Posted on 12/01/2007 12:39:07 PM PST by Alter Kaker
The Monty Python graphics are *not* my primary line of argument, but rather, are used to show that you don't know when you've been beaten, much like that Black Knight.
You repeat ad nausium the same "modern Fish" nonsense, not even realizing that you are making an even weaker case for the very Evolutionary Theory that you would beg to defend.
Sad.
Evolutionary Theory falls flat if there is no evolutionary path for the immune trait in coral to evolve into humans, for instance, yet you trumpet the lack of a link as if it *supported* Evolution!
Talk about backwards thinking!
Humans are not descended from coral. You have simply misread a story discussing the common ancestor of coral and humans.
Nope. You have simply misunderstood that the lack of a genetic path for coral traits making it into humans means code skipping rather than Evolution.
Thus, your supposed "complaint" above is actually an ever bigger problem for Evolution (because you're saying there is no evolutionary path to explain the DNA evidence in hand).
I think we should all be careful of hanging our argument on one unknown, such as this, be it if we are Evolutionists, Creationists, or Theistic Evolutionists (like myself) because if this one point breaks, so does the argument. A gap in knowledge doesn't represent proof, it only represents a gap in knowledge. How long did young-Earth Creationists use the degrading magnetic field as 'proof' of a young earth before we knew that it fluctuated? How long did Evolutionists use Piltdown man as 'proof'? Science involves evolving (for lack of a better term) knowledge.
So for decades, thousands of life scientists have "lost control of the world and any understanding of the process it describes." Meanwhile, said understanding is no problem for a retired bureaucrat whose 30 year career had absolutely nothing to do with biology.
You think very highly of yourself, that is for damn sure.
Some researchers never did buy into Piltdown. It was primarily the British researchers who were fooled because that was the set of traits they were looking for. Folks working in other areas of the world were expecting a different set of traits and it turns out they were correct.
That's incorrect.
An Intelligent Design proponent can cite transgenic lab animals and note that they were created by intelligent intervention (e.g. Man).
That has nothing to do with God.
I can cite - at a job interview - that a positive aspect of my work history is that monkeys never fly out of my butt.....what's THAT got to do with the price of tea in China?
When talking ID, you're either talking God or aliens. Pretending those aren't the options is the very definition of disingenuous.
Try again. God and aliens didn't create transgenic species in the lab.
"The intelligent design crowd, creationists, postulate the a priori that a God set everything in motion."
that
An Intelligent Design proponent can cite transgenic lab animals and note that they were created by intelligent intervention (e.g. Man).
That has nothing to do with God.
which is a complete and total nonsense - and circular- response that has absolutely nothing to do with the original statement since Man was not around to have anything to do with setting life on Earth in motion.
Next time you have a lucid moment you might consider which is more likely: mainstream science, the Discovery Institute, Answers in genesis and the ICR are all conspiring together to deny Southhack his Nobel Prize, or perhaps Southhack has misread an article that discusses a common ancestor of humans and corals.
Yes, your quote is complete and total nonsense...and conjecture (since we have little evidence of that time frame to support much speculation in any direction).
Try again.
It’s no surprise that you want to change the subject from that of your point that there is no Evolutionary path from coral to humans over to a nonsensical issue such as Southack getting one or more Nobels.
You really are quite defeated in this debate, as your attempts at digressions, repetitions, and insults attest.
Yeah. And all that other stuff in my paragraph from which you excerpted that small bit.
Yeah. And all that other stuff in my paragraph from which you excerpted that small bit.
I haven't changed the subject. Coral is not an ancestor to humans. There is no path to explain.
Find a college level textbook or a journal that says it is.
I have found the article discussing the genes shared by coral and humans. You have simply misread it.
Is it linked to the genome's control center?
ID does not need to involve either aliens or a demigod or God,
Ah, now you're back to coral and off of Nobels for Southack. How refreshing!
Too bad that there is no evolutionary path for traits in coral to make it into humans, though. That DNA evidence alone dooms Evoltuionary Theory to the dustbin.
One last thing. Old saying ~ the dog barks (you) but the caravan (body of knowledge) moves on.
Whatever a day was before the inventors of that word were around is a darned good question.
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.