I
itinerant1
Guest
Thanks. I am interested in what Dr. Woese has to say.
- Status
H
hugh_r.miller
Guest
Like I proposed in the last line on post 138: IDevolution better fits what we actually see than the word evolution. In other words drop the word evolution; it’s too general as it allows evolutionists to confuse and deceive the innocent and uninformed who don’t understand variation within species or variation in kinds and breeding [Of course that excludes the evos on the elevated level of this discussion group; you guys wouldn’t deliberately deceive]. The uninformed are just persuaded by the simple claim that evolutionary science is continuing to look for our ancestors from Africa that go back seven million years and perhaps before that with apes on back to bacterium; others folks, the more religious variety just smell something is rotten in the media and science and ignore the claims of evolution which is really bad for science.
The latest is that birds “evolved” from dinosaurs, another hot and persuasive evo subject that got 15 minutes on “60 minutes” a few months ago with Big Jack Horner and Mary Schwietizer saying that within five years we will be getting: Eureka, a dinochicken by interrupting something during the development of the embryo.
Therefore replace the word evolution with IDvolution which could eliminate the confusion and deceptiveness like the claims that Darwin’s finches were a good example of “evolution” or the black and white moth was a good example of “evolution”. Then use the word macroevolution to describe what the TE’s are claiming over millions and billions of years. For the sake of discussion if macroevolution be true maybe within the genes there is a trigger that “hypes” up rapid macroevolution during cataclysms. Who knows!
Thus I do think it’s perfectly logical and fair to discuss which came first, this or that cell or the chicken or the egg to see if evolution from a common ancestor is possible — that’s your expertise, StA, Rossum etc. with Buffalo, Grannymh and Ed West giving you there best shot. You know my position and the evidences so I will just provide a polite reminder.
But you see if those millions and billions of years don’t exist then you must adopt a sort of “hopeful monster theory” or Velikovski’s theory of macroevolution of one species or kinds into many others during recent catastrophes on the order of say 20,000 to 45,000 C-14 years BP. I’m interested to see how you might handle that; of course keeping the Deity in the picture will depend on your theology.
Big Jack Horner sat in a corner**
scraping a dinosaur bone.**
Some soft tissue appeared
And he said, "Just what I feared!
**Evolution’s long ages are gone!" **
I
itinerant1
Guest
Glad you said a little more.Like I proposed in the last line on post 138: IDevolution better fits what we actually see than the word evolution. In other words drop the word evolution; it’s too general as it allows evolutionists to confuse and deceive the innocent and uninformed who don’t understand variation within species or variation in kinds and breeding [Of course that excludes the evos on the elevated level of this discussion group; you guys wouldn’t deliberately deceive]. The uninformed are just persuaded by the simple claim that evolutionary science is continuing to look for our ancestors from Africa that go back seven million years and perhaps before that with apes on back to bacterium; others folks, the more religious variety just smell something is rotten in the media and science and ignore the claims of evolution which is really bad for science.
The latest is that birds “evolved” from dinosaurs, another hot and persuasive evo subject that got 15 minutes on “60 minutes” a few months ago with Big Jack Horner and Mary Schwietizer saying that within five years we will be getting: Eureka, a dinochicken by interrupting something during the development of the embryo.
Therefore replace the word evolution with IDvolution which could eliminate the confusion and deceptiveness like the claims that Darwin’s finches were a good example of “evolution” or the black and white moth was a good example of “evolution”. Then use the word macroevolution to describe what the TE’s are claiming over millions and billions of years. For the sake of discussion if macroevolution be true maybe within the genes there is a trigger that “hypes” up rapid macroevolution during cataclysms. Who knows!
Thus I do think it’s perfectly logical and fair to discuss which came first, this or that cell or the chicken or the egg to see if evolution from a common ancestor is possible — that’s your expertise, StA, Rossum etc. with Buffalo, Grannymh and Ed West giving you there best shot. You know my position and the evidences so I will just provide a polite reminder.
But you see if those millions and billions of years don’t exist then you must adopt a sort of “hopeful monster theory” or Velikovski’s theory of macroevolution of one species or kinds into many others during recent catastrophes on the order of say 20,000 to 45,000 C-14 years BP. I’m interested to see how you might handle that; of course keeping the Deity in the picture will depend on your theology.
Big Jack Horner sat in a corner**
scraping a dinosaur bone.**
Some soft tissue appeared
And he said, "Just what I feared!
**Evolution’s long ages are gone!" **
I don’t know anything at all about your views. I know the word “evolution” is a problem. Darwin only used it a couple of times. The etymology of the “evolution” makes it highly inappropriate for the theory , but we seem to be stuck with it for now.
So, when you say, “But you see if those millions and billions of years don’t exist” I take to mean you believe the earth is rather young. Is that correct? If so, what is the ultimate basis for your position?
Also, do you think species are instrumental in the production of new species?
Darwinism has a boatload of problem in my view, but I think there are some fundamental truths in the theory that remain on solid ground. This “IDevolution”, as far as what little has been said about it, has some serious problems, in may estimation, that need to be addressed and resolved. Hopefully, Buffalo will be open to a critical and objective look at his ideas.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I haven’t gone to the linked page yet, but the question whether evolutionary theory should evolve has to be “yes” since it is a fairly young science and very incomplete in its explanations. Something would be seriously wrong if the theory did not change, perhaps dramatically so over time. Of course, the theory has changed quite a lot over the last hundred years or so, already. So, perhaps the question whether the theory should evolve is a moot question.
