No, just tell them to alert the public of any observed mutations in the virus which may threaten a human epidemic, and to also alert the public to the damage which racist theories of human evolution have already done to the reputation and credence of biologists, to say nothing of the psychological harm done to people of African descent.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Christian Schools Sue State University
- Thread starter jcrawford
- Start date
"The addition of natural numbers is an obvious and verifiable procedure but evolutionary biology is not observable or verifiable."
But we do observe the processes of evolution. Mutation, selection, recombination, gene flow, migration, etc. We see new genes being formed. We see novel features in organisms. We see new species apearing.
We also have a wealth of observations about changes in the past through observations in areas such as the fossil record, genetics, homology, ontogeny, atavisms, vestiges and biogeography.
"Can you name one biological application that would fall if evolution were abandoned tomorrow?"
I'll let someone far better qualified than me make the case.
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution by Theodosