Posted on 03/04/2003 7:27:34 PM PST by Remedy
Head bone connected to the monkey bone found two miles away.
"It is time for defenders of Darwin to engage in serious dialogue and debate with their scientific critics," said Jed Macosko, a research molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley. "Science can’t grow where institutional gatekeepers try to prevent new challengers from being heard."
You are one piece of work. You have the nerve to claim that I'm not catching on to whatever this person is implying. I never once discussed any of this. Never once mentioned stem cell research or abortion. There...is that the "murder" you are talking about? You are so bogged down in your dogma that you haven't seen the forest for the trees.
I 'll repeat this one more time only. I said in my first post to you that conservatism could be defined by the 4 points I listed. I said nothing about scientific research. I said nothing about morality other than the fact that it's everyone's personal and private business. Do you get it? What do you not understand? If you need to preach so badly, I suggest you go and get yourself a frock and point your sermons at those who are eager to hear them.
BTW, what is your definition of life? Are crystals alive? They consume, grow and reproduce. There are lots of self-replicating chemicals out there; are they alive? How about a virus? You see, when you get down to the origins of life, things get a little fuzzy, as we would expect.
I have no problem with that provided what is taught is the truth. By truth I don't mean from a creationist perspective.
Some of you guys understand the role of science in 3 basic categories: repeatable events, unpredictable events, singular events. Science at its best involves the first category. The materialistic origin of life belongs in the third category and is untouchable by science. So when Retro drops the "evolution is science" platitude on us he is confused about the categories.
Much about evolution belongs in the second category. Unpredictable events are like murders. No one is there to observe them. The detective comes in and trys to put the clues together. He tries to interpret the data.
Last election there was some racist (anti-White) rhetoric in political commercials about Black churches burning. The evidence was interpreted (Black churches burn) and the cause was proclaimed (White racists did it). It turned out that not only was the evidence misinterpreted by bias, the evidence showe that Blacks were burning their own churches.
So it is about the unrepeatable events. Two detectives in the room, same evidence, both arrive at different conclusions. I don't want to hear that the scientist didn't go into the room with the outcome already decided. The posted article illustrates otherwise:
a list of 100 U.S. scientists who said they were skeptical that the cornerstones of evolution — random mutation and natural selection — could account for the complexity of life. The list included professors and researchers at Princeton, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, Yale and the National Laboratories at Livermore, Calif., and Los Alamos, N.M.
"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."Hint: How much of the material in post 65 is post-1975? Post-1953? If the answer is "Plenty damn much," then how honest is it to go back so far to find someone speaking who at the time never heard about walking whales, legged sirenians, feathered dinosaurs, most of the East-African hominids, or half in general of what we know now?
The significance of the fossil record of horses becomes clearer when it is compared with that of the other members of the order Perissodactyla ("odd-toed ungulates"). The fossil record of the extinct titanotheres is quite good (Fig. 7), and the earliest representatives of this group are very similar to "Eohippus" (Stanley, 1974; Mader, 1989). Likewise, the earliest members of the tapirs and rhinos were very "Eohippus"-like. Thus, the different perissodactyl groups can be traced back to a group of very similar small generalized ungulates (Radinsky, 1979; Prothero, et al., 1989; Prothero & Schoch, 1989) (Fig. 8). But this is not all; the most primitive ungulates (hoofed mammals) are the condylarths, which are assemblages of forms transitional in character between the insectivores and true ungulates (Fig. 9). Some genera and families of the condylarths had been previously assigned to the Insectivora, Carnivora, and even Primates (Romer, 1966). Thus, the farther you go back in the fossil record, the more difficult it is to place species in their "correct" higher taxonomic group. The boundaries of taxa become blurred.[Emphasis mine.]
Not exactly what Simpson was saying in '53, is it? So who are the creationists quoting about "what we know now?" Simpson in '53.
Cretinist quote-science is painting a lying picture with little bits of truth.
And Recently, a 100 scientists named Steve said that they completely supported evolution: Guys named Steve.
I think one can propose that if a couple hundred scientists named Steve that sign a petition to support evolution, then there are at least one hundred thousand scientists in the general pool of scientists who support it. You aren't winning any popularity contests.
You are making false assumptions here. But you knew that already didn't you?
The Fossil RecordThank you for linking your cult's library of resources for naysaying away mainstream science. However, I really don't see where anything actually goes away. Even if it did, I don't see where you have a thing to offer as a replacement.
220.
What is my definiton of life? Anything that has 3 or more monads.
Like I said, some of you get it.
Tink, tink, tink, the paleontologists chip away looking for transitional fossils. No luck for over 100 years. Creationists are irking the composure out of the temple priesthood with this obvious problem. Then all of a sudden..
Bang!
More transitional fossils than a person could see in a lifetime, most of them in the last few years! How did this happen?
Simply by redefining what a transitional fossil is. If evolution is true, there is no such thing as a non-transitional fossil since all things are evolving and all are in transition.
Sorry, Retro, but even your guys know there aren't any transitional forms. You should waste your time convincing them first.
One more thing, Retro. This came from one of your links:
The entire skeleton is preserved on two counter slabs, in a pose much like that of its close relative the oldest bird (Archaeopteryx lithographica) from the Jurassic of Germany.
The archaeopteryx is not the oldest bird. Why, then, should I trust your link? If evo is true, why do things have to be "made up" to support 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.