Posted on 03/13/2002 4:47:26 AM PST by JediGirl
As for trying to link ear bones and mammary glands and failing, it's just another case in which you try to impose a bad model on mainstream science. The only connections between the ear bones and mammary glands are the animals housing them. In particular, the connection is that both modifications arose in the house and lineage of Archaeothyris.
Be careful of your use of words.
From others posts relating to the use of lizard.
The relationships of these fossils indicate that amniotes first diverged into two lines, one line (Synapsida) that culminated in living mammals, and another line (Sauropsida) that embraces all the living reptiles (including birds).
I have not read one source that addresses the question of mammaries on dinos. For all that, I know what evolution must certainly say on the subject. I reason this by applying the model. The answer has to be: No mamms on a dino.
Again, how am I doing this and where does ID offer anything comparable?
Let me know if you give up, but anyone who claims to know enough about evolution to reject it should at least be able to reproduce the reasoning I use but have not stated. (Although I've certainly given you some big hints. Anyone could read the thread and get it if they didn't know.)
Example (pertaining to this discussion):
If everything was created by nature without Intelligent Design – If man was created by nature and acts only through nature – Nothing man creates has Intelligent Design because it is natural.
If man does have Intelligence and it was given to him by nature – nature must have Intelligence built into it – Since nature created everything – What is nature?
One can only hope… There are many physicists, that when view the big picture, acknowledge that everything could not have happened merely by chance.
Based on the wording of the press release and McGinnis’s matter-of-fact statement, I assumed that the UCSD scientists had produced a mutant shrimp without hind legs. I then argued that this would not justify the researchers’ claim to have discovered a "general mechanism for producing major leaps in evolutionary change," since it takes a lot more to turn a shrimp into a fruit fly than eliminating a few legs.Not the full Monty but the full brazen. The press release (Gasp!) preceded the publication of the full study by a day.
Because the Discovery Institute is doing PR, not science, and they had to respond to the press release on the same day--"War Room" tactics--they were forced to guess what the heck the study had done.
But nobody should take comfort in Wells's mistake. Science still hasn't made a fly out of a shrimp.
Yep. Ol' Jonathan sure gave evo science the two-by-four up the head on that one.
I do understand – see post #1265
They do not exist until some reasonable calculation can be made. They are described as a mathematical entity, if there is no math they do not "exist". If it(the fitness function) is described as a philosophical entity, then you are open to philosophical questions. Darwinists don't like those type questions. Actuary tables involve some calculations. And it is junk food only after its effect is determined. We don't "need" red wine, but in moderation it is not junk. Someone starving will certainly not turn away a Snickers™ bar.
Philosophy is bigger than that.
Better make sure I state the following
Unless some allergy or other life-threatening reason precludes the ingestion of said sweet.
I suppose admitting error and explaining the production of such is something brazen to you.
Having a newspaper deadline makes you do funny things.
Well maybe the reason is that random mutation is not random.
Indeed it was not. A dry, abstract subject.
How can ID say this? My understanding is that ID has stated nothing.
A good description of life without Intelligent Design or purpose.
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.