|
|
Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by Rich on January 17, 1999 at 16:07:37:
In Reply to: Re: Some points and an ogy posted by JP on January 17, 1999 at 14:51:54:
: You say this case is like a murder, we know there
: was one but we don't know exactly how it happened.
: I ask you, what jury would convict me it they
: thought I had murdered someone yet did not know
: exactly how I did it? They would find a body, with
: no murder weapon, no theory of how the murder
: occured, and no witnesses. How in the world do
: you expect I would be found guilty?
Oh they have a theory alright. They have murder weapons galore. They have all of that. You would go away for life.
: And again, the cirstantial evidences you named
: are up for question:
: 1. fossil record: have already been through my arguments
: against this.
You are blind to the fossil record. No offense, but you are just too hard to convince. Science would get no where if we kept trying to demonstrate to cynics that a wheel is a wheel. A whale with legs is a whale with legs, a tetrapod with gills is a tetrapod with gills, a dinosaur with feathers is a dinosaur with feathers. What do you want?
: 2. developmental biology: Are you still trying to
: p this off as evidence of evolution? Of course,
: by any model used, you would expect stages in early
: embryonic development to be similar. Since the
: embryonic animal begins its existence in each case
: as a single celled union of two parental cells,
: and the following cell multiplication must operate
: for some time in the same type of environment,
: and since futhurmore many of the structures developed
: would be somewhat similar, it would be natural
: that the developing embryos would look much alike
: in an early stage of development. Quite early
: in developent, however, significant differences
: begin to emerge, and these superficial resemblences
: give way to the appropriate distinctive characteristics.
: The differences are much more pronounced, even in early
: stages of development. Incidentally, no competent
: evolutionists still use this as evidence for
: evolution.
Oh puh-lease, developmental biology is an incredibly hot topic in macroevolutionary ysis. Homeotic genes and the process of devlopment are essential cues. Homologies are essential clues to relatedness. That all chordates share gills, a notochord and a post tail are superficial? On what planet? I don't think you are from this planet. Perhaps you are from the gas giants.
: 3. Anatomical atavisms: Many of these that are
: mentioned , or were mentioned in the past, turned
: out to indeed have a function. Man, in his
: ignorance and arrogance, sometimes thinks he
: knows what all the function of everything is.
: And I don't know if you could say that goosebumps
: in humans have no function whatsoever.
O.K. if it seems to make sense in the light of evolution, then you say, "well, how do you know?" I don't, but reasonable people can make a legitimate case. I don't find you to be reasonable. You wish to question the nose on your face.
: 4. Molecular biology. As I have mentioned before,
: this proves nothing about evolution, just in the
: case of homologous structures. Again, proving
: causation in science on the basis of correlation
: is a dangerous premise. Also, what would you
: expect the DNA codes of organisms with similar
: anatomical parts or morphological similarities to
: be, vastly different? If two organisms have arms
: that look similar, I would expect the DNA coding
: for them to be similar, based on any model used.
OK, so are you giving a different model. I'm waiting. God created all creatures the way he did. Then there is no scientific explanation for the geography of species. God just made things that way. That all mammals in Auatralia are marsupials does not mean that they share a common ancestor, but that God was feeling "pouchy" that day? Give me more, give me a better explanation.
: 5. I'm not a geologist, so I won't comment on this.
: However, I always thought it funny that scientists
: postulated that the early earth would have just the
: right atmosphere to allow life to appear, based on
: the fact that life exists and evolution created it.
You are ignorant of the scientific method. Scientists that study the early atmosphere do not ume anything. They look for corroborating evidence. There is no evidence of plants. There is no evidence of oxygenated rock strata. There is no evidence that oxygen would be common on a newly formed planet. There is evidence that the early atmosphere was a reducing not oxidating environment. These are not umptions, but hard experimental work.
: 6. Genetic changes in populations. No one
: questions that this can occur, however, this is
: not macroevolution. The extrapolation of microevolution
: to macroevolution is not valid, and is bad science.
You have no idea what is and what is not science. I will say it again, microevolution does not prove evolution, it is merely one of tools that evolutionary biologists use. No one says that if you show microevolution that you have demonstated the entire process of macroevolution. But people do argue that it is a reasonable mechanism.