Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
Nope, sorry...give me an intelligent human male who has learned to walk upright every time. ;)
Monotreme is too extreme!
=====================================
Here's another view on the subject:
"So be sweet and kind to mother,
Now and then have a chat.
Buy her candy or some flowers,
Or a brand new hat.
But maybe you had better let it go at that.
Or you may find yourself with a quite complex complex
And you may end up like Oedipus.
I'd rather marry a duck-billed platypus
Than end up like old Oedipus Rex."
-Tom Lehrer
Such a delightful choice. My cup runneth over.
Still working on it.
Exactly why I find it impossible to go to church or embrace any "religion". The penalty for questioning and seeking is just too high, the voices too strident in their disapproval. If there is a God, He doesn't need the narrow-minded and intolerant to defend Him.
You mean Mr. "Post-it-here" has been complaining no one links him anything? Don't you know if it isn't posted in-line it just isn't real?
Therefore, since you claim to know where the proof of macro-evolution is, post it here instead of asking all the readers to go sifting through numerous threads. I would think that you would be proud to show new readers the proof of your theory - or is the claim to having given such proof not true?
As I told Junior, it is the ultimate in arrogance and the ultimate in lameness to ask readers here to wade through tons of articles to find the proof you refuse to show them. If you know where the proof is, it is a simple matter of cutting and pasting for you to give it again. Why do you refuse to do so?
Why? The theory of evolution pretty much fits all the evidence. It is up to anyone else coming along the pike with a brand new (or old, as in the case of creationism) theory to show that their theory fits the evidence better, has better predictive powers (prediction is the reason DARWINISTS - not CREATIONISTS - thought Piltdown Man was a hoax from the beginning; they just had to wait for better dating techniques to prove it), and can be backed up by observation (evolution has been observed in the laboratory, in the field and in the fossil record - regardless of your protestations to the contrary). Once your pet theory can do all that, then it will have a straight shot at being accepted.
Nice dodge, though. First you say that no one ever gives references when backing up the theory of evolution - and we show that isn't right. Then you say the references are garbage, and we show you that the source of the references contains some of your own work. Now you are saying we've got to go out and prove each of these bits of evidence ourselves. The bar keeps getting higher.
BTW, speaking of proving your assertions, we are still waiting for you to produce:
• Case law REQUIRING the teaching of evolution in U.S. schools (there is a lot barring the teaching of creationism, but that is no the same thing, as one could simply say the school will not teach anything along these lines and not be in violation of that ruling).When we make mistakes we (well most of us) admit them. Heck, I've had to apologize a half-dozen times on these threads alone (not to mention the dozens of apologies I've made on the more political threads when I misunderstood something). It has made me more diligent in my research before posting something - hence the creation of The Ultimate Resource.• The research paper that says DNA evidence proves whales and hippos are not related. You made this bald-faced assertion not long ago, VadeRetro called you on it by posting several references that show whales and hippos are very much related, and you clammed up.
BTW, The Ultimate Resource has every crevo thread and link we've done on this forum since 1999. There are plenty of creationist sites and threads on there, too. It just so happens that for every creationist argument though, there are typically several sites and threads devoted to pointing out the fallacies therein. But, have fun. You could spend hours out there researching this, that and the other and come back armed to the teeth with new, more improved, contentions and not the same worn-out, hackneyed, thrice-reputed stuff most creationist arguments are.
Science is a process of searching for fundamental and universal principles that govern causes and effects in the universe. The process itself is a method of building, testing, and connecting falsifiable models to describe, explain and predict a shared reality. The method includes hypothesis, repeatable experiments and observations, and new hypothesis. The prime criterion in determining the usefulness of a model is the ease with which the model correctly makes predictions or explains phenomena in the shared reality.
From: A Brief Definition of Science
Using the above we could compare the science of genetics with the pseudo-science of evolution. Mendel showed by thorough experimentation that each individual gets one half of his genetic information from the father and half from the mother. This was in contradiction to the general belief (and Darwin's belief) that the traits of an individual were a "blend" of the traits of the parents. His theory was after his rigorous testing, tested further by numerous scientists and found to be correct. It further led to the discovery (when we finally were able to observe the nucleus of cells) of what we now call genes. In fact it predicted the presence of genes and alleles of genes in our bodies. As such, it has become the basis of the science of biology.
Evolution does not even have a generally accepted hypothesis. What we term "evolution" is a rag-tag assemblage of competing and contradicting theories such as Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism (Darwinism without environmental influences), Punk-Eek (Darwinism without gradualism), Genetic Drift (Darwinism without selective mutations) and perhaps many more of which I am not aware. Even the "proofs" of these contradictory theories are themselves contradictory. For example paleontology relies chiefly on homology to determine what species descended from another. However, when it is clearly shown that a certain species could in no way have descended from the other, they say this is due to "convergence". Therefore, their assumptions have no predictability and are therefore not scientific.
As to pop-science let me give you a quote:
It was the importance of this distinction which led me to designate this form of selection as Sexual Selection. So again, if the chief service rendered to the male by his prehensile organs is to prevent the escape of the female before the arrival of other males, or when assaulted by them, these organs will have been perfected through sexual selection, that is by the advantage acquired by certain individuals over their rivals. But in most cases of this kind it is impossible to distinguish between the effects of natural and sexual selection. Whole chapters could be filled with details on the differences between the sexes in their sensory, locomotive, and prehensile organs. As, however, these structures are not more interesting than others adapted for the ordinary purposes of life I shall pass them over almost entirely, giving only a few instances under each class.
From: Darwin, "Descent of Man", Chapter 8.
As you can see in the above, it claims to be saying something, but it is saying nothing at all. It gives the reader the "feeling" he has learned something when nothing has really been explained or proven.
That is what you claim, and that is fine, I have no problem with you claiming the above. The problem I have is with your constant refusal to give proof of the above. If there is proof of macro-evolution, if you know where the proof is to be found, cough it up and stop making excuses. As the official (I guess that is an accurate statement) librarian of evolution here, I would think you would have no problem finding such proof and showing it to all us non-believers in the church of the demi-god Charles.
The links in #365 have plenty of evidence for macroevolution. Even if I posted, verbatim, from the 30-odd links listed, you would still claim no one presented you with any evidence. You've done so in the past. Even when we excerpt from a particular thread, as in the whale evolution arguments earlier, you don't read the actual wording there (I point out your claim that we said whales and coyotes were related). I suppose this is an effort on your part to truthfully say that you've never seen any evidence for macroevolution, but it is not from lack of effort on our parts -- it is from lack of effort on yours. Besides, I'm not going to spam this thread, or any other, with reams of verbage when the magic of the internet allows me to simply link to the references and interested parties (a group wherein you obviously do not fall) to read them or not to read them at their convenience. I am not medved. I will not force people with slow modems to wait for eternity while a thread downloads. Now, if you do not want to make the effort to link out to the threads given, that's your choice, but do not come back and say no one has ever presented evidence for macroevolution - that would be a bald-faced lie. Simply say that people have posted links to evidence for macroevolution and you have neither the time nor the inclination* to click on a particular link to see what's really out there.
*That is one reason the Italians thought to put a clock in the Leaning Tower of Pisa - If you've got the inclination, you might as well have the time.
As I have said before, this is not a private discussion - let the others see your greatness! Stop making excuses! Give one proof Junior, just one!
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.