Posted on 07/31/2007 10:18:52 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
...His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so.
"There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites."...
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencedaily.com ...
==js1138 writes: “Within recorded history, the diversity of large animals has decreased.”
Darwin writes:
There is some reason to believe that organisms, considered high in the scale of nature, change more quickly than those that are low...
—Charles Darwin
==Pure BS. There is no reasonable way to read your post 94 as a reference to this person’s opinions. But it is, of course, typical of creationists to quickly forget what they have said. After all, it is just politics to them as exemplified by your post 80 (which you may have also forgotten).
Your looking at the wrong posts Ed.
In post #107 you wrote: “Somehow from that quote you infer that Lovtrop thinks Darwin is “ignorance personified?””
To which in post #109 I replied: “I don’t know about ignorance personified, just falsified. But given that Darwin has been falsified, I would imagine that Lovtrop wouldn’t object to my characterization too much.”
Get it now? Only a Darwinist...
...can't remember how this got started......(ooh)
...but i can tell you....exactly.... how it will end...
.....i'm writing on a little piece of paper, hoping, some day you will find. well, i'll hide it behind something, they won't look behind...
“But I will give you one thing...you have set me to thinking about a new, more accurate word to replace church in the Church of Darwin.”
ashram...kiva
I was thinking of a different word, but you are definitely thinking along the same lines.
>>2. “Therefore, nothing died before Adam doomed the creation.” It cannot be conclusively proven from Scripture whether or not anything died before Adam’s sin. But it can be proven that created things had the capability to die.
We are positive that is not literally true because we have fossils from a time when the earth was not yet inhabitable by humans.
>>Quantum mechanics has exposed every pre-existing theory in every branch of science to be either insufficient, or just plain wrong. It continues to make itself known at every level in the life sciences, as the transfer of energy in the nucleus of every living cell is shown to have a “resonant frequency” due to facets of quantun mechanics.<<
Is that a joke? I’m on first cup of coffee and can’t tell. Resonant frequency for cell sized objects doesn’t depend on quantum mechanics. A cell nucleus is on the order 1x10^-6 meters compared to 1x10^14 for a atomic nucleus - too totally different animals with very different scales and levels of math and physics to explain them.
You do, however need quantum mechanics to talk effectively about atomic nuclei.
By who?
In addition, is it safe to assume from your contention here that you believe the Intelligent Design hypothesis as framed by Michael Behe is entirely wrong, and that Michael Behe himself is "anti-science"?
He's framing a theological, or philosophical, argument, rather than a scientific one. Your objection is duly noted, but but invalid on those terms.
The Bible is not wrong. I dont know or care how the fossils got to be where they are. And you don’t know either. All these assumptions about the past assume far too many things to be stated as certainties.
Am I the only one who views with extereme skepticism information the “scientists” say when they discover like 5 bones in the desert. They go off on such speculations stated like fact “Oh.. this must be one of the transition primates, they liked cotton candy and fluffy clouds, they voted Left,and hated the sticks and stones war munitions industry””
cult.
The rituals need to be identified.
You failed.
You have only given us the proof that you have no understanding of one of the most pertinent facts of the word: That all death and degradation came into the world through sin, and that there could be no disease nor degeneration, and therefore no physical death without sin. This fact is repeated so many times throughout the word that it may be impossible to count them. It is the premise underlying all the miracles, and healings that the Lord, and his disciples, then and now have accomplished.
We live in a sea of sin. We do it so much that we have become blind to it. The kingdom of God cannot co-exist with sin; you can have one or the other, but not both. That is what our struggle is all about; do we make the most excellent choice, or do we fall short?
Actually, I was quoting a rather lengthy passage from Origin of species, in which Darwin discusses varying rates of evolution, including the existence of living creatures that have changed little for millions of years.
One of the troubles with your interpretation is that change to the genome doesn't always produce visible change to the kinds of structures that fossilize, so continuous change does not always show up as obvious changes to the hard parts of plants and animals.
Another problem is the tiny changes to hox genes can make dramatic changes to body form, even changes to the number of limbs.
Right. Your ignorance of biology is on a par with your ignorance of astronomy.
You are not understanding the nature nor source of the resonance. It comes from the pulse rate that is dictated by quanta. Energy in a living cell does not constantly flow; it is emitted in quanta, and the frequency may depend upon the total energy production of the cell. More energy production = higher frequency.
Didn't Darwin himself predict that there was a moth with an 18" long tongue based on the structure of a flower he found?
BTW, the moth was discovered years later...
This is true, but evolution doesn't predict that diversity will increase without limit. Species having large populations will not easily split into multiple species, although they may change over time.
Increase in the number of species is not guaranteed by evolution.
Interesting question. I'd like to be pinged to your response, Caesar.
In my opinion all creatures with the 'spark of life' have a 'soul' to a greater or lesser degree. I believe that the human soul is qualitatively and quantitatively different that the souls of lower animals and plants.
Unfortunately it's like defining human. Every time we think we've got that knocked, an animal turns up doing something 'human'...
I think you've put you finger on the problem...
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.