Posted on 02/03/2002 9:07:58 AM PST by Sabertooth
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Here's where I see the crux of the Creation vs. Evolution debate, and most appear to miss it: |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Forget possible transitional forms, stratigraphy, and radiological clocks... at some level, both Creationists and Evolutionists wander back to singularities and have to cope with the issue of spontaneous cause. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Creationists say "God."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Evolutionists say "random spontaneous mutagenic speciation."
|
|||
I don't readily see that that's what happened. BUT... Really?...what creates proteins? Does it have anything to with with the DNA of the critter in question? Isn't gel phosphoresis how we decide if someone is a father of someone else?
Indeed. And as a further explanation, I sometimes sense that someone isn't debating according to my own opinion of what debate should be. Who am I do have such opinions? Who do I need to be? I alone decide the terms of my own engagement. I don't want to tell others how do conduct themselves, but I have rather strict rules for my own participation in these discussions. I enjoy debates where both sides appreciate the meaning of evidence, and logic, and properly formed questions. And when both sides honestly seek to know the correct answers. Sometimes, discussions with creationists don't conform to my preferences, and when that happens I just bow out.
There are all kinds of examples of debators who don't meet my standards, not just the "You got no evidence!" gang, but the far more subtle types, who try in various ways to distort the outcome of the debate, such as when someone insists on:
(1) defining well-known terms his own unique way;
(2) asking some question peculiar to him and insisting that the "evolutionists" answer it to his satisfaction;
(3) loading up a term with a series of adjectives that have some kind of specialized meaning and insisting that such terminology be accepted ("atheistic evolution" for example);
(4) changing the subject when it suits his fancy; or
(5) ignoring it when the form of his (loaded) question is objected to.
I've been in these debates for more than two years now, and I've seen those techniques and more. All someone has to do is hum a few bars and I can finish the tune. My time is limited, and like everyone else here, I decide when I participate and when I don't. And with whom. Evolution will survive or collapse on its own merits, regardless of what I do here.
Right, and they were not successful. My guess is that contaminated subspecies of N. acuminata were collected from the later Long Beach collections. That was first on my short list when I read the title of the new reference. Another possibility is that the chromosomal differences they found are not supported by the alloenzyme test. I have to stop speculating! The journal doesn't carry the article online and I'm not about to search around for a hard copy.
Fair enough. Sorry again about the cage rattling.
For what it's worth, the purpose of this thread (no, I won't repost the question yet again) was not to create a Trojan Horse for Special Creation, Appearance of Age, Attenuated Gravity, Hollow Earth, or any other pseudo-scientific theories.
That being said, I will confess a soft spot for a good cryptozoology yarn. But not on this thread!
Do you mean that the original species of N. acuminata that the WH sample came from could have disappeared, leaving a nearby "subspecies" (N. acuminata2) that could never mate with N. acuminata in the first place (a whole different species, actually), and the WH worms were just like the now-extinct N.acuminata? OK, but that does sound rather farfetched, don't you think?
Thank you, Nebullis, you certainly deserve my respect.
Perhaps. These worms are carried around on ship hulls and, I think, used for bait as well. Cross-contamintation of populations may not be far-fetched. The fact that a retraction was published is enough reason for me not to depend on this particular example. More, especially, since there are other FINE examples of rapid speciation, particularly, sticklebacks, cichlids, finches, salamanders, plants galore, drosophila, other insects, and so forth.
Oh, now, AndrewC, you don't have to go that far!
This conjecture is supported by this citation dated Sep 1992 from--Chronic Sublethal Effects of San Francisco Bay Sediments on Nereis (Neanthes) arenaceodentata; Nontreatment Factors
Taxonomists are still debating the appropriate status of this species. Pettibone (1963), who suggested the name Nereis (Neanthes) arenaceodentata, lists five other names for this species: Spio caudatus, Nereis (Neanthes) caudata, Nereis arenaceodentata, Neanthes cricognatha, and Neanthes caudata. Day (1973) dismissed arenaceodentata in favor of acuminata, which was subsequently used by Gardiner (1975), Taylor (1984), and Weinberg et al. (1990). Neanthes arenaceodentata is most commonly used in the toxicological literature. Recent evidence suggests that Atlantic and Pacific populations are genetically dissimilar, reproductively isolated, and probably different species (Weinberg et al. 1990). Until the taxonomic status of this species is resolved, we will use the name most familiar to toxicologists and report the original source of worms.
While not at all meaning to dilute your excellent presentation, nonetheless I have tried, without success, to question the need for "random" in your initial description of the type of mutagenesis under consideration.
Why "random?"
Why "random?"
My apologies... your questions on random deserve a thoughtful response, and I've been concieving it, but too slowly.
I'm putting it together now, and will try and post tonight... possibly in the morning
.
Aaah, so boring, the nothing is true excuse. The point is that the natural sciences (which evolution claims to be - but is not) do provide proofs of its veracity. Evolutionists have taken the honoroble name of science without providing any proof for their theory. We are almost at post 500 in this thread with the evolutionists providing nothing but excuses for not providing proof of their theory.
Aaaah, using big words to hide the emptiness of your statements. From the Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary online:
Main Entry: sto·chas·tic
Pronunciation: st&-'kas-tik, stO-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek stochastikos skillful in aiming, from stochazesthai to aim at, guess at, from stochos target, aim, guess
Date: 1923
1 : RANDOM; specifically : involving a random variable
2 : involving chance or probability : PROBABILISTIC - sto·chas·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
What the above translates to is that speciation is whatever you wish it to be. That is not a definition, that is not science, that is charlatanism.
In computers, we have something called pseudo-random with seed, which for all intents and purposes is random, but a statistical analysis of a large sample will eventually show non-randomness. Pure random is actually not too easy to achieve.
Okay, but it was an interesting basis for an argument that wasn't just the standard recycled top-10 list of debunked pseudo-scientific creationist attacks on evolution.
Okay, show of hands, anyone know an evolutionist that claimed a direct jump from amoeba to man?
As I have said, if you cannot define, you cannot give proof of it. Since there is no adequate definition of species, no such proof can be given. The experiment done shows that llamas and camels are close enough that they can produce offspring. This is a strong indication of individuals being of the same species. Since however the experiment is recent and we do not know of the ability of the llama-camel offspring to produce offspring, we do not know if the relationship is like a a mule or not.
What the experiment does show however is that species are not as mutable as evolutionists would like us to think. 30-40 million years and the two branches can still mate shows that the evolution claimed by evolutionists from small mammals to man in 100-120 million years is clearly impossible.
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.
