I am proposing that neither you nor I have a common ancestor that was a single-celled organism. Everything screams "creation" but the neo-Darwinist screams natural selection. Show me and I'll believe, Eh?
To sum up, as Michael Denton puts it on pg. 341 of his book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:
The almost irresistible force of the analogy has completely undermined the complacent assumption, prevalent in biological circles over most of the past century, that the design hypothesis can be excluded on the grounds that the notion is fundamentally a metaphysical a priori concept and therefore scientifically unsound. On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions. (Emphasis added.)
You see, all too often Creationists are painted as being Anti-Science, when in fact, the design and intricacies of humanity imply a designer, a creator. It is the creationist who is being logical and consistent in the application of laws and logic.
"I appears to me that by narrowly imagining Creation, you are creating a false dichotomy between theistic creation and the scientific theory of natural selection. You haven't really written enough for me to be sure I believe that, though."
If, in fact, we are simply observing what "God has set into motion," then there is no dichotomy, false or otherwise, between creation and science. To suggest that the God of the Bible, however, has brought us to where we are via molecules-to-man evolution is to blatantly contradict His Word, the Bible. It is an "either-or" proposition. Either God is the Author of the universe, and has created everything we see, according to His Word, or Natural Selection is true. Both cannot be true. This is certainly a dichotomy, but not a false one.
I'm not sure what you mean by information here, and I've never studied information theory. I assume that you mean something akin to negative entropy?
I'm speaking of what would have to take place for molecules-to-man evolution to be true. An addition of genetic information. For instance, you may have a theory where fish once had feet, and walked. No longer do they have these feet. There are appendages that are believed to have existed within certain species that no longer exist within current species. This would indicate a change or loss of genetic information, but never has there been an increase in genetic inforamtion or code that has taken place that resulted in a more complex organism developing.
"However, I trust that the biologists know what they are doing. This is something I've never understood- how can you (and people like you) not trust that the biologists know what they are doing?"
Well, which biologists are you talking about? Obviously biologists and immunoligists play an important role. But what about Creationist biologists? You assume all biologists and scientists are Darwinists when, clearly this isn't the case. It's not that I don't "trust them." It's that I disagree with their presupposition on the origins of life and how we got here. They start with their presupposition and I start with mine. We all have the same evidence. The neo-Darwinist and the Creationist just interpret that evidence differently.
Wow, what a constructive and intelligent response! Why is it that the supposed "science lovers" always resort (quickly, I might add) to name-calling and ad-hominem attacks here at slashdot? I love science, and, evidently, am a little more qualified to speak on the subject than you are.
"What kind of alternative are you proposing exactly?"
Did I propose an alternative? I don't think so. How about we just look at the evidence and go from there. LOL
"If the fact that science is a dynamic process and biology is a highly dynamic field offends you please quit the Internet and go live in a cave. Science doesn't pretend to get the answers right the first time or even ever have the right answers ever."
Really? I'll alert the press! If that's the case, then why are you arguing? LOL
"So, just where does 'microevolution' stop and what stops it precisely?"
Well, you are assuming that microevolution "turns into" macroevolution which cannot be shown via the fossil record or via the scientific method. In fact microevolution and neo-Darwinist macroevolution are two vastly different ideas. Nowhere (let me restate that for emphasis......NOWHERE) is there ever found any speciation that adds information. This would be a necessary fact for the neo-Darwinist view of molecules-to-man evolution. In addition you create a false dichotomy between a belief in Creation and Science. Science wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for the work of Christian/Creationist Scientists such as Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Gauss, Faraday, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin....I could go on and on if you like....
"This is the critical point that creationists who blather on about "macroevolution vs. microevolution" (a distinction without a difference) and "nobody has ever observed a speciation event" (just not true) willfully miss. Species lines are imposed by observers after the fact; they are not inherent in the nature of living organisms."
