Still taking the familiar shots?
Are you just warming up for your reply to #346?
Posted on 02/03/2002 9:07:58 AM PST by Sabertooth
Other than this issue we seem to have a mutual consensus on the matter.
This is exactly what I said earlier on this thread. Let me add what else I said on this issue: 'not only it is true that science cannot prove or disprove God, science won't even try, for such questions are admittedly (by scientists) outside the realm of the scientific method.' The only truths that science seeks are those which are discoverable through measurement and data collection. The rest is for the philsophers and theologians. Evolution is a theory and science makes predictions (hypotheses) based upon the tenets of that theory and then tests these hypotheses to assess their validity.
Therefore, and since science will and can not tackle the existence of God question, science's effort with evolutionary theory has nothing to do with proving or disproving the existence of God.
I'm sticking to the old fashioned notion in my discussions. Also, not for lack of trying, I could not do otherwise. I agree with you.
Still taking the familiar shots?
Are you just warming up for your reply to #346?
Not many physicists believe in a billiard ball universe any more. Perhaps Gods knows everything, but from a human perspective it is possible to say that randomness exists, at least in the sense that it is impossibile, even in principle, to predict certain kinds of events.
Respectfully, you might wish to rephrase this statement.
Very well. No calcium means few fossils. Bones and shells are extremely fruituitous for preserving traces of the past. There are also very few dino footprints or skin impressions. plastic material in a plastic environment will overwhelmingly disappear in 10,000 years. Bone and shell stay stiff and self-contained for a long, long time, which provides way more opportunities for preservation than soft tissue does.
Your question, such as it is, has been answered (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the problems inherent in your question have been pointed out to you). I know you don't like such responses. But pretending that there have been no serious responses, and claiming that your questions go unanswered, is just a game you're trying to play. At the end of the day you'll claim that no one could answer your questions, and you will proclaim yourself the winner. Enjoy the victory.
Filling in the gaps-blanks...wishful-vain desire(blotting out the TRUTH-God)---Evolution!
...nuts!
My beef is with the sloopy thinking of Evolutionists
I concur. For example, take the following example of “observed speciation”. It is continually cited as proof that speciation has occurred before the eyes unbiased scientists. In fact, in this thread it is described as, “the clearest example from the article” and “they had become another species”. Well, I have problems with that citation. First it begins with an indefinite number.---“In 1964 five or six individuals”. (try that in chemistry, 5 or 6 grams of NaCl was added to …)Then the page from which it comes has not been updated for 7 years. Something as monumental as a speciation event should have some additional proof or testing to verify the experiment, after all that is the scientific method as described by most(in my experience) people on this site. I have searched the web for the additional testing and verification and for the source documentation, this is what I have found.
A population of Nereis acuminata that was isolated in 1964 was no longer able to interbreed with its ancestors by 1992 (Weinberg et al., 1992). New species certainly can emerge quickly
In 1964, Dr. D.J. Reish removed 5 or 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. In 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift.
In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving Woods Hole and the two new cultures.
This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory - all observed directly (Weinberg et al., 1992)..
Speciation in the polychaete worm Nereis acuminata. In 1964, 6 individuals of the worm N. acuminata were collected in Long Beach Harbor, CA, and allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were sent to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute on the east coast, where a separate population was established. For over 20 years the Woods Hole (WH) population was used in toxicology experiments, and was thus exposed to different environmental conditions than the population at Long Beach. From 1986-1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm, and two such populations, designated P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg et al. (1992) performed crosses with these and the WH population to see how often broods were successful, thus determining presence or absence of reproductive isolating mechanisms. The results:
Thus there was post-mating isolation; premating isolation was also observed based on behavioral data. In addition, the WH population showed a slightly different chromosomal structure than P1 or P2. Conclude: speciation has occurred.
But don't believe me! Check out the reference: Weinberg, J. R., et al., Evolution 46: 1214-1220.
(The previous are uncited but they can be found using a search engine with “Nereis acuminata” as the search criteria.)
