Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
Are you suggesting plants aren't successful? More importantly, from where do yo derive the false notion that evolution has a necessary or predictable direction?
Why is there sex?
Even bacteria and viruses engage in DNA exchange and insertion. Where is there not sex?
Their basic assumption is that Adam was created with perfect genes and ever since the gene pool has degraded.
There second assumption is that evolution is impossible because "evolution requires that the gene pool" (of humans) is constantly improving to perfection thus in conflict with their Biblical interpretation of life.
Let's look at the fossil record even. In each epoch we seem to see that a set of animal species fill each niche and that those niches are similar to today's fit of species to niche.
Yet plants never seem to have evolved into any niche that required independently directed motion.
And sexless organisims never seem to have evovled much at all -- yet they have avoided erradication by animals or plants competeing for their niche.
There is one HYPOTHESIS -- hard to raise it to the level of theory -- that the random mix of natural physical processes operating under strict darwinistic evolution would for complex and subtle reasons unknown at this time result in such a current state. That is a HOPE, a FAITH, a BELIEF SYSTEM.
It is unproven. It is not a reasonable projection of more proven and evidenced theory either -- not reasonable, that is, if it is asserted as the ONLY reasonable projection.
When Bill Clinton said stuff like that we called it a non-denial denial. Some of us called it a Clintonian denial.
That's not sexual. It is called "asexual reproduction". And surely you knew that -- it's in any biology text.
You just put a theory is search of a conclusion, and waved some magic wand from under your selfhood vanity to say "This it it, baby! My way or the highway!"
As a semi-inumerant, I would appreciate a link to an explanation of whatever that means. Or a concrete example.
And here is my pratical rebuke of your proof: Alchohol burning engines.
There is no specified outcome.
Cartoon idea here:
Frame 1. Cartoon bacterium (semi blob, no flagellum or anything.)
Frame 2. Cartoon of cell division beginning.
Frame 3. Cartoon of almost finished cell division, with just a small "bridge" or filament of protoplasm left to connect the dividing cells.
Frame 4. Two cells, next to each other.
Frame 5. The same two cells, with a one cell asking the other:
"Was it good for you?"
Cheers!
Note that "The Plant Kingdom" dos not need "The Animal Kingdom" to survive, but not vice versa.
As you admitted, you slept through HS biology. No need to keep reinforcing that fact with your continued posting. We are already convinced.
And here is my rebuke of your proof: Diesel burning engines.
Justice Potter Stewart's remarks come to mind.
LOLOL! Sure he is!
Where does the alcohol come from?
Ummm, no. You can, of course, have any opinion you like, but what you're not entitled to are your own facts - I notice that your "rebuttal" didn't do much in the way of challenging the facts. And those are the facts, regardless of how you feel about them - plant photosynthesis does not produce enough energy to support a non-plant lifestyle.
I'm not sure where mineral oil comes from. Is it vegetable of mineral?
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.