Posted on 04/09/2002 11:31:41 AM PDT by JediGirl
But in principle a 'designer' could. Such things, which would show Darwinism to be wrong, have never been found.
Wildly different, don't you think?
Who cares what he said, he has no scientific proof either way, neither do the Darwinians. Punk-eek is not science, it can neither be proven or disproven, in other words, in words fit for a public forum, it is blatant hogwash.
God must be awfully disappointed to see that those made in his image get soundly trounced by the slime puddle people when it comes to the application of things like logic, mathematics, and general reasoning. I have it on good authority (we're tight, God and I) that he'll be borrowing genome from the slime puddle people for the next revision of His People.
The changes in the fossil record with time are a fact. The way in which that came about is the matter of dispute, whether natural selection is enough, or whether some 'designer' has to tweak it occasionally.
Remember Lamarck, he tried to explain evolution before Darwin, but his eplanation is false?
You are very much correct. Neither the Darwinians nor the Punks have any evidence to support their theory, while there is abundant evidence against both of them.
While I agree with you that some ID was introduced for practical reasons, the method of evolution is random. Actually, I have attempted many ways to introduce ID to speed up the process. Each attempted has actually decreased the performance!
How each "transitional" is selected has been chosen by me, and that is correct. However, obtaining a high score in matching a random portion of an image is not different that from being able to survive any other environmental challenge. In that aspect, it is a good model of natural selection.
Remember, they are only scored by the number of pixels shared between two images. The ability to hunt and find food would be simular.
Now when I tried to play "God", it sounded logical to me to average the transformation variables between breeding pairs. Hey, if two transforms are almost correct, just average them.
As I study this program, the more ID that I remove, the better it has been able to solve the problem.
Perhaps the above may be true, however what does nullify his theories is the total lack of scientific evidence for them. However, 2cents has a point, as we see in these threads, evolutionists make a habit of disguising their lack of proof with pompous arrogance.
One would think that after 150 years of digging for bones, they would have some proof for their stupid theory.
Arrogance?
Sir, I am pleading for anyone on the Creationist side to help me out with a software problem. If ID or other theories have a practical aspect, please help me out. I will be more than happy to test out your suggestions.
You are such a fan of Gould and evolution, perhaps you can tell us what evidence he has for his theory? Last I heard, he who proposes a theory is the one who has to back it up.
As to your other point...arrogance and pomposity are amply apparent on both sides of the crevo debate.
Wrong, homo sapiens has only been around for at most 50,000 years. His DNA is far too different from all other known similar species for man to have descended from them.
No one is asking for a complete fossil record of all species, no one is asking for a complete fossil record of any particular species. No one is even asking for a complete fossil record at all. What we are asking is for any kind of a record showing the transformation of a species into a more complex one. Not a single such record has been found since the charlatan Darwin first published his theory.
It also must be asked, why the evolutionists set their sights for proving their theory on the fossil record. Darwin knew quite well that the record was very scanty. While he might have hoped that the record would increase by leaps and bounds if people put their mind to it, as it did by some 100 times since he wrote, he knew quite well that it would remain very 'gappy' even then. So why did he stake his theory on fossils? For one very simple reason: it was a gambler's bet, he knew quite well he could not prove evolution with existing species so he had to bet his theory on proof perhaps being found later on. Of course, this is also the kind of bet made by liars of all stripes 'the future will vindicate them' they all say.
Integrity compels me to point out that assertions that evolution could not have taken place because the Almighty created us is as errant as asserting that evolution disproves the existence of God.
To presume to rule out evolution as the methodology whereby the Almighty created us is to presume to apprehend the infinite mind of God.
As bad a claim of certain knowledge impossible to own as the reverse.
While I share your faith in the Almighty, I can not claim to know his methods or purposes save what little has been reavealed to us by our Creator.
I assert that you can not either.
One gets tired of the above smug preaching from the evo atheists. Christians take God at his Word - the Bible. The Bible says that God created all life on Earth and man, his most special creation. It is atheists who in their search for an atheist answer to Christianity invented evolution in order to depict our Creator as impotent in being involved in the affairs of man. Their theory is therefore a total contradiction of His Word.
Wrong, homo sapiens has only been around for at most 50,000 years. His DNA is far too different from all other known similar species for man to have descended from them.
Do a little research next time instead of spewing your fake "facts".
200,000 years smart guy
Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm the larger herds. They are trying to resolve two basic problems, i.e. the lack of any intermediate fossil sequences, and the problems of population genetics, including the so-called Haldane dilemma, and the inordinate amount of time it takes to simply spread a genetic change amongst any large population.
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could see or hear them, they wouldn't be witches...) This kind of logic is obviously exhilerating and less limiting than the standard logic once taught in schools. For instace, I could claim that the fact that nobody ever saw me with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her.2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance. He's probably never been to Saudi Arabia either...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack; the house could lose many rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
Given all of this, an obvious question presents itself, and anybody who should ever attend one of Dr. Gould's lectures or speeches should ask him this question: In view of the facts noted above, what reason might there be for anybody propounding such a theory (as punk-eek) to be viewed by the public as anything other than a blithering idiot?
You are quite correct. The anti-evolutionists are quite willing to meet them on the evolutionists supposed home ground - science. They are totally unwilling to engage in such a discussion and satisfy themselves with arrogant comments about how everyone who does not believe in evolution is an idiot. This arrogance can be clearly seen not just in the evolutionist posters here, but just as clearly in the article. The article does not in any way state what Gould's theory is. The article in no way gives any evidence for it. The article just attacks the opponents of evolution for quoting their hero! How lame can you get!
It has been long proven by minds much greater than his pea-brain that neither science nor philosophy can disprove God's existence. Nevertheless being an atheist perhaps due to moral failings, which he clearly has since he calls people who quote him liars, perhaps due to the good pay, he claims he can disprove God's existence.
what reason might there be for anybody propounding such a theory (as punk-eek) to be viewed by the public as anything other than a blithering idiot?
Tonight, I have already posted how a very simple software algorithm is showing sudden changes when a benificial mutation spreads into a population. I have also posted the exact algorithm that I am using.
I have also personally requested your outstanding knowledge to help me solve a difficult problem I must deal with.
Sir, help me out please. If your theories can be applied to a practical problem such as mine, please help.
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.