Actually, there is a huge distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. Microevolution has, obviously, been observed and validated. What speciation event has been observed or proven? Now the neo-Darwinists are grasping at straws by spewing out a provocative idea that has no basis in truth, but is being formulated from a faulty presupposition. One thing overlooked in these articles is that since Toumai (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) is not human, they must concoct another harebrained hypothesis to explain their faulty evolutionary points of view. This isn't a blow to Creationists, it is a blow to Evolution, because, yet again, they've been proven wrong on a supposed human ancestor though, in fairness, many evolutionists had already had sharp disagreements and debunked the Toumai fossil after the grandiose announcement that a human ancestor had been found. However, the follow-up studies that prove that Toumai wasn't human don't get the fanfare that the initial announcement gets. Such is the neo-Darwinian circus. I'm sure Toumai, even though debunked, will be in text books for the next 100 years as a prime example of a human ancestor any way.
Yeah, if I wanted to write, why use a PC? The whole Tablet PC has never made much sense to me. As a matter of fact, when I had my IPAQ I even sprung for the fold-up keyboard.
By the way, while I'm looking up Journals for Wistar, a real symposium and Institute, how about you find a Journal that shows a jump between species? I'd be glad to see it, you know a scientifically validated change of DNA from one species to another.
Well, I will do the research to give you Journal references (it appears I'm the only one who has been willing to do so anyway) but in the meantime you could look at the book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis written by Michael Denton (coincidentally, he's agnostic) you know, if you're willing to get off of your butt and actually look something up. That would probably mean turning off Everquest for a few minutes, though..... LOL Here is the link.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/091756152X/sr=1-1 /qid=1138316352/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5748893-3903240?_ encoding=UTF8
The fact that you haven't heard of the Wistar institute speaks volumes. They are widely known in scientific circles, which speaks volumes about you and your background (since you don't know who they are). They are world-renowned for their work in biology, medicine, genetics and immunology. They are located on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania and were instrumental in developing the first Rabies and Rubella Vaccines. Check the website out http://www.wistar.org/default.html If you don't know who they are, that's fine. But it belies your experience since you don't. I thought these threads were supposed to be about intelligent discussion, not name-calling and bogus posturing. You have yet to make a valid argument for or against anything. Here is but one small excerpt from their findings in 1966
For example, one of the mathematicians, *Murray Eden of MIT, explained that life could not begin by the "random selection," which is the basic pillar of evolutionary teaching. Yet he said that if randomness is set aside, then only "design" would remain--and that would require purposive planning by an Intelligence.
Just a little research on your part will reveal the same thing! Why keep your head buried in the sand hiding behind name-calling? Remember, this is not a Christian organization, but a "Peer Review" of scientists and mathematicians.....Check it out....or don't, but stop calling me the ignorant one! LOL
The Cambrian explosion is a part of the Evolutionary theory. The post just before my last one indicated that there was no such thing as MacroEvolution when the Cambrian explosion is, obviously, a part of the Evolutionary theory. The Cambrian explosion is what Evolutionists have used to try to explain why there would be a "sudden, massive change" in the fossil record. Ignorance is, indeed, rampant, but not on my part. If there is "no such thing as MacroEvolution" as the first responder states, then why the Cambrian Explosion? It appears that neither of the last 2 responders knows what they are talking about. If you haven't heard of Wistar, then check out the site. Who is ignorant here? LOL The Wistar Institute did, in fact, statistically disprove the Theory of Evolution. Simply because you "have never heard of them" does not negate their scientific findings. That's not just a weak argument, but a non-argument. Try researching a little and then come back a little stronger, eh?
More tripe. These were not invented by ID proponents but are specific terms used in the Theory of evolution. If, indeed, your erroneous representation of the Theory of Evolution was correct, with the "small" advancements over long eras without any MacroEvolution. How do you explain things like the Cambrian Explosion, or the Wistar Institutes findings See http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/wistar.htm for the damaging findings of the independent Wistar institute which was formed by prominent mathematicians and scientists and statistically disproved the Theory of Evolution. Mind you, this was not a "Christian" organization or folks who were proponents of Creationism or ID. Just the facts.....