B
buffalo
Guest
This article shows why and gives some support for the core and its front loaded capabilities.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Okay. I will check it out soon. Is that the only source you are relying on for the core hypothesis?
B
buffalo
Guest
Patience.
I
itinerant1
Guest
No problemo, pal. I am just curious about your ideas. At least you are thinking about the issues.
M
Mr_Skeptic
Guest
There’s intentional deception involved? That’s quite an indictment.
What are you basing that on?If anything, its the Kent Hovinds, the Ken Hams, the Stephen Meyer’s, the Ray Comforts, and the rest, who, even after being demonstrably shown and repeatedly debunked, still persist in their nonsense. They know better.
Faith…at all costs…even if it destroys logical, rational and critical thinking.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
I’ve been at a conference where YEC Duane Gish repeated a lie on which he had been exposed before.
B
buffalo
Guest
I guess there are liars all around. The search for truth is indeed difficult.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Indeed, Buffalo. By the way, if you are interested in checking out the ASA conference in Washington in July, the registration and housing form will be issued in a week or two, along wit the conference program.
E
edwest2
Guest
Tell me what happens when people don’t believe in a certain age for the earth? Lose the ability to drive? Operate a computer? Tie their shoes? What happens?There’s intentional deception involved? That’s quite an indictment.
If anything, its the Kent Hovinds, the Ken Hams, the Stephen Meyer’s, the Ray Comforts, and the rest, who, even after being demonstrably shown and repeatedly debunked, still persist in their nonsense. They know better.
Faith…at all costs…even if it destroys logical, rational and critical thinking.
God bless,
Ed
I
itinerant1
Guest
Wonderful…a link to an article behind a pay wall…do you get some kind of commission?
H
hugh_r.miller
Guest
I base that on the misuse of the word evolution as a general term.There’s intentional deception involved? That’s quite an indictment.
If anything, its the Kent Hovinds, the Ken Hams, the Stephen Meyer’s, the Ray Comforts, and the rest, who, even after being demonstrably shown and repeatedly debunked, still persist in their nonsense. They know better.
Faith…at all costs…even if it destroys logical, rational and critical thinking.
Microevolution is NOT the same as macroevolution but the word “evolution” is often used to imply macroevolution or descent from a common ancestor when variation within a species or kind is not explained when Darwin’s finches or variance between black and white moths in England are noted. The word “evolution” is very confusing and I think IDvolution may be a better way to differentiate between macroevolution and variation within a species like the huge variety of dogs, moth colors, and finches with different size beaks. The misuse of the word “evolution” may not be deliberate deception but the scientists so claiming the above variances sure don’t know their science very well just like Kent Hovind may have got a number of his “facts” wrong.
Big Jack Horner sat in a corner**
scraping a dinosaur bone.**
Some soft tissue appeared
And he said, "Just what I feared!
**Evolution’s long ages are gone!" **
B
buffalo
Guest
Did you pay? If so I will be looking forward to the big commission.
Here - I did a search and it is here - free.
I
itinerant1
Guest
Do you really want to know what happens?
If one believes in an earth much younger than its actual age then his (or her’s) mind shrinks by the corresponding percentage that the fantasized age has missed the mark. For example, whatever percentage 6,000 or 10,000 years is of 4.54 billion years , (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%), the mind of said believer shrinks by the corresponding percentage. This effect is fully predictable and calculable with an accuracy of +/- 1%.
Fortunately, the self-induced micro-cephalic dysfunction is fully reversible if diagnosed and treated in time with the appropriate cognitive therapy. The mind will then expand towards its natural size limit to the degree or percentage that one’s belief approximates the actual age of the earth.
Note: YEC’s who believe the earth is 4.54 billion years old in appearance, but was created 6,000 years ago, have been known to experience only one brain hemisphere collapse by the corresponding percentage of their error.
I
itinerant1
Guest
I believe design theorist MIchael Denton, uses “microevolution” to include not just variations within a species but speciation itself. And he describes situations in which he thinks are undeniable evidence for speciation. Be that as it may, he does define how he is using the terms that he does use.
Variability within species was well known to Darwin, as you know, but he did not know the source of this variability.
One question here is whether the processes that account for intra-specific variation are any different than those that lead to speciation. If one denies that speciation occurs, then I would ask what they think of the Denton’s (and others’) undeniable evidence for inter-specific transformism.
The problem of “evolution” is more complicated by the fact Darwin had five major theories of transformism, which we lump together as “evolution”, though this was not the case with the early evolutionists, such as Lamarck, Haeckel, de Vries, T.H. Morgan, T.H. Huxley, etc.
The five major theories are (following Ernst Mayr):
- The non-constancy of species (the basic theory of evolution)
- The descent of all organisms from common ancestors (branching evolution)
- The gradualness of evolution (no saltations, no discontinuities)
- The multiplication of species (the origin of diversity)
- Natural selection
S
StAnastasia
Guest
"Astronomers, incidentally, now trace things back before Darwin’s ‘simple beginning’ and set his vision in a still broader expanse of space and time.
"We are starting to understand how, starting from some still mysterious genesis event nearly 14 billion years ago, atoms, stars, planets, and biospheres evolved - and how, on at least one planet around at least one star, Darwinian selection led to the emergence of creatures able to ponder their origins.
"Those who aren’t aware of these grand concepts are culturally deprived.
“Darwin’s ideas, like protons, proteins and Pythagoras, are the same the world over. Indeed science offers the only really global culture, and should transcend all differences of nationality and faith.”
- Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society
- Status