Posted on 07/29/2002 6:35:04 PM PDT by Tribune7
Hey, why dont you stick that in your placemarker or just find a funny picture to post better yet, get a freakin life man!
I dont mean it as in insult, just constructive criticism. Do you really think that lurkers read posts from you, a supposed man who lived through WWII, and spends his day hanging out on evolution threads sticking out occasional placemarkers, pictures, attacks, etc
They look and say, Wow, look how we have evolved!
If you believe this, fine, but dont pity Gore3000.
You have closed your mind. You are treating common descent and "macro-evolution" -- by which I do not mean speciation but the change into a new (at least ) family classification -- as an axiom. That's what I object to.
Common descent may not have happened. In fact, I can not see how it could have happened. A few weeks back I was reading about an abiogenesist who is now claiming life sprang from three seperate abiogenetically formed organisms. So much for the common-descent united front among naturalists.
As far as macro-evolution goes, I wouldn't be surprised if it -- in its broadest meaning -- wasn't a factor in Earth's biodiversity. But, here's the difference, I wouldn't be surprised if if wasn't either. As Max noted, macro-evolution has never been observed. Now the reason could be simply that it has never been observed. Or the reason could be that it can't happen.
Go back and read posts 928 and 930. They are dang near rants.
I'm confident that the creationists don't read my posts; but I don't know about the lurkers. No one knows about them. And for whatever it's worth, I haven't been through WWII. Oh, I don't hang out here all day either. I have a compouter at work, and I like to take breaks. I suppose that's true of most freepers. You like g3k? You've got him.
Wow. It's like you are some kind of visionary. But will I reach my thousand posts?
I read your posts, Patrick. Sometimes, anyway. :-)
That's a comfort to me. And I read yours.
I usually have a pretty good memory I thought I read a post from you when you were talking about the year you graduated High School and it implied you were alive during WWII.
If I am wrong, I apologize
Leave that part out.
Yeesh - you must be really "out there".
Since things seem to have lulled for the time being, let me resurrect the intent of the original post: to discuss the lack of transitional fossils and how evolutionists tend to jump to conclusions and creatively apply any significant 'find' by the paleos and archeologists as 'proof' for their theory.
Darwin wrote that in order for his theory to be true, the number of transitional links "must have been inconceivably great"(21). A century and a half later, the tons of fossils we have since unearthed have not produced even the slightest inkling of what must exist if evolution occurred on earth. When we examine the most intact and thorough portion of the fossil record, a portion that represents more than 99.99% of the entire fossil record, we do not find a single one of Darwins necessary links, not even one that evolutionists can agree on. None. Nada. Zippo. Creationist Dr Duane Gish summed it up very well:
All of the complex invertebrates appear fully-formed without a trace of ancestors or transitional forms linking one to the other.... If evolution is true, the rocks should contain billions times billions of fossils of the ancestors of the complex invertebrates. Yet, not one has ever been found! Even more convincing, if that can be said, is the total absence of intermediates between invertebrates and fishes, and the total absence of ancestors and transitional forms for each major class of fishes... It is physically impossible for millions of years of evolution to take place, producing a great variety of major types of fish, without leaving a trace The evidence from the fossil record ... has established beyond any reasonable doubt that evolution has not taken place on the earth.(22)" [emphasis in original]
The fossil data has clearly produced a nightmare scenario for the evolutionist. There is no way one can examine the fossil data and come away with the conclusion that the fossil record supports evolution. Yet this is what virtually every evolutionist continues to do. They find themselves pushed into a very tight corner by the fossils, but make their escape with a sleight-of-hand, erecting an illusion by scraping bits & pieces together from this tight corner of the fossil record and molding them to make it appear they tell the story of the entire fossil record. Once out of the corner, the evolutionist storyteller is free to spread the illusion to a mostly unsuspecting public. We should be ready to quickly expose this fallacy and tear down the illusion erected by the evolutionist storyteller. Its time to hold the evolutionists accountable for this deception.(1)
Enjoy!
MM
(1)Fred Williams, Exposing the Evolutionists Sleight-of-Hand With the Fossil Record
(21)Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Chapter 10 - On The Imperfection Of The Geological Record
(22)Duane Gish, Evolution: the Fossils STILL say NO!, 1995, p. 81
Yes, it was a polite discussion and surprisingly honest. My mention of his retreating into a discussion of religion was meant to show that this is a classical retreat of evolutionists and shows their true reason for adhering to it. It's a belief, an atheistic belief which they cannot give up.
You really need to follow the thread before you make such statements. What I have been saying is that a new duplicated gene does not get expressed. There are many genes that appear to be duplicates but perform different functions, produce different proteins. That does not mean that these are a result of mutations.
No one has seen a new duplicate gene being expressed (meaning making proteins). The reason for this is the diagrams I posted in Post# 766 which show how much is needed, what coordination from different parts of the genome is required to produce a single protein. Clearly this involved process does not occur by 'magic', clearly it does not happen that a mutation creating a gene also creates this whole entire system at the same time. Clearly the entire organism is not apprised of the function of such a new gene if such a mutation occurs and the rest of the organism does not miraculously build a whole system at the same time to make use of it. It would be a miracle is such a thing happened at once, and evolutionists do not believe in miracles - or do they?
Of course there is plenty of reason for this. A bird is not just a reptile with wings. Such a transformation takes much more changes than just transforming the front legs to wings (an awesome task in itself since each gradual change must be beneficial enough to compensate for the loss of the hands):
In addtion to the feather and the avian lung [quite unique and made for flight because the whole system works by absorbing air in a single direction - unique amongst all vertebrates] there are many other unique features in the biology of the birds, in the design of the heart and cardiovascular system, in the gastrointestinal system and in the possession of a variety of other relatively minor adaptations such as for example, the unique sound producing organ, the syrinx, which similarly defy plausible explanation in graudalistic terms. Altogether it adds up to an enormous conceptual difficulty in envisaging how a reptile could have been gradually converted into a bird.
From: Michael Denton, Evolution a Theory in Crisis, page 213.
Alive, yes. But you had said "a supposed man who lived through WWII" and I assumed you were implying that I had participated in the war. When the war ended, I had not yet participated in kindergarten.
I did not comment on your use of the word "supposed," nor do I do so now.
Answering and refuting are two totally different things. When one answers the point made and gives solid evidence against it, that is refuting. When one answers and deliberately avoids the point that is no refutation. The point of the platypus is that it has traits nowadays found only in widely different species and some traits which are not found in any species at all such as the electro-receptor. To say that a couple of bones have been found which perhaps belonged to ancestors of the platypus, does not answer the point as to where such traits came from, especially since practically none of the unique traits or the platypus can be determined from bones.
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.