Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
Please don't tell me you think this or this or this is a valid 'argument'. Where do you guys get this stuff???
That's true, but it's in perfect keeping with common descent AND Darwinism.
Remember: Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. All he knew was that there is some mechanism of variation, and that some of those variations are passed to offspring. From Darwin's perspective, it doesn't matter whether a variation came from a single point copying error or a wholesale insertion from a virus, just so long as the change is inherited. For all he knew, the latter was the only source of variation; it wouldn't have changed the theory.
And the fact that YOU might have picked up a virus from somewhere--not that there's anything wrong with that--and acquired a gene that I lack in no way changes the fact that we share common ancestors.
But if you want to update your GEDCOM files at Ancestry.com to include your newly acquired parent, I'll understand. :-)
See what happens when you pack "change" with more words. Still, allele frequency does not address the place of DNA methylation ~ since there allele frequency can remain constant and you still get apparant revisions in the critters.
I'd put a stop to it if they'd not stick me in prison for it.
"In fact, the only thing ToE contributes to is the government grant industry.
And right you are.
They're ultimate goal is the killing of God from the hearts and minds of man. It's a struggle for man's and children's mind, a battle that will determine whether our Christian heritage and culture will survive or be driven to extinction. A struggle to turn man into automatons and machines that act like man. Their hope is a Godless society in which all men will lose every bit of individuality, of love and critical thought without their being aware of it.
All of this they do through our own resources in the form of state/federal grants.
Thanks for all your posts. I enjoy reading them tremendously.
Much agree as usual.
Thanks.
Evolution is anathema to physics and cosmology. If the laws of physics were evolving we could hardly do physics at all.
As long as you think that'll fly on Judgment Day.
Alas, the laws of physics do seem to change with time ~ lots of it of course, but they change nonetheless.
Oh, yeah, Judgment Day ~ but first a very long ride on the Great Mandala eh!@
Not all DNA is in the main package of chromosomes, and the egg cell components, including mitochondria, are inherited without sexual blending. The range of variation that can be accounted for outside of DNA is going to be severely limited, however. Cell machinery is highly conserved.
Feel free to win a Nobel prize for demonstrating that a significant part of evolution occurs outside DNA.
If the laws of physics are changing how can we possibly do physics? We're not talking about something elementary such as the possibly changing speed of light in a vacuum since a higher law can be found to explain how that works, nor with enhancements to Newtonian mechanics. We're concerned with Lorentz invariance and isotropy of space. If that is no good we will lose our Theory of Relativity and all the other high power explanations including quantum mechanics. If that is happening, we have lost the game.
"...the fact that we share common ancestors."
Could those ancestors be monkeys, by any chance?
I notice you conveniently did not say we "descend" from monkeys, but used instead the common Darwinist ready-made phrase, "share common ancestors." But we all know what you meant by that phrase -- ie, that humans descend from monkeys, whic is not true, btw.
Nonsense. We know no such thing.
How much of our technology would survive an Ice Age and/or a full scale war with our wonderful nuclear, biological and chemical weapons?
If our distant descendant remnants figured out the wheel, would you spiritual descendant deny any wheel prior art?
On the other hand, your belief in the total uniformity of human visual acuity is highly disturbing. There is and has been substantial variation.
I hold no such belief. Even in the highly unlikely (Given the angular resolution required and the maximum density of rods and cones) event that one in a million could see that Saturn doesn't look round, who would believe him when he says that the perfect celestial spheres aren't?
I also note that you side stepped the issue of the preflood water sphere above the earth. Chicken...
Um, no. The ultimate goal of science is discovering the truth as revealed by physical evidence, wherever it leads. Science just happens not to care about political correctness, religious correctness, or anybody's personal feelings, for that matter.
Dave:
I came across this wonderful insight on these issues from the Orthodox/Conservative Jewish perspective.
"How does Judaism's claim that the world is roughly 5,700 years old coincide with science?"
by Mrs. Sarah Levi
Torah and science can never contradict each other, because two truths cannot be contradictory. When we find an apparent contradiction between the two, it is generally due to a misunderstanding regarding what one is saying.
Science cannot really prove the age of the universe. All that scientists can do is speculate about the age of the universe by extrapolating from observed phenomena. No scientist alive today can say that he or she has first-hand information regarding the beginning of the universe.
The Torah tells us how old the universe is.
Science tells us how old the universe seems to be.
The scientist that does not believe in G-d has no reason to assume that the age of the world is different than what it appears to be To give a simple example: how old was Adam when he was first created? Was he a baby? Young man? Old man?
Our sages tell us that he had the body and maturity of a 20-year-old man. Now, let us imagine Adam going for a medical exam a day after he was created. The receptionist asks for his age and he answers: one day. You must be kidding me, she would reply. You seem to be at least 20 years old!
They are both right. Adam is saying how old he really is, while the receptionist is estimating his age based on scientific proof.
The scientist that does not believe in G-d has no reason to assume that the age of the world is different than what it appears to be. The one who believes in G-d, however, can perfectly accept the fact that the world was created in a mature state and therefore does not contradict the fact that it is really younger than it seems to be.
Not at all. How else do you intend to pass along your virus genes?
(Note added in proof: pass them along to your descendants, I mean. Boy, the gaffes I catch as my pointer hovers over the "post" button...)
I see what you're attempting to say, though: that your acquisition of a gene from a virus counts as a sorta-kinda form of inheritance. That's as may be, but that interpretation is predicated upon a technical knowledge of genetics. From Darwin's perspective, or even from the perspective of the human genome, it's just another means of acquiring a new variation. Darwin (again, ignorant of genetics) asserted that a mechanism like that had to exist, so this really falls more into the category of "another successful prediction of Darwinism" rather than "refutation of the concept of common descent".
What really strikes me as odd is that evolution posters have been pointing to such mechanisms (including also transposons) for years on FR, whenever a creationist would claim that "there exists no way to add base pairs to a chromosome" or even "there's mathematically no way to add information to a genome".
For you now to be acknowleding it but saying it somehow refutes evolution is a sort of progress, I guess. At the very least, the next time a creationist makes such an argument, we can call you in to set them straight.
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.