Posted on 12/04/2007 10:09:39 PM PST by Kurt Evans
Faith Creationists don’t bother me at all.
It’s the willfully ignorant/dishonest/propagandistic crowd that I abhor. And that seems to be the majority posting here.
So your contention is that because you might say something that’s incorrect, as I am perfectly willing to believe, that means everything everyone else says that you disagree with is incorrect? There are some more links to logical fallacies that I could send you.
Oh yes you do! That is the latest theory on the Discovery Channel for the evo of cows. You need to keep up with what's going on in your own religion.
Your link is broken.
Whales did not evolve into cows. And I am restraining myself here. . .
bmflr
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
The most popular statistic, and the most erroneous, was generated by Fred Hoyle (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe 1981: 23–24; also: Hoyle 1983: 16– 17). Observing that a single twenty-amino-acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme (thus he already begins with a Class IV Error), Hoyle admits “by itself, this small probability could be faced ...the trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes” in “the whole of biology” (1981: 23), “and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 =1040 ,000.” There are three Class VI Errors here: Hoyle assumes (1) natural selection is equivalent to random shuffling; (2) all two thousand enzymes, all the enzymes used in the whole of biology, had to be hit upon at once in one giant pull of the cosmic slot machine; and (3) life began requiring complex enzymes working in concert. All are false. Natural selection is not random, but selective. And while Hoyle leads his readers to believe every living organism today requires all two thousand enzymes, this is hardly true. Some life, especially the simplest, uses less. Since biologists consider all present life to be far more advanced than the first, even if all present organisms required two thousand enzymes (and they don’t) it still would not follow that the first life did. It certainly did not. Finally, we already know of self-replicating proteins that require no enzymes at all to reproduce themselves (see below). Thus, multiple chemicals working in concert is probably an evolved feature.
The author classifies Hoyle's errors as:
Carrier, R. C. "The argument from biogenesis: probabilities against a natural origin of life." Biology and Philosophy 2004, 19, 739-764.
See also the link I posted in #36, above.
Let me try to explain it to you.
Whales and cows have a common ancestor—they share the same parents.
If whales evolved into cows, then you are your brother’s father.
I hope this is not the case.
Not ready for the big leagues, ay? Run along, I’m sure you’ll have plenty of opportunities to play T-Ball with the kiddies.
Artiodactyla --> Ruminatia --> Bovidae --> Bovinae [--> Bovini --> Bos --> Bos taurus, the humble cow, to complete the chain.]
So the cetaceans (whales) are a sister group to the artiodactyls, and the artiodactyls contain the cows.
At no time do you track through the whales to reach the cows.
Pond scum didn't turn into fish.
fish into rodents,
Fish didn't turn into rodents.
beneficial mutation finally turned chimps into humans
Nor did chimpanzees turn into humans.
Do you really know so little about the theory of evolution that you believe anybody believes any of the idiocy you posted above? Beneficial mutations are indeed a dime a dozen. I'd be happy to post dozens of examples. But don't come up with these silly strawmen.
But...just a few...say three fine OBSERVABLE examples of beneficial mutations that substantiate evolution from one specie to an entirely different specie would be acceptable.
Or...you could “happily” post “dozens of examples” of these observable beneficial mutations, as you suggested!
Dozens would certainly be more edifying for everyone!
That’d be great!
Thanks!
You still have provided none of the promised “dozens” of examples of observable beneficial mutations that you promised you could provide!
What happened?
You want to see favorable mutations, just look in a mirror.
The mutations you see have survived thousands of generations, while most harmful mutations have been weeded out.
Just a few examples of favorable mutations (all favorable only in relation to a particular environment): skin color, nasal shape, disease resistance, bipedal locomotion, opposed thumb, and stereoscopic vision.
Alter Kaker stated he could provide “dozens” beneficial mutations that would support the possibility that one specie could transform into an entirely NEW species.
still waiting...
So, what came first? The male Peacock mutating a large tail or the female being attracted to large tails? If small tails were the norm, why would a female find the larger tail more attractive at all?
Whims and fancy.
If wearing long, frilled clothing was the norm in the 1700s, why did it fall out of fashion?
Examine further, and it becomes apparent there isn't any "intelligent design" in the course of evolution.
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.