Then you used the wrong term. MacroEvolution is where the problem lies. There is no scientific support for MacroEvolution. None. MicroEvolution, surely, is nearly established fact. It is a little baffling to me how technical people such as browse this site cannot see design. Perhaps you all have software that just appeared out of nowhere? Or a server that somehow came together all by itself via Natural Selection? These are ludicrous thoughts. How then can you even intelligently arrive at a conclusion that states that humans, machines infinitely more complex than computers or cars or watches, etc., , evolved from chance and one simple-celled organism that was the basis for everything that we now see?
Check this out: http://www.themindofmike.com/2005/09/worldview_con flicts_part_i.php
Slashdot Mirror
To sum up, as Michael Denton puts it on pg. 341 of his book, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis:
The almost irresistible force of the analogy has completely undermined the complacent assumption, prevalent in biological circles over most of the past century, that the design hypothesis can be excluded on the grounds that the notion is fundamentally a metaphysical a priori concept and therefore scientifically unsound. On the contrary, the inference to design is a purely a posteriori induction based on a ruthlessly consistent application of the logic of analogy. The conclusion may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions. (Emphasis added.)
You see, all too often Creationists are painted as being Anti-Science, when in fact, the design and intricacies of humanity imply a designer, a creator. It is the creationist who is being logical and consistent in the application of laws and logic.
"I appears to me that by narrowly imagining Creation, you are creating a false dichotomy between theistic creation and the scientific theory of natural selection. You haven't really written enough for me to be sure I believe that, though."
If, in fact, we are simply observing what "God has set into motion," then there is no dichotomy, false or otherwise, between creation and science. To suggest that the God of the Bible, however, has brought us to where we are via molecules-to-man evolution is to blatantly contradict His Word, the Bible. It is an "either-or" proposition. Either God is the Author of the universe, and has created everything we see, according to His Word, or Natural Selection is true. Both cannot be true. This is certainly a dichotomy, but not a false one.
I'm not sure what you mean by information here, and I've never studied information theory. I assume that you mean something akin to negative entropy?
I'm speaking of what would have to take place for molecules-to-man evolution to be true. An addition of genetic information. For instance, you may have a theory where fish once had feet, and walked. No longer do they have these feet. There are appendages that are believed to have existed within certain species that no longer exist within current species. This would indicate a change or loss of genetic information, but never has there been an increase in genetic inforamtion or code that has taken place that resulted in a more complex organism developing.
"However, I trust that the biologists know what they are doing. This is something I've never understood- how can you (and people like you) not trust that the biologists know what they are doing?"
Well, which biologists are you talking about? Obviously biologists and immunoligists play an important role. But what about Creationist biologists? You assume all biologists and scientists are Darwinists when, clearly this isn't the case. It's not that I don't "trust them." It's that I disagree with their presupposition on the origins of life and how we got here. They start with their presupposition and I start with mine. We all have the same evidence. The neo-Darwinist and the Creationist just interpret that evidence differently.
"What kind of alternative are you proposing exactly?"
Did I propose an alternative? I don't think so. How about we just look at the evidence and go from there. LOL
"If the fact that science is a dynamic process and biology is a highly dynamic field offends you please quit the Internet and go live in a cave. Science doesn't pretend to get the answers right the first time or even ever have the right answers ever."
Really? I'll alert the press! If that's the case, then why are you arguing? LOL
"So, just where does 'microevolution' stop and what stops it precisely?"
Well, you are assuming that microevolution "turns into" macroevolution which cannot be shown via the fossil record or via the scientific method. In fact microevolution and neo-Darwinist macroevolution are two vastly different ideas. Nowhere (let me restate that for emphasis......NOWHERE) is there ever found any speciation that adds information. This would be a necessary fact for the neo-Darwinist view of molecules-to-man evolution. In addition you create a false dichotomy between a belief in Creation and Science. Science wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for the work of Christian/Creationist Scientists such as Copernicus, Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Gauss, Faraday, Maxwell, Lord Kelvin....I could go on and on if you like....
