Scruffy little weed shows Darwin was right as evolution moves on

Times Online | 2003-02-20 | Anthony Browne, Environment Editor

[PatrickHenry]

Message received.

[jennyp]

I will make a prediction that as more speciation is demonstrated:

Creationists will switch from "Speciation has NEVER been observed" to "Speciation doesn't PROVE evolution."

They've already done ya one better: They say creationism depends on speciation!

[F16Fighter]

"Incidently I'm not a 'creationist'. I think it equally absurd the notion that the Earth is only 5,000 years old.

Fair enough, but isn't it quite possible that an Almighty God capable of creating a Universe, was capable of compressing time, space, and matter to appear as a 4 billion year old Earth as well?

Afterall, if one believes an a God/Creator, material and physical "law" are selectively in force anyway.

[gore3000]

Which idiot on this thread is most likely to be "medved" returning to FreeRepublic like a dog returning to it's own vile vomit?

The only mad dogs here are evolutionists and you seem to be about the worst of the lot.

[gore3000]

I think you win the prize as the stupidest POS to join FR during February.

As usual you are violating the rules of FR in abusing a poster and using dirty words by abbreviation. Seems you never have much to contribute here except vileness.

[Jael]

I so wish I still my appendix!!!

After my appendix was removed (wrongly) I had a much higher number of colds and other bugs that previously I had not been very prone to.

My wisdom teeth were not removed, and I have been very grateful for that. Some of the other back teeth didn't fare as well through those days of gum chewing and candy eating. The wisdom teeth, not exposed to as much damage have held up well.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Acceptance of speciation? What next? Lending money at interest?

[js1138]

non-functional or "partly" functional structures

I have tried to point out to WT that it is impossible to define a non-function or partial function. Is an osterich's wing non-functional or partly functional? The terms have no meaning. Besides, we have contemporary evidence that a single mutation can change a body plan from two-legged to six legged. This has been done in the laboratory.

There is no theory to describe or quantify the kind of DNA change required to make a given structural change. Until such a theory exists, there is no honest way to argue what kinds of changes are probable or improbable.

[The Grammarian]

You're not the only one, and I don't think the extent is just you and me. (I agree with him too...)

[William Terrell]

. . .but the theory of evolution does not demand that such a thing must exist.

However, if evolution, as taught by mainstream evolutionists, is true, they would exist and make up the vast percentage of fossils uncovered.

[William Terrell]

Fair enough, but isn't it quite possible that an Almighty God capable of creating a Universe, was capable of compressing time, space, and matter to appear as a 4 billion year old Earth as well?

Well, anything is possible. And I do believe in God the Creator. I have a hard time believeing that He was engaged then in playing a epoch-class practical joke on what would become evolutionists now.

[F16Fighter]

"And I do believe in God the Creator. I have a hard time believeing that He was engaged then in playing a epoch-class practical joke on what would become evolutionists now."

In defense of the Almighty, He did afterall tell us the Universe was created in six days -- He just didn't explain exactly how He did it, nor was the scientific community's sensitivities a consideration. As it says in Scripture -- His "ways are not [our] ways."

And anyway, I believe THE one Divine "practical joke" has to be the ascension of Bill Clinton as President...

[farmer18th]

the Spartina anglica was discovered in Southampton 100 years ago, and the Welsh groundsel, discovered in 1948.

And now the Piltdown Groundsel! Scientific fraud moves on and on...

[general_re]

I have tried to point out to WT that it is impossible to define a non-function or partial function.

That's pretty much where I was headed as well. Such comparisons of functionality are completely useless unless you assume, a priori, that there's an eventual goal, a progression of development that must be followed. But since evolution isn't telelogical, the comparison is meaningless, and strictly dependent on holding the current structure as being the most highly-developed structure possible.

Which is sort of absurd - does it really make sense to think of the fins of early lobe-finned fish as being "partly functional" when compared to the ray-finned fish of today? Does it really make sense to think of the Type-III secretory system as being "partly functional" when compared to the flagellum? Hardly - all of those are functional in some manner, and comparing the set and declaring some to be "partly functional" is to inherently assume teleology, which is a faulty premise.

[general_re]

However, if evolution, as taught by mainstream evolutionists, is true, they would exist...

But that's exactly what I'm telling you is wrong - evolution doesn't say any such thing, doesn't require any such thing, doesn't predict any such thing. I don't know how many other ways to say this, but in this respect, your understanding of the theory is wrong. The theory can be completely true without such things existing at all, at least partly because this notion of "partial functionality" is not a meaningful construct.

