Posted on 01/31/2003 9:04:31 PM PST by CalConservative
A most interesting article which if read in full shows quite well why the evolutionists are so desperate with intelligent design. The article shows quite clearly that the neo-Darwinian 'molecular clock is just blatant nonsense and that DNA in no way justifies either a neo-Darwinian or a punk-eek source for change in species. The real killer, which shows that while evolutionists try to pooh-pooh intelligent design, it is the reason for this new attempt at saving evolution. The author shows step by step the destruction of neo-Darwinism and punk-eek by science as was shown by the first major figure of ID in modern times - Michael Denton.
In the view of the proponents of symmetric evolution, a revision of the theory is required due to what we have learned from DNA analysis. Now let's look at the irony here, evolutionists, who call their opponents fools and themselves scientists are being forced to change their theory again, this time through the scientific analysis work of an ID proponent! Seems that it is not the evolutionists who are doing science, but their opponents. Seems that evolution is again behind the scientific eight ball and having to change its theory because of scientific facts. Now it seems that if evolution were science it would be predicting major scientific advances instead of having to play catch up, being forced to revise the entire theory, and try to explain away the evidence at each major step in scientific advances.
Another evolutionist snow job. First create a strawman 'creationist' and then attack what YOUR strawman said. Typical false disinformation used by evolutionists and others who seek to run away from the truth through rhetorical fictions.
For the real nitty gritty on the subject check out Evidence Disproving Evolution .
Not correct. Neo-Darwinian evolution does indeed require non-symmetrical splits. Remember, it is the result of random mutations accumulating over time and eventually transforming at least some of the individuals into a new species. This is in no way symmetrical evolution.
For a full discussion of why the Neo-Darwinian process has been proven false you would need to read the full article which you obviously have not done. Much easier to spew rhetorical nonsense than bother becoming informed on the subject before you open your mouth.
If you had bothered to read the paper, you would see that the argument is not about logic, it is about scientific facts. The fact is that genetically birds, reptiles, frogs, and mammals are as far apart from fish as from each other. This is not what would be expected if evolution were true. What would be expected is that frogs would be closer to fish than reptiles, reptiles closer to fish than mammals. This is not the case and if you had bothered to read the paper you would know that. But of course facts mean nothing to you either. That is why the theory of symmetrical evolution is being proposed now. The problem with it is that like evolution it assumes facts not in evidence.It assumes that evolution is true and that the only way to explain away the facts is by a new revision to the much revised theory of evolution (revised constantly because it does not predict scientific discoveries). Of course the authors do not bother themselves to explain how such evolution can occur when not a single mutation which promotes such an event has ever been found. But they have an answer to that! Evolution has stopped so we can no longer see it! (at least it's better than Darwin's 'the dog ate the bones' nonsense).
Blasphemer! The evidence for UFOs is overwhelming! Many books have been written about them! Where's your PROOF that they don't exist?!
I bet you don't even believe in the healing power of crystals either.
Molecular clocks generally have to be in areas neutral to selection pressures. Differences in phenotype come from the operation of selection pressures. While frogs are closer to fish in phenotype than are humans (and baby frogs still look like fish), it has been at least as long in elapsed time--and probably a much, much larger number of generations--since the ancestor of modern frogs diverged from fish.
In fact, it's the same divergence, one common ancestry at that point, for both man and frog. So, to clock the difference between us and fish, the clocks have been ticking since the Devonian, IIRC, and it's 2003 now. Guess what! It's 2003 for the froggies, too.
Again and again and again and again, you do not in fact know what would be expected "if evolution were true." You imagine that ignorance helps you, so you cling to it.
To be precise, Darwinism contributed to Fascism or National Socialism. Marxism has older roots - paradoxically based in the free market ideology of England in early XIXc (which could be inspiration for Darwin), French socialist ideas and German philosophy until Hegel.
To be even more precise:
For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. Whoever destroys His work wages war against God's Creation and God's Will.Source: Book 2, Chapter 10, Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.
-- Adolph Hitler, creationist
Hitler's god was a pantheistic god of nature, of racial competition and of struggle for survival. He was not a creationist in a Christian sense. His god was further away from Holy Trinity than Muslim Allah.
"What's in name? That which we call a god, by any other name would be just as silly."
I agree, generally, with but one tweak. There certainly are facts. Theories attempt to explain them. I suspect you meant to say that there is no such thing as absolute proof of a theory. A conclusion based on inductive reasoning is only as good as the last datum. The next one may be a counter-example.
Darwinism has nothing to do with Fascism or National Socialism. The common belief, that only the fittest will survive, is not right either. Theory of evolution says that creatures having a ability to withstand everchanging enviroment will survive. Actually christianity and other religions have closer relationships to fascism and racism than theory of evolution.
It's certainly false that only the fittest survive, at least in the absence of a ghastly environmental catastrophe. Generally, the fittest will tend to be more reproductively successful, and with nature that's the whole game. Socialism, and any other kind of political system which rewards and nurtures the unfit, is clearly non-Darwinian, which is why it's so amusing when creationists blame Darwin for socialism. As for facism (or national socialism) it's got the same flaw, with an extra "kicker" advocating aggessive extermination. Nothing in Darwin's theory corresponds to that.
cats ducks garter snakes frogs smallmouth bass
| | | | |
| | | | |
| \ / | |
| ancient diapsids | |
| | | |
ancient | | |
synapsids / | |
\ / | |
\ / | |
basal reptiles___ | |
\ | |
\___...______| |
| |
ancient |
amphibians |
| |
\ |
some Devonian fish
|
|
The evolutionary model says that modern smallmouth bass should be as far from "some Devonian fish" as modern mammals and all other modern descendants of "some Devonian fish." Why? Because the last time everything was together was before amphibians diverged from fish. This is borne out, except we can only check the fairly modern stuff against each other. (No Devonian DNA survives.) Do data from molecular clocks tend to match the expected pattern predicted by cladistics? To a stunning degree, yes. Convergence of Independent Phylogenies.
What a bunch of garbage! You make this stuff out of thin air totally thoughtlessly. How do you know if an animal - and all its descendants for the last 200-300 million years has lived in such a place?????????????
In fact, how do you know if any particular place has been neutral to selection pressures for hundreds of millions of years? (note that other species also exert selective pressure so you would need to know all the species in the area for hundreds of millions of years, their intereactions, etc to be sure that you had such a site). In other words Vade - you are totally full of it.
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.