Posted on 01/07/2002 3:16:27 PM PST by PatrickHenry
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:32:03 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court declined Monday to be drawn into a debate over the teaching of evolution in America's public schools.
The refusal is a victory for schools that require teachers to instruct on the subject even if the teacher disagrees with the scientific theory.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Yeah, exnihilo clearly operates at a higher wattage than gore3000, but I myself might have tentatively accepted a modified version of your theory (e.g. gore3000 = exnihilo off meds) until they both showed up in the same thread.
I alerted the moderator to your 154, and he apparently agreed with me that it had no redeeming features and pulled it. The idea of evolutionists actually having to abide by rules of civil debate strikes me as a sort of a novelty; I'm beginning to like the FreeRepublic forum.
"I never drink water because fish fornicate in it."
-- W. C. Fields
There was a time when researchers noted large chromosomal deletion mutations in certain individuals without apparent deleterious effects. So they said, look, those regions of the chromosome must be junk. Now we have these knockout mice. And you can knock out genes critical for development and critical for cellular functions. And about a third of these mice survive without deleterious effect. So, this "very dirty" code is actually amazingly degenerate. I wish my budget had that much slush.
There's room for improvement, but not always in the ways we see as obvious. Simple things like a functional L-GLO gene for vitamin C would be handy. Improvements to senses, the brain, lifespan etc. can easily be imagined but we'd end up with a different creature (evolveture) entirely.
I like that! (But I suspect you're going to hear it from the "creature" fans now.)
Amusingly enough, this is the most thoroughly wrong prediction Einstein ever made. You are able to read these words because god throws dice at the strata junctions of diodes and transistors.
Gen. Jack D. Ripper would disagree!
You seem fond of repeating this statement. The reason no one bothers to disprove you is that it is well known we did not evolve from monkeys. I cannot really recall anyone claiming otherwise. The actual claim is that we have a common ancestor with modern primates. We didn't evolve from monkeys. Rather, both we and monkeys evolved from the same ancestor.
Got it?
Drew Garrett
It simply backs my contention that gore3000 is a computer algorythm.
Ohhhhhh!
What was I thinking?
Of course I meant to write "Gen. Ripper," not Gen. Turgison.
Thanks for the correction. Mistakes like this happen when one lets G3K suck all the "slime" out of you. Loss of essense, you understand....
I've seen no evidence to contradict that hypothesis.
;-)
I've seen no evidence to contradict that hypothesis.
If it is an attempt at an AI it certainly doesn't even pass the Turing test.
Recent studies of neanderthal DNA have indicated that it is 'about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee". All competent analysts now agree we could not possibly be descended from neanderthals.
The problem: In order to claim that modern man evolved, you would now need to come up with some ancestor which WAS possible, some CLOSER hominid than the neanderthal. And, since this closer hominid would be closer to us in both time and morphology than the neanderthal, and since neanderthal remains and works are all over the place and easy to find, the remains and works of this closer hominid/plausible ancestor would be VERY easy to find, IF such a creature had ever existed. The fact that we find no such thing plainly means no such thing ever existed.
That leaves three possibilities, none of which resemble evolution in any way, shape, or manner:
My own guess would be that the answer lies somewhere between the second and third items. The fact that evolution was not involved is not a guess; that's a fact.
Designs are clearly present in nature. A Designer is not. The apparent design results from natural selection. This is a process whereby trillions of experimental combinations of genetic material are constantly being tested. What works survives and reproduces. The failures die off. Dembski is not a biologist and does not understand that the instruction sets (i.e., the genomes) for the "designs" he purports to model are hodge-podges. All the accumulated change of every species' evolutionary history is written into the genome. The genomes are not fixed -- mutations occur at known rates -- and every "design" has precedents or is shared among species. The simplest refutation of Dembski's ID theory comes from the manner in which unrelated bacteria share genetic material through plasmid transfer or by viral transduction. In other words, known biological processes preclude the possibility that any individual life form on this planet was ever purposely designed.
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.