Posted on 05/04/2005 12:32:23 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan
Caught in the act of evolution, the odd-looking, feathered dinosaur was becoming more vegetarian, moving away from its meat-eating ancestors.
It had the built-for-speed legs of meat-eaters, but was developing the bigger belly of plant-eaters. It had already lost the serrated teeth needed for tearing flesh. Those were replaced with the smaller, duller vegetarian variety.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
That's true. The doctors in the Gulags didn't charge. Of course, they didn't provide anything we'd call care, either. They weren't working for the zeks.
In a camp where you're being worked to death and starved at the same time, the camp doctor is just looking to see if there's any point in expending any more of even the tiny few resources being expended to keep you alive.
Which may be why it's now extinct. There's no evidence that this was a particularly successful creature.
If pasta isn't phallic, then why do we have words like "noodle" and "****head referring to the anterior appendage?
"when the fossil record should exhibit nothing but transitional fossils."
Well, to be technical, all fossils are, to some degree, transitional, because they creatures are all dead now.
Fossils are snapshots. By the nature, it's like getting some frames of a movie.
"shows creatures entering and leaving the fossil record, over great periods of time, with the same morphology."
I guess the same thing can be said of photographs of me as a kid.
By your standard, there is no proof the kid in the pictures is an adult, since we don't see a photo of him actually growing.
From the Washingtom Times today:
The fact is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is not infallible. It hasn't been since Darwin himself acknowledged that gaps in the fossil record could eventually undermine his theory of common descent. One of those gaps occurs right before the Cambrian Explosion -- a biological "big bang" that happened about 530 million years ago. Scientists have been unable to uncover clear precursors to the huge amount of new species that arose from the explosion. Their failure has led many to wonder if all life forms indeed branched off from a common ancestor, as Darwin theorized.
Of course, to explain anomalies like the Cambrian Explosion requires a little imagination -- hence the theory of intelligent design. Put simply, ID theory rejects the role that random mutations play in evolution. To account for evolutionary change, and as a way of making sense of life systems so complex that randomness couldn't possibly account for it all, ID theorists prefer the notion that an "intelligent cause" guides change. It is on this point that ID theory departs so dramatically from Darwin.
It is also why Darwinists reject ID scientists as a bunch of creationists. Again, this is unfair -- but also beyond the scope of the Kansas debate. The scientists joining the debate in Topeka aren't necessarily interested in replacing Darwin with ID theory, and certainly not with the Biblical account of creation. For them, Darwin's theory is so riddled with holes that to teach it to students unquestioningly is a disservice and inimical to the definition of science.
And it is just this legitimate scientific debate that Darwinists refuse to have. "The defense of Darwin's theory ... has fallen into the hands of biologists who believe in suppressing criticism when possible and ignoring it when not," wrote David Berlinski recently in the Wichita Eagle. Mr. Berlinski, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, is widely recognized as a leading Darwinian skeptic. He continues, "It is not a strategy calculated to induce confidence in the scientific method." It also doesn't help our students.
Except there are multiple copies of the same snapshot, like the seven Archaeopteryx fossils, which makes these fossils ambiguous evidence for evolution, at best.
I've already answered you "one man" problem in another thread.
DNA analysis --- consistent with evolution --- has proven that there is at least one shared common male ancestor --- and one shared female ancestor, for that matter.
So that objection is bogus, and you know it.
There are lots of pictures of me when I was 2, as well.
So what?
And the apparent motion of the sun supports the notion that the sun revolves around the earth.
Ignorance is not an argument. Just because you can convince yourself doesn't mean you are convincing. Do you really think you are smarter than all the biologists who have ever lived?
Do you live near the equator? Have you never seen snow? You are using an invalid argument from thermodynamics here. The second law of thermodynamics does indeed say that the entropy of an isolated system always increases. Now entropy is not identical with disorder, but I will ignore that complication. The earth, however, is not an isolated system. Therefore, entropy decreases on earth are not problematic, and in fact they occur all the time. Snowflakes forming from water vapor is one example.
Now it is possible, to a good approximation to consider the solar system as an isolated system to which the second law would actually apply. However, that still does not render evolution impossible. The TOTAL entropy of an isolated system must increase, and the total entropy of the solar system does indeed increase. Evolution decreases the entropy, so there simply must be some process going on in the solar system that increases the entropy of it. The radiation of heat into space by the sun is precisely such a process. The sun radiates a large amount of heat from a very hot surface into very cold surroundings. The thermodynamic definition of entropy is actually Q/T, where Q is the heat released by a reversible process connecting two states, and T is the temperature at which this process occurs. There are technically two processes occurring, the loss of heat by the solar surface, and the gain in heat by the surrounding space. Both of these are approximately reversible. The solar surface temperature is ~6000K and the temperature of the surrounding space is ~3K. The sun's entropy decreases since heat is lost, and the entropy of the surrounding space increases. The total entropy is therefore Q/3 - Q/6000 = 1999Q/6000, and is therefore a positive value indicating an entropy increase. Since Q, the heat released by the sun, is a huge value, this is a very large entropy increase.
Finally, your entire life experience is completely irrelevant when it comes to testing scientific theories. Have you ever in your life seen a quark? Have you ever seen a curved space/time continuum? Does your life experience include throwing an object at a wall and watching it pass through the wall and observing it on the other side? All of these things and many more are part of perfectly valid scientific theories other than evolution. Would you question these theories as well simply because the observations that they propose are outside your life experience?
If so, then you are undoubtedly denying the existence of computers and the internet, since computer technology is based firmly on quantum mechanics, which among other things predicts the phenomenon of quantum tunneling, which essentially allows small particles such as electrons to be found to pass through a potential barrier when it doesn't have the energy to do so. This is analogous to throwing a tennis ball at a wall and seeing it pass through. If you don't believe this can happen, then you don't believe that transistors can function, and hence your computer cannot be functional, and neither can all the computers which make up the internet and therefore you really aren't reading this post.
Conspicuous by its absence from your post is any indication by you that this article came from the opinion and editorial section not the science and technology section.
What post is that then?
Not all of them. Some of them see the problems with evolutionary theory. BTW, did you notice that all of the biologists have been wrong for over one hundred years regarding the supposed evolution of horses, as noted in the article I posted above? In which case, those who argued otherwise would have been < gasp>, right.
Fossils from various epochs show the same creature in the same state. This is typical of the fossil record, and diametrically opposed to Darwin's prediction.
That seems significant to me.
The name is inconsequential, but the attributes are critical. Evolutionists do not argue that living things aren't designed; they argue that natural selection is the source of the design. Natural selection works. It is observable in the laboratory and in the field. It has a sound theoretical underpinning in chemistry. It can be modeled mathematically and replicated in computer programs. It is supported by DNA evidence.
If you wish to posit an alternative design process, you need to say what the source of the design is and how we might go about strudying the process.
And derivatives forms like canoodling.
Either species appear on earth fully formed and disappear that way, or they have evolved continuously over time. That's the dichotomy that I am proposing.
And the evidence in the fossil record overwhelmingly indicates the former and contradicts the latter.
By what line of reasoning do you personally decide which Horse scenerio is wrong, and which correct?
And how did Disney get away with the spaghetti scene in Lady and the Tramp, anyway?
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.