[general_re]

Fair enough, but isn't it quite possible that an Almighty God capable of creating a Universe, was capable of compressing time, space, and matter to appear as a 4 billion year old Earth as well?

Certainly. If one accepts the notion of an omnipotent God, one has little choice but to accept that He could have easily done such a thing.

However, there are two issues that come up with this idea. One, we are essentially presented with a young universe that, in all possible respects, appears to be old. As far as we can tell, if it is an illusion, it is a perfect illusion, indistinguishable from a universe that actually is billions of years old. And we might well expect such a seamless, foolproof illusion from a perfect Creator. But if the illusion is completely foolproof, such that we cannot possibly tell if it is really billions of years old, or only appears to be billions of years old, what choice do we really have but to treat it as though it were billions of years old? At worst, what does it hurt to believe our eyes, as God pretty clearly wants us to in this case...

But the second problem may be more serious - the idea that God would perpetrate such a practical joke doesn't really comport with what most people think of God as being likely to do. Think of it like this - if I'm selling you a car, and I roll back the odometer to make the car appear to be a different age than it really is, I am deceiving you, which is very much a sinful act, not to mention criminal. But we're suggesting that God has quite literally done exactly the same thing - perpetrated a fraud by making the universe appear to be a different age than it really is. And if God is A) perfect, and; B) good - perfectly good, in fact - then it's sort of hard to conceive of God committing a wrong and sinful act. Generally, it is proposed by Christian theologists that God is incapable of sin, or at least never does sin, even if He might be capable of it.

So, because it seems to be what He expects us to do - believe our eyes, and trust in the gift of reason that He has given us - and because it lets us avoid the sticky mess of a sinful God, perhaps it's best to accept that the universe and Earth really are billions of years old...

[cookcounty]

"So now hybrids are evolution in action? What about random mutation and natural selection?"

LOL. That was my first thought, too. I wonder what hyrids humans came from?

Watching the evo folks constantly over-reaching is SO entertaining! ...(yes, yes, I know the creos do a good bit of over-reaching as well, but it's the MIRRORED IMAGES of the antagonists that makes these threads so much fun).

[f.Christian]

EVO matrix --- checkerboard === hop // skip (( jump )) scotch !

Main Entry: ma·trix
Pronunciation: 'mA-triks
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ma·tri·ces /'mA-tr&-"sEz, 'ma-/; or ma·trix·es /'mA-trik-s&z/
Etymology: Latin, female animal used for breeding, parent plant, from matr-, mater
Date: 1555
1 : something within or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form
2 a : a mold from which a relief surface (as a piece of type) is made b : DIE 3a(1) c : an engraved or inscribed die or stamp d : an electroformed impression of a phonograph record used for mass-producing duplicates of the original
3 a : the natural material (as soil or rock) in which something (as a fossil or crystal) is embedded b : material in which something is enclosed or embedded (as for protection or study)
4 a : the intercellular substance in which tissue cells (as of connective tissue) are embedded b : the thickened epithelium at the base of a fingernail or toenail from which new nail substance develops
5 a : a rectangular array of mathematical elements (as the coefficients of simultaneous linear equations) that can be combined to form sums and products with similar arrays having an appropriate number of rows and columns b : something resembling a mathematical matrix especially in rectangular arrangement of elements into rows and columns c : an array of circuit elements (as diodes and transistors) for performing a specific function
6 : a main clause that contains a subordinate clause

[PatrickHenry]

Tertiary syphilis
The final stage, also called "late" syphilis, begins 3 or more years after infection. About 30–40% of infected people progress to this stage. At this stage, the person may no longer be contagious, but the bacteria reactivate, multiply, and spread throughout the body, damaging the heart, eyes, brain, nervous system, bones, and joints. Tumors may develop on skin, bone, testes, and other tissues; cardiovascular symptoms such as aortic aneurysm and aortic valve insufficiency may develop; degenerative central nervous system disease can produce dementia, tremors, ataxia (loss of muscle coordination), paralysis, and blindness. Damage is irreversible.

[AndrewC]

Tumors may develop on skin, bone, testes, and other tissues; cardiovascular symptoms such as aortic aneurysm and aortic valve insufficiency may develop; degenerative central nervous system disease can produce dementia, tremors, ataxia (loss of muscle coordination), paralysis, and blindness. Damage is irreversible.

I take it this comes from your personal experience? At what stage are you? Does it ever involve the gall bladder?