Posted on 12/21/2005 6:22:46 AM PST by truthfinder9
One of biggest paradigm shifts in origins in recent years is when genetics and morphological studies began to show that Neanderthals and humans weren’t related. Sure, a lot of Darwin Fundies around here don’t know that because they get all of their science from the talking point lists of their Fundamentalist Leaders. So this is probably a big shock too, science is also showing that man is not related to any hominids including apes.
In the groundbreaking book, Who was Adam?, biochemist Fazale Rana examines the scientific research that is overturning Darwinian Fundamentalism. Here, using peer-reviewed research that the Darwin Fundies claim doesn’t exist, Rana shows man is unique and designed.
And he details the latest findings on the fossil record, junk DNA, Neanderthals, human and chimp genetics. There's more science here than most Darwin Fundies have ever read, but this will be the next great paradigm shift.
“The parallels between Genesis and the latest scientific data are profound...” - John A. Bloom, Ph.D., professor of physics, Biola University
On Rana’s previous book, Origins of Life:
“Evolution has just been dealt its deathblow. After reading Origins of Life, it is clear that evolution could not have occurred.” - Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry, 1996, professor of physics and astronomy, Rice University
Real science by real scientists. According to Darwin Fundies this doesn't exist, but here it is.
No, you pretty much hit upon Darwin's contribution which is the idea of natural selection. It's not clear to me where this has been demonstrated except within an existing species, but you did answer my question.
ML/NJ
No. But I didn't ask about worship. I asked (@ 259) ndt whether he believed anything Darwin said regarding the origin of species. You might check out his reasonable reply (@ 323) where he said he did.
ML/NJ
[Correcting references to previous post numbers]
No. But I didn't ask about worship. I asked (@ 323) ndt whether he believed anything Darwin said regarding the origin of species. You might check out his reasonable reply (@ 344) where he said he did.
ML/NJ
lol.
Natural selection always operates within existing species. There is never a child that is not of the same species as its parents.
Hollywood notwithstanding.
What is a mule?
ML/NJ
protoman would do the same.
I appreciate the debate, but a hurricane is a fairly focused phenomenon in time & space. If your entire region dries up over a period of many years/decades/centuries, that is a much broader threat to survival. Some "protomen" undoubtedly moved with the receding jungle & survived relatively unchanged (for a while), while other bands changed radically.
Mine started in high school and the first thing that went at 40 was the arms; they suddenly got to short to read anymore.
I am intellectually honest. If something is conjecture, I own up to it. A pity the Creationists by and large don't appear to have the same level of integrity.
Evolution deals with breeding populations. There is no breeding population of mules.
But if you want me to admit to a mistake, I'll admit that semantically my statement is untrue.
There's an even bigger example of it being untrue. It's fairly common for plants to undergo a doubling of chromosomes. This can lead to an overnight new species.
Among successfully breeding animals, the children are always the same species as their parents. Virtually all evolution is micro-evolution.
Look at my posts on these threads. I think "evolution" is a crock, but people on our side are just not allowed to make untrue statements. It was not "semantically" untrue. It was just wrong.
ML/NJ
Are you plagiarizing an old George Carlin skit without giving credit because you're a dishonest joker who doesn't think anyone will notice or did you just happen to hear this line somewhere and your feeble mind thought a dumb joke from a pothead comedian was a brilliant piece of mind blowing philosophy to share on a conservative forum?
BTW, if man evolved from parents, why are there still parents?
No, it is not wrong. It is a true stament with some exceptions that are irrelevant to evolution. New species do not occur in one generation. Children are of the same species as their parents. Sterile hybrids are of no consequense to evolution.
Does Mars have volcanic activity? Actually Mars used to have a lot of liquid water and I wouldn't be surpised if evidence is eventually found that life got started on Mars, a long time ago. If there were any Martin microbes, however, they lost their habitat ages ago, when the planet dried up.
YEC INTREP
"I think it has a nice ring to it. Darwin Fundi. LOL"
I never used those words before, but they sure fit for a lot of 'em here.
"If man evolved from apes, why are apes still here? Wouldn't they all be man?"
We killed off any competition that came close to us in cleverness long ago.
The remaining apes are adapted, or are adapting to their shrinking habitats.
If we were gone then those who now hide from us would certainly come to town.
I assert it is reasonable to believe that Reasons to Believe's Testable Creation Model will achieve finally the critical mass in demonstrating even to hardened scientific skeptics the truth of creation. It will take time for the testing to occur and even more time for the general public to learn the result. It will be interesting to see whether that precedes the Rapture. Indeed, I won't be surprised to look back later and discover that it was integral in the events God uses to lead up to that occasion.
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.