Even if you ignore the entire fossil record that clearly shows a progression from single cell organisms to complex critters like us, you still would have to explain the genetic record. The genetic record makes all of the old Darwin arguments moot.
“Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.”
Even if you ignore the entire fossil record that clearly shows a progression from single cell organisms to complex critters like us, you still would have to explain the genetic record. The genetic record makes all of the old Darwin arguments moot.
Where is this entire fossil record? Don't I have to study evolutionary biology for four years in college in order to see all this evidence? Like I said, at most I would only be able to take it as a faith.
“Here we present a draft genome sequence of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes). Through comparison with the human genome, we have generated a largely complete catalogue of the genetic differences that have accumulated since the human and chimpanzee species diverged from our common ancestor, constituting approximately thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertion/deletion events, and various chromosomal rearrangements. We use this catalogue to explore the magnitude and regional variation of mutational forces shaping these two genomes, and the strength of positive and negative selection acting on their genes. In particular, we find that the patterns of evolution in human and chimpanzee protein-coding genes are highly correlated and dominated by the fixation of neutral and slightly deleterious alleles. We also use the chimpanzee genome as an outgroup to investigate human population genetics and identify signatures of selective sweeps in recent human evolution.”
That's a nice little phrase you've been posting around. But a link to the full text it references would be really nice. I couldn't find it. It's just elephant hurling if that's all you can provide. It doesn't prove a thing.
Which brings me back to my original point: People who don't have a clue about the evidence for ASBE (All Species By Evolution) take it by faith and argue for it as true saying that it is science and is true. And they ought to know that they don't know what they are talking about! Furthermore, I well know that people have a vested moral interest in ASBE being true. My experience has been that people making these claims also have no logical moral reason to always tell the truth. And unfortunately the people writing these things fall into this category as do the people reviewing it and putting their stamp of approval on it.
which brings me right back to where I started - The evidence is not available to me to see for myself, and I have to trust the word of people I don't know about things I've never seen -- and that's faith! What's worse, I would have to trust the word of people who have no moral logical reason to always tell the truth! An atheist's only reason to tell the truth is if he thinks it will accomplish for him what he wants accomplished. And I've already seen how people want ASBE to be true and have faith in it even without knowledge of the evidence.
And to make matters worse, right now I'm in the middle of a conversation with LeGrande who's
claiming that the sun's apparent position is ~2.1 degrees different from its actual (and gravitational) position due to the fact that the earth rotates ~2.1 degrees in the 8.3 minutes it takes light from the sun to reach the earth. If the sun orbited the earth, sure. But it doesn't. By his theory, Pluto would be about 60 degrees offset, and a heavenly body 12 light hours away would actually appear in the night sky when it was on the exact opposite side of the world. (But he has so far, in spite of my repeated requests, refused to answer my question as to how far lagged Pluto would be.)
Furthermore, he refuses to provide any references which also describe the same thing. So my reasons for not just taking as gospel a claim by an evolutionist are well founded and quite reasonable. People do make unsubstantiated claims and argue for them until the cows come home. How much more easy it will be for one to do such when thousands of his peers are also doing the same thing and everybody feels comfortable because everybody's doing it.
In any case, I would be interested in reading the article you talked about.
Thanks,
-Jesse
107 posted on
08/02/2008 11:21:31 AM PDT by
mrjesse
(Could it be true? Imagine, being forgiven, and having a cause, greater then yourself, to live for!)