Posted on 02/13/2009 8:13:46 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Feb 13, 2009 — As could be expected for yesterday’s Darwin Day February 12, Nature devoted almost its entire 2/12/09 issue to Charles Darwin with at least 20 Darwin-related articles. The caption for the special edition states,
"The latest edition of Nature to celebrate Darwin’s life and work looks at the human side of evolution. We have features on looking for Darwin in the genome, and on what evolution has done to shape human nature, while our editorial and two commentaries look at some of the problems inherent in applying biology to questions about humanity. We also have an essay on Darwin’s pigeons and poetry by his great great grand-daughter Ruth Padel. And in a special insight we bring together reviews by a range of experts on current hot topics in evolution. One can safely assume that this issue in the world’s leading science journal, written by scientists for scientists, published in Darwin’s homeland, represents the best defense of evolutionary thought available today on this special occasion of Darwin’s Bicentennial. Most of these articles are available online at a special page of Nature News."
In order to cut to the chase without getting bogged down in analysis of every claim in every article, let’s focus on what really matters: is Darwinism true? Is it established, beyond reasonable doubt, by evidence, that humans have bacteria ancestors? Major on majors. The only Darwinian claim of concern is whether all life descended from one or a few single-celled organisms (and most Darwinists claim also from nonliving chemicals) via chance variation and unguided natural selection. Even young-earth creationists incorporate a lot of microevolution in their views. That means all of the following points are mere distractions:...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Good morning. Post DarwinDay analysis ping!
Get over it.
Thanks for the ping!
Not quite. His twitching “theory” is still moving. It’s time to finish the job.
He also thought sexual selectivity worked ~ e.g. handsome guy critters got all the cute gal critters. We now know that's virtually always a false impression. What's going on has to do with releasing hormones in the water, or the stealthy nature of the breeding attempts. Some guy critters wave lots of money around. They get the cute gal critters who like money. Money has nothing to do with sexual attraction.
Then there was this business about man having "descended from" or "arisen among" the great apes.
Well, doggone, we do have a lot in common, that's fur shur, and we've all known guys and gals into chimp breeding patterns ~ they get the neatest STDs of course ~ but the Holy Koran itself instructs us that Allah created the apes out of sinful men.
Hmmm?
So much to reconcile.
Good thing Darwin didn't try peddling that stuff in Mecca!
The answer is that humans are life-related to bacteria.
The following is from page 284 of “Darwin’s Ghost” by Steve Jones.
“To track down the most distant links and draw a new pedigree of life needs characters that are almost universal; genes at work so deep within the cell as to resist almost all change and to retain clues about their earliest origin. A hunt for similarity through the dozen and more DNA sequences now known in all their detail, and the hundreds for which long sequences have been worked out, reveals the very framework of existence. About a thousand genes are shared by every organism, however simple or complicated. Although their common ancestor must have lived more than a billion years ago, their shared structure can still be glimpsed. It shows how the grand plan of life has been modified through the course of evolution.”
Truly, your belief in evolution is a religion.
And not a very good one, at that.
Once again, ignorance is bliss. GGG, do you have a job?
Yes. And part of that job is exposing the med-school dropout turned amateur naturalist who presumed to reinterpret the entire history of biology based on a few minor variations between finches.
Nah. Science isn't a belief system. It's a methodology to discover and comprehend the world. Religions are beliefs, with no need for proofs. Attempting to mix the two is silly.
Besides, I just like pulling GGG's chain (it's a long one, stretching back millions of years!)
Ya, that's what I said.
And part of that job is exposing the med-school dropout turned amateur naturalist who presumed to reinterpret the entire history of biology based on a few minor variations between finches.
________
His background really seems to offend you, as you have now posted the med school dropout silliness, what, about a dozen times this week? Let’s face it, you would have exactly the same comments on his theory if he had been at the top of his med school graduating class.
Which makes the comment you have repeated over and over all week, what?, meaningless?
Someone pays you to do this? They sure are not getting much quality for their money, but I guess you make up for it in quantity.
It’s all about the war of position. I find CEH to be an excellent source to eviscerate all the just-so stories coming out of Camp-Evo.
All the best—GGG
Actually, I would be much harder on him if he had actually been a trained scientist. Which, of course, he was not. Origins was nothing more than a long argument based on almost zero scientific evidence. Here is Darwood's so-called "tree of life" from origins. Care to identify the data points?
There have been thousands of phylogenetic “trees” based upon data put together, once we learned to sequence DNA.
Just like with Einstein, when the data came in, it fit with the theory.
Unlike the “devolution” data chart without data that you like to post, this was proposed as a theoretical framework that would match the data. This model fits the data, your devolution data chart was a joke that fit no data, neither was there any proposal to collect data at any point in the future (why would a creationist need data when they already know the answer?).
==Much like Einstein, Darwin was a theorist not an experimentalist. He formulated theories rather than collecting data through experimentation.
That’s because he had nothing to go on except animal husbandry and a few minor variations between finches. He didn’t discover anything, not even natural selection...which, as it turns out, was discovered by a creationist some 25 years earlier.
==Unlike the “devolution” data chart without data that you like to post, this was proposed as a theoretical framework that would match the data.
The devolution chart I posted was a conceptual chart, not a data chart, but you already know this. However, unlike Darwin, the author backs up his conceptual chart with a myriad of examples demonstrating the FACT of devolutionary adaptation.
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.