Posted on 03/24/2002 7:03:09 PM PST by scripter
parents's
Render to Caesar, of course "he" thinks it's all his.
My apologies for any confusion. You'll note that this site has the word "spirit" as a hot link.
Hey, that's my job!
Not your fault, you posted what was evidently a source document. As you note, the source was not in English, I presume from the problem that the original was Latin. Anyone know the Latin for mind and spirit?
So how can evolution be examined by the scientific method? Each time I try to ask scientific questions to evolutionists here all I get is rhetoric. What is the proof of evolution - scientifically wise?
Well, I don't exactly like labels, and I don't know if I fit your category of "evolutionist," but I'll try to answer. Mind you, I'm no expert on evolution or biology. But I do know something about the scientific process.
The scientific process requires that there be a testable, predictive, reproducible theory. If I had a billion years, I could rigorously test the Theory of Evolution. I could impose pressure on an ecosystem, and predict its response. For instance, I could heat the ecosystem by 10 degrees C, and expect to see an increase in hairless critters. I could do that same experiment a few times, and the theory could be supported if the results fit my prediction.
I don't have a billion years. I may not have more than a couple hundred before I shuffle off. So I can't do that experiment. On its surface, therefore, the Theory of Evolution cannot be tested.
However, that may not be true. Those involved in looking at various aspects of the large, complex Theory of Evolution, have been able to make predictions about some archeological finds which would turn up. For instance, there was a search for a "Missing Link." Many such Missing Links have been found, in fact. (With each find, the search for a Missing Link looked for one with a smaller difference between two similar species.)
Secondly, many biologists would argue, I believe, that we have seen evolution at work within our lifetimes. In response to the pressure of antibiotics, many species of bacteria have changed, to develop a resistance. That observation is entirely in line with the predictions of the Theory of Evolution. As I said, I'm no expert, but I can make a scientific prediction, based on the concepts in the Theory of Evolution: If humans continue to misuse antibiotics, bacteria will continue to change -to evolve- to the point where very few of the currently known crop of antibiotics will have any value at all.
In contrast, there is no prediction, no experimentation, no reproducibility in the "Intelligent Design" concept. Intelligent Design is a fully valid viewpoint in the field of Philosophy (which is where it was originally proposed, and which is the field in which it has been subjected to the Peer Review Process). But without the standard tests of science, it cannot be viewed as a scientific theory.
You will check back in 20 years, I hope, to view the results of my experiment? Thank you.
Yes, but you need help. Besides, I ain't gonna post "Skulking" or "Peeping" or something.
It might not help. I could be wrong about this, but the original might have been in French. No kidding. I knew I was posting a translation of something, so the possibility of variant interpretations of the original is always present. I'll do a little more searching and get back.
So... did you understand the difference between a protein and the gene that codes for it? Did you understand how 2 genes can have 1 coding difference and still produce the exact same protein? Did you understand why Vade's statement re: human vs. chimp versions of the cytochrome c gene had 1 base pair difference, and Theobald's statement that the cytochrome c proteins themselves were exactly the same, are not contradicting each other?
Let me note one thing though - the total sequence of a protein is significant. If one cuts off or adds to a protein any length from either side functioning is changed.
Not true at all! The biggest paragraph in Theobald's article explained in detail that many, many, MANY substitutions were possible in the protein itself and it still worked just fine.
This is important, of course. This shows why your argument against gene duplications leading to new genes with new functions is just plain wrong.
I'm back for a bit and noticed this. OK, it's interesting.
I'd also say it's another reason why T. rex didn't have mammaries, even an independently evolved version. You mention that the mammary gland is an evolutionary modification of a more basic and common skin gland. What kind of gland? Common to what lineage of animals?
Would you really expect to see this on a scaly-skinned (IIRC) critter that probably doesn't have much in the way of social mutual-grooming behaviors?
Fair is fair. If I don't get to call it a poorly programmed chatterbot with no learning function, you don't get to call it a suicide bomber for Genesis.
All Jeff Gordon called it was a troll and his post got deleted, too.
Uh, no, that's the whole point of science and the search for explanatory theories: i.e. that there are reasons that things are as they are and mechanisms that cause them to be so. Creationists are the only (putatively) rational creatures on earth who think that "random chance" and "Goddidit" are exhaustive and mutually exclusive possibilities, or that either actually function as explanations.
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.