Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
Rapidly approaching? I see no such movement in the preponderance of evidence.
That may be because you have a blind eye in the direction of non-random causes for evolution.
I am not speaking of the alleged Yogi Berra admonition that "when you arrive at a fork in the road to take it", but rather to the growing realization that the cell may be "designing" itself.
Don't forget lsd in its natural and artificial man made state!
for random effects... asteroid impacts, radiation from exposed uranium sources, cosmic radiation increases from nearby supernovae/gamma ray bursters (Geminga [sic?] rings a bell here), etc. ...
Gia too---
..."darwin dreaming"...morphing/morphine---opium--thc?
?evolution?
There is only one reality. Some choose to reject reality, along with the methods we've developed for learning about reality. They live in fantasy-land, but rational people don't regard their personal visions as science.
Sanity is tough to define, but science comes close to a definition by requiring replication of results by independent observers.
It is fact, not logic that is at issue.
Sure, the same as gravity. I mean, how do those dang scientists get off proposing a theory of gravity when they can't even prove when it started? They have yet to provide evidence of a missing link between non-gravity and gravity. Ya. La La La.
848 posted on 2/26/02 12:27 PM Hawaii-Aleutian by PatrickHenry
Fantasy-land has a name---"science"(EVOLUTION)!
We're getting into definitions here. You are correct that someone can start out with utterly false premises, and then reason logically from there. But he will end up with a conclusion that is at odds with observations (The "reality" of Noah's flood is an easy example, following quite logically from the premise of the literal truth of Genesis.) Such a conclusion will be logically valid, but false. [ What Would We Expect to Find if the World had Flooded?]. The scientist, faced with a contradiction between theory and reality, would go back and review his assumptions. The dogmatist will not. So what word do we use to describe a person who clings to obviously false dogma?
That statement requires proof unless it is in the purview of science. If it cannot be proven it is therefore an assumption.
And how does the gene know how to do this? And where are the gene's little hands?
Well, we have evidence of one reality. This one. If you have any evidence of another, please tell us what it is.
Of which one do you speak? I only see mine, I do not propose to force it on you.
I'm speaking of the reality which exists, the one we can detect with our senses and our instruments, the one composed of matter/energy, which obeys the natural laws which science has been discovering. The one which science works with when it formulates hypotheses and tests them with experiments. The one which has led us to believe the theory of evolution -- yes, that one observable, testable, comprehensible, natural (non-miraculous) reality. That's the one I'm talking about. I know you have another, and I'm delighted you don't propose to force it on me. I hope you don't want to force it on the schools.
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.