The evolving Darwin debate

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 24, 2002 | Julie Foster

[PatrickHenry]

Nice post. After 30 years of solitary study, in my la-BOR-a-tory, I have decoded the genetic code. Here's the deciphered text:

Darwin was a fink.
The platypus is my chosen creature.
The fossil record is bunk.
All evolutionists are slimers.
Don't think; don't ask questions.
Join the Taliban and fight against the infidels.

I believe this is the proof we've been seeking.

[VadeRetro]

We need to keep that under our hats. Freepmailing you a black capsule.

[gore3000]

Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person.

You object to the word spirit in the quote I gave you and argue that it should be mind not spirit. I did not change the paragraph, it was cut and pasted exactly from the article posted by an evolutionist, so you have no call at all to call me names for it.

As to the what the translation should be for the word there, I do not have the original, which is in French since the speech was given in France. However, from the context - and particularly the end of the encyclical, you can see that he meant spirit not mind.

[PatrickHenry]

Have you seen this? One Human Ancestor, Indivisible?. It's new from the Washington Post.

[Jeff Gordon]

Is that like a troll?

Exactly like ...

[VadeRetro]

Hah! It's from the communist atheist satanic Washington Post so we don't have to believe it!

A new question to ponder: am I a lumper or a splitter? One lump or two?

[VadeRetro]

So ore-gay's an oll-tray but I won't ell-tay.

[gore3000]

It tells you that it had the skull of something more like a platypus than even the platypus's nearest relative, the echidna.

As I pointed out in the post you responded to the fossil found had teeth. That means it had a different way of feeding itself than the platypus, therefore there are differences for sure between this creature and the platypus we know and love because the platypus is extremely well equipped for the way he lives and eats. What these differences are though, we cannot tell. A pile of bones (and in this case just the head) cannot answer the question posed to you: what exact animal has the traits from which the peculiar traits of the platypus descended. Obduron does not answer the question.

To recapitulate, the platypus has traits only seen in species as far apart evolutionally as snakes, mammals, fish and birds. Which did it come from? How did all those traits develop graudally in an evolutionary way? That is the question and that is the answer you cannot give.

[VadeRetro]

As I pointed out in the post you responded to the fossil found had teeth. That means it had a different way of feeding itself than the platypus, therefore there are differences for sure between this creature and the platypus we know and love because the platypus is extremely well equipped for the way he lives and eats.

The skull is reported as "more generalized." That means "less specialized." That means "not yet fully a platypus." It's a transitional. That's what you wanted, right? (WRONG!)

[AndrewC]

I believe the original address was in French.

Thanks for the correction. Your link confirms my impression of the Pope's message.

[gore3000]

but that doesn't mean that the results won't happen on their own under natural circumstances.

That is very true however, let's look a minute at why we do experiments. Most experiments are done to show how something can be accomplished, not that something might have happened. The reason is quite simple, if something happened, the best proof is to look for evidence of it having happened instead of doing an experiment. The reason why this is the best way is that no matter how one tries, an experiment cannot exactly replicate natural conditions - even if those conditions are known. In the matter of abiogenesis, we do not even know what the natural conditions were when life first arose.

[gore3000]

I'm just pointing out that none of these experiments were due to random chance.

I dot think he quite understands your point. The experiment was designed, it embodied the knowledge gained by human beings for ages, it uses the artifacts it took human beings ages to develop. This multiplies the odds in favor of the experiment by a tremendous factor. This is not true in nature, and it makes what would be almost impossible at random seem possible.

[gore3000]

"Anyone know the Latin for mind and spirit?"

Mind is mens. Spirit is spiritus. Of course the spelling differs depending on the construction such as mens in the possesive is mentis and spiritus in the adverbial is spirito. However, as already posted, the Pope's encyclical was written in French.

[AndrewC]

as already posted, the Pope's encyclical was written in French

Thanks! It's all Greek to me. :^)

[gore3000]

"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.

Sounds like a very interesting experiment! However, don't think I will hang around that long to see if it works! :)

Problem also is that if it took that long to get hairlessness, I do not think the few billion years of life on earth would be sufficient to turn a bacteria into a man. However, there is one other problem with saying that "evolution did it" in such an experiment. We know very well that humans (and all species) are highly adaptable. This is already in our genes. There is a tremendous amount of redundancy in human biology as well as in the species as a whole. This adaptability could be the cause of such a change.

"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."

The above is a very common misconception of what evolution is. It is due to Darwin's willfull misrepresentations. As proof for his theory he gave common examples of small adaptations. However, for man to have descended from bacteria, there would have been a need for very large changes in the organism, in fact, what would have been needed should not even be called changes, it should be called transformations. The above are examples of small changes, not transformations.

[gore3000]

"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."

Okay, since evolution claims to be science, what is so wrong for Christians and others to ask what those mechanisms are? I mean science is science because it opens itself to questioning. What is wrong with Christians asking questions of evolutionists? Is it not science?

[Jeff Gordon]

And he not making any progress towards enlightenment.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I gave proof that non-coding DNA is not junk twice already.

This isn't you in post # 568? Post your proof.

[gore3000]

So the DNA sequence in the gene is the same as the DNA sequence in the protein. - me -

Proteins contain no DNA. This is worse than your "how many genomes per gene?" of last year.

The sentence you quoted does not say that protein contain DNA. I gave you an article explaining how proteins are made. I explained to you that DNA is the code for how proteins are made. It showed you that there is a one to one relationship between the DNA code and the sequence of amino acids in a protein. Either you did not read what I posted, or you are too obtuse to understand even that simple explanation, or you just like to insult me. I don't know which Vade, but your statement is absolutely wrong and is a total misrepresentation of what I have said.