Posted on 09/18/2006 1:51:27 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Consider the humble gerbil. Although not incredibly smart, it is curious, courageous, and gentle, rarely biting when handled. When a litter is born the father gerbils care for the babies as well, grooming them and collecting them when they wander. Unlike mice, gerbils rarely cannibalize their offspring. Their only failing is a tendency to brawl like drunken sailors on occasion. Would that all of us had half the moral character of the gerbil.
I currently mourn for the passing of one of my gerbils, stolen and critically wounded by my cat this weekend, but never uttering a squeak. Such was my respect for the gerbil that I took it to the vet for emergency euthansia. RIP, little gerbil.
WRONG... "Survival of the fittest" implys things.. many things..
Life comes from life is merely one of them..
About the "schools"... any conservative cares what is taught in "schools".. Are you a liberal?... Do you care what is taught in "schools"?.. Example; most High School Seniors in Mexifornia cannot find Mexico and Canada on a Map... But they do know they are primates that evolved from monkeys and the monkeys evolved from some other mammal.. THEY know this even though its not a proven fact.. Must be why they act like monkeys performing RAP music.. Which is a good imitation of a Chimp... with Chimp like behavior patterns..
Survival of the fittest has implications..
I am a Christian. Some might even call me a "Bible Thumper" whatever that is.
I do not believe the earth is only thousands of years old. There exists hard, proven archeological evidence against that being possible.
But I will say that a year to us is nothing to God.
Well if it's a LAW, it can't be broken, can it? And if it's in latin, it must be true.
Alas, it's just and observation that maggots don't form from dead meat.
LOL.
Darwin never used either phrase.
The theory of evolution is a continuum, the tree of life, common descent, life from life, omne vivum ex vivo. It doesn't allow for life to pop-up other than on the tree.
Caution; Staining at a gnat you might swallow a camel..
Or at least make your orginal question seem trivial or a diversion..
That would Latin, capital L.
Sure it does, it's just doubtful that it has on earth, and highly unlikely that it will on earth now that organisms inhabit pretty much everywhere and are ready to gobble up any organic molecules as soon as they are formed.
Sure it does. We just have lots of evidence that it hasn't happened in the last few hundred million years. We also have reason to believe that any chemistry that might move toward life would be consumed as food by existing things.
I am just amazed at the lengths you will go to avoid admitting that the quotation was fabricated out of thin air. I don't have time right now to detail how silly this quote sounds when attributed to Darwin, but here's a down payment:
The modern science of abiogenesis addresses a fundamentally different question: the ultimate origin of life itself. Pasteur had proved that abiogenesis was impossible for complex organisms. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution put forward a mechanism whereby such organisms might evolve over millennia from simple forms, but it did not address the original spark, from which even simple organisms might have arisen. Darwin was aware of the problem. In a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker of February 1 1871, he made the suggestion that life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, [so] that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes". He went on to explain that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." In other words the presence of life itself prevents the spontaneous generation of simple organic compounds from occurring on Earth today - a circumstance which makes the search for the first life dependent on the laboratory.Source
Oooooooh. Great minds and so forth.
Trying not to make it personal.
I quite impersonally admire your intellect as well, oh brother in pondscum!
Making a poster bow down is tiresome and distracting. But you are welcome to retract your claim that Pasteur said "absolutely nothing about biogenesis." You could be the model poster.
In other words, there is no circumstance in which you would admit that an error has occurred, or having occurred, you would not seek to excuse the offender.
Both of these quotions appear frequently on these threads. They seldom originate from evolution advocates. The fact that they are persistently misapplied is not a happy fact.
Thank you, and welcome to FR.
Since structural organic chemistry was practically nonexistant at that time, Pasteur can hardly be cited as an authority as to what chemical reactions are and are not possible. All Pasteur demonstrated was that organisms identical to already existing organisms cannot spring into existence fully formed in a matter of months. This demonstration has no resemblance to the origin of life on earth.
Fine. Pasteur addressed the biogenesis theory of his time. But not biogenesis as it has been understood for the last hundred years. Not even as it was understood by Darwin -- which is the frame of reference for the current discussion.
Darwin's warm little pond seems rather quaint today, but his discussion of biogenesis lead to Miller, and Miller has lead to more sophisticated experiments.
Feel free to thump to your heart's content. None of the evolution advocates around here will quarrel with you for that. You are wise to accept the findings of science, and not to let it interfere with your faith.
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.