"This is the critical point that creationists who blather on about "macroevolution vs. microevolution" (a distinction without a difference) and "nobody has ever observed a speciation event" (just not true) willfully miss. Species lines are imposed by observers after the fact; they are not inherent in the nature of living organisms."
Actually, there is a huge distinction between macroevolution and microevolution. Microevolution has, obviously, been observed and validated. What speciation event has been observed or proven? Now the neo-Darwinists are grasping at straws by spewing out a provocative idea that has no basis in truth, but is being formulated from a faulty presupposition. One thing overlooked in these articles is that since Toumai (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) is not human, they must concoct another harebrained hypothesis to explain their faulty evolutionary points of view. This isn't a blow to Creationists, it is a blow to Evolution, because, yet again, they've been proven wrong on a supposed human ancestor though, in fairness, many evolutionists had already had sharp disagreements and debunked the Toumai fossil after the grandiose announcement that a human ancestor had been found. However, the follow-up studies that prove that Toumai wasn't human don't get the fanfare that the initial announcement gets. Such is the neo-Darwinian circus. I'm sure Toumai, even though debunked, will be in text books for the next 100 years as a prime example of a human ancestor any way.
Also, I hear that productivity goes waaaay down when employees are sick ;)
Yeah, or when they unionize...I'm not sure which is worse.
Yeah, if I wanted to write, why use a PC? The whole Tablet PC has never made much sense to me. As a matter of fact, when I had my IPAQ I even sprung for the fold-up keyboard.
By the way, while I'm looking up Journals for Wistar, a real symposium and Institute, how about you find a Journal that shows a jump between species? I'd be glad to see it, you know a scientifically validated change of DNA from one species to another.
Well, I will do the research to give you Journal references (it appears I'm the only one who has been willing to do so anyway) but in the meantime you could look at the book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis written by Michael Denton (coincidentally, he's agnostic) you know, if you're willing to get off of your butt and actually look something up. That would probably mean turning off Everquest for a few minutes, though..... LOL Here is the link. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/091756152X/sr=1-1 /qid=1138316352/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5748893-3903240?_ encoding=UTF8
The Cambrian explosion is a part of the Evolutionary theory. The post just before my last one indicated that there was no such thing as MacroEvolution when the Cambrian explosion is, obviously, a part of the Evolutionary theory. The Cambrian explosion is what Evolutionists have used to try to explain why there would be a "sudden, massive change" in the fossil record. Ignorance is, indeed, rampant, but not on my part. If there is "no such thing as MacroEvolution" as the first responder states, then why the Cambrian Explosion? It appears that neither of the last 2 responders knows what they are talking about. If you haven't heard of Wistar, then check out the site. Who is ignorant here? LOL The Wistar Institute did, in fact, statistically disprove the Theory of Evolution. Simply because you "have never heard of them" does not negate their scientific findings. That's not just a weak argument, but a non-argument. Try researching a little and then come back a little stronger, eh?
More tripe. These were not invented by ID proponents but are specific terms used in the Theory of evolution. If, indeed, your erroneous representation of the Theory of Evolution was correct, with the "small" advancements over long eras without any MacroEvolution. How do you explain things like the Cambrian Explosion, or the Wistar Institutes findings See http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/wistar.htm for the damaging findings of the independent Wistar institute which was formed by prominent mathematicians and scientists and statistically disproved the Theory of Evolution. Mind you, this was not a "Christian" organization or folks who were proponents of Creationism or ID. Just the facts.....
Then you used the wrong term. MacroEvolution is where the problem lies. There is no scientific support for MacroEvolution. None. MicroEvolution, surely, is nearly established fact. It is a little baffling to me how technical people such as browse this site cannot see design. Perhaps you all have software that just appeared out of nowhere? Or a server that somehow came together all by itself via Natural Selection? These are ludicrous thoughts. How then can you even intelligently arrive at a conclusion that states that humans, machines infinitely more complex than computers or cars or watches, etc., , evolved from chance and one simple-celled organism that was the basis for everything that we now see? Check this out: http://www.themindofmike.com/2005/09/worldview_con flicts_part_i.php