis.Where Would an Eye Spot Have Come From?.
Maybe I was thinking of wings. Wings, for sure, have evolved more than once.
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.