Finally, the closest I got to the source documentation was a citation from http://www.grisda.org/origins/19072.htm, ANNOTATIONS FROM THE LITERATURE,--
RAPID SPECIATION
Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and D. Jorg. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution 46:1214-1220.
Nereis acuminata is a marine polychaete annelid worm often used in studies of environmental pollution. The species has a wide distribution, including the coastlines of North America, Europe, Africa and the western Pacific. The species also exists in a laboratory culture started in 1964 from 5 or 6 individuals. The population of the culture expanded to several thousand individuals by 1986. At that time, four pairs of worms were transferred to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and a new subculture established. This subculture also expanded to several thousand individuals. Thus, this laboratory subculture had gone through two significant bottlenecks
This paper reports the results of experiments designed to test whether the lab subculture was still interfertile with the natural parental species. No population of these worms was found at the site of the original collection for the laboratory culture. However, two populations were found located 11 and 37 km from the parental site. These populations were tested for reproductive isolation with the laboratory population. Both populations interbred successfully with each other, but neither population produced viable offspring when crossed with the laboratory culture. This strongly suggests that reproductive isolation was produced in the laboratory culture over a period of less than 30 years. The authors propose that divergence in sex pheromones may have contributed to the apparent speciation. The founder effect may have played an important role in the process, but this has not been tested.
Notice the highlighted words. Further search resulted in the following—
| Title: | Presumptive rapid speciation after a founder event in a laboratory population of Nereis: allozyme electrophoretic evidence does not support the hypothesis. |
| Summary: | Population bottlenecks, or 'founder events,' are theorized to have given rise to the origin of a new species. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
You may notice one of the coauthors of this paper is Weinberg. This paper was dated 1996 and I have found no other citation refuting the assertion in the text. It is presumptive to preclude speciation, but I feel confident that this belies the assertion of the original claim of rapid speciation.
I recommend that the worm citation be corrected or removed. |
1) When did the Universe begin?
2) Who created that?
The evolutinist, it seems, have a real first cause problem. For all their theories, a simple "who created that?" leaves them unable to explain themselves.
Science is not your puppy, and you cannot train it to care about what you care about. The theory of evolution does not presume to have anything to say about "who created that". We just noticed it was there, and tried to understand how it worked. You can't meaningfully condemn science for not being theology.
Filling in the gaps-blanks...wishful-vain desire(blotting out the TRUTH-God)---Evolution!
...nuts!
One advantage in making arguments without the luxury of predicates in complete sentences is that no one can argue with you, since they do not know what your argument is. This is the lexical equivalent of spray painting your gang colors on the sides of buildings.
I think spray-painting the sides of buildings is a monumentally cowardly act of feckless children who won't take responsibility for their supposedly bold claims of sovereignty.
The universe began with the "big bang", which is rapidly being proven as source, as scientists watch the universe in motion.
Only God can create an event such as that first great "explosion" of matter. But at that time, or whenever He felt it was needed, he also created the force of evolution, to guide and constantly freshen His work.
Without this guiding force, and unable to adapt to changing terrestrial conditions, all His original living things would have died out long ago, leaving this planet looking much like it's own moon.
Why ask an "evolutionist" (or more accurately a biologist)? Why not ask a chemist, or a mathematician? Or a pastry chef? As long as you're asking people questions that are totally outside of their field, why limit your questioning to biologists?
Speaking in unrelated epigrams is intellectual masterbation...and bad manners to boot.
No, that was in the original article. The note that AndrewC sniffed out has this title: "Presumptive Rapid Speciation after a Founder Event in a Laboratory Population of Nereis: Allozyme Electrophoretic Evidence Does Not Support the Hypothesis." And, BTW, the two authors besides Weinberg, who was on the original paper, are well respected.
IOW, the hypothesis of rapid speciation does not bear out under scrutiny. I haven't read the note, but as an honest scientist, I would be loathe to use the original Neires example.
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.