Vryko Lakas
Offline
 |
"Shalom My Soul" He has. It is called microevolution. It is Macroevolution that is one of the main problematic theories within Evolution because there is little, to no evidence for it. You want a quote on that? I'll give you one: "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." (Field Museum Bulletin January 1979) That's called quote mining, the practice of cherry-picking persons of a vocal minority and using them to suggest a problem with the majority opinion, or modifying and stripping context from passages of text in order to claim that X or Y say a or b. Read the passage in context (press Ctrl+F and type Raup, then read the blue letter and the green response), and you see that it says exactly the opposite of what you think it says. Furthermore, while Raup is a somewhat controversial paleontologist whose fringe ideas on extinction are not supported by much evidence, he is NOT denying evolution either. In fact he has published several papers on micro- and macroevolution and assumes the normal billions-year-old Earth and life as part of his work. The passage in question was referring to an old model of horse evolution that was modified, NOT discarded entirely, with new evidence. Raup objected to oversimplified ideas of relationships and using single species as examples, not evolution or even Darwinian evolution. Notice how he ends the bulletin article: "Raup" The ideas I have discussed here are rather new and have not been completely tested. No matter how they come out, however, they are having a ventilating effect on thinking in evolution and the conventional dogma is being challenged. If the ideas turn out to be valid, it will mean that Darwin was correct in what he said but that he was explaining only a part of the total evolutionary picture. The part he missed was the simple element of chance! (p. 29) Emphasis added. Please don't use sources that continue to practice quote mining. They're more likely too stupid to know what they're talking about, or too dishonest to care. The simple truth is that the fossil record does have plentiful examples of transitions from one group to another. By the way, macroevolution is not only supported by masses of indirect evidence, we have seen and documented cases of it happening, where new species evolve from another. Speciation is a macroevolution event. On the contrary, there is nothing on which to base an argument against macroevolution. "Shalom My Soul" Evolution, is still in its theory stage because not enough evidence has been gathered to put it in the Scientific Theory stage, so how can you say that it is true? That's not how "theory" works. It's perfectly valid for something to be a fact and have a theory explain how the fact works. It doesn't go hypothesis -> theory -> law/fact. Quote: 1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 194 cool . In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts: * Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago; * Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history; * Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors; * Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change. Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well. 2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003). 3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact. 4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact. 5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html Quote: Besides which, I wasn't reading the Bible to learn about science, I was proving that it is abserd for Christians to believe in Evolution when their own Bible which they are suppose to believe in at all times clearly says that Humans did not evolve from Monkeys, or anything for that matter except Dust and God's breath! Fortunately most Christians are not as naive as you. See also: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH055.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA602.html "Shalom My Soul" I didn't seen it provide efficiant information on the Molecular structure of things, which provides an even WIDER gap in Evolutionary theories. Example? If it where true that one thing developed from another then the why is it that Amino Acid differances are so largely differant? Should the less complex beings be matched with such things as other less complex beings? And same with those more complex beings? But they aren't in fact it is almost the opposite in some cases. That doesn't make any damn sense, so I can't rebut it until you clear it up. Quote: Also, how do you explain the fact that in order for a species to macroevolutionize itself it must add on DNA traits? A) That's not true. In one of the links above, e. coli bacteria speciates by means of a certain trait being rendered non-functional. B) Mutations can add traits because so much of our genes are redundant. Many times a segment of DNA will become replicated unnecessarily during the copying process, giving us two copies of the same gene. If one of those copies is altered, that gives us a new gene with the old one still intact in the other copy. There are also viral stretches of DNA in the genomes of all known living things, including ours. These bits of DNA did not originate through mutation, but introduction by viruses. In fact the patterns of inheritance of these viral DNA patches among different species is yet more evidence for common descent: humans and other apes share more stretches of viral DNA than humans and horses, and humans/horses more than humans/fish. It's well known that mutations can produce new features. One of the links above about speciation mentions a new feature documented in a population of lizards, whose ancestors were well-known and documented, so that the new lizards are better able to eat vegetation. Quote: Even today's studies say that when a mutation occures in something it ends up for the worse, Wrong, otherwise you would be worse than your parents and they would be worse than their parents and on and on ad nauseam because mutations happen in every single generation in humans. The vast majority of mutations are neutral. Of the small minority that have an effect, most of the remainder may be harmful, but harmful mutations are selected against and the small number of beneficial mutations are encouraged to spread by natural selection. In the end, most mutations that make a difference enough to stick around are helpful. |
|
"Romuel"
I mean, here in M&R we have kind of a schizophrenia on the subject. We either have 'My faith tells me homos r bad' or we have Eteponge.
