You're ignoring that we have objective evidence for DNA changing by mutation.
How many times did "the designer" step in here?
Posted on 09/27/2001 7:43:35 AM PDT by Nora
You're ignoring that we have objective evidence for DNA changing by mutation.
How many times did "the designer" step in here?
This is not a slam, just a slight correction should anyone else try a google search on this name. The name is actually Ilya Prigogine.
History makes me wonder that if we came form the British, then why is England still here?
Ponder those two questions side by side, grasshopper, and eventually all will become clear. :-)
Actually, "need to" sounds a lot like "selection pressure" to me.
I'm being completely honest. My motivation is scientific, not religious, unlike yours. You tried to bring various religious aspects (e.g. Genesis) into this debate at least twice, not me.
I cited facts, not supposition, unlike your posts. The difference is clear, my opposition to Evolution stems from its scientific weaknesses. It fails against Complexity Theory. It fails against Chaos Theory. It fails against Intelligent Design Theory. It even fails to explain the very FIRST step in its own evolutionary process, that of abiogenesis.
But feel free to continue to have religious faith in Evolutionary Theory, just don't try to call such non-fact-based reasoning "science."
There are millions of people now living who don't know who their parents were. And none of us knows our ancestors from 100 generations ago. This lack of specific identification of ancestors doesn't mean that they didn't exist. They did. Our existence proves it. (Unless you want to claim that all orphans are descended from the gods.) Thus, the ancestors of humanity did exist. You have a problem with that?
I wish you could see your performance on this thread with the blinders off.
Oh my. Please explain to me how Evolutionary Theory is the "only" theory in your little world. Obviously you are incapable of explaining Complexity Theory, Chaos theory, and Intelligent Design Theory. Apparently you haven't even heard of them!
Go at ONCE and read Noble Prize Laurate Illya Prigogine's "Order Out of Chaos" and then come back and claim that NO OTHER THEORY explains the diversity of life on this planet.
Sheesh. Just because your fourth grade teacher told you that there was no other god besides Evolutionary Theory doesn't mean that the little luddite was correct.
[CLICK HERE for full article]IN A NUTSHELL: A day before the Senate completed action on a comprehensive education bill that it had debated for six weeks, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced a two-sentence amendment drafted by evolution opponents. The amendment, presented in the form of a Senate resolution, defines "good science education" and encourages teaching the "controversy" surrounding biological evolution. Amidst a flurry of other amendments, the Senate voted 91-8 in favor of the provision on its way to passing the entire bill by the same margin. Earlier, a group of conservative representatives had stripped a science testing provision out of the House counterpart bill in part because of concerns that the tests would include evolution-related questions. Differences between the two bills will be worked out in a House-Senate conference likely to take place in early July.
You must be kidding. A DNA mutation is precisely analogous to a software mutation. Let your PC run for a few million years making copies of the same program over and over. Have the PC stop making copies whenever a program becomes mutated through a bad copy. Now run that program. A million times out of a million, that mutated program will fail to perform as well (read: survive) as its non-mutated copies. Rarely, a software mutation might give useful functionality to the mutated copy, but it is pretty certain not to happen twice or multiple times in a row.
Moreover, looking at similar versions over time doesn't tell us if the species mutated by itself or if it was changed by a designer (ala automobiles). What you've cited could far more easily be evidence of gradual improvements from a designer than it could be evidence of successive, successful random mutations.
You might as well post pictures of rather similar models of Camaroes or Corvettes and claim that those pictures are evidence of the cars evolving, for you'd stand just as much chance of being correct.
"I wish you could see your performance on this thread with the blinders off." - VadeRetro
Really? Then what is my specific religious motivation, oh great savant?!
Man, this is an event to savor. I'm being called dumb by a creationist. I guess I can survive. And this reminds me ...
There was this ant, and he imagined he was the greatest stud in the jungle. One day a shadow passed over him and he looked up and saw a female elephant, slowly, ponderously walking down a jungle path. Excited at the prospect of such a conquest, he leaped on one of her rear feet and began climbing upward. The elephant continued walking. An hour later the ant reached his destination and began thrusting and gyrating. The elephant, oblivious, continued walking down the jungle path. Then a cocoanut fell and hit the elephant in the head. "Uhhhh!" she groaned. "Ha! Can't take it, can ya?" gloated the ant.And so, Southack, continue your gyrations. We're really impressed.
Point taken. I DON'T see any evidence supporting Evolutionary Theory.
Apparently you haven't even heard of them. Sad. I had hoped for a better-educated opponent.
Computers simulate evolution all the time. You've got to stop getting all your science from ICR and Answers In Genesis. (Does that answer your question about what I think your religious motivation consists of? I repeat, people don't bend over backwards for nothing.)
Aha! now there's a term I haven't heard in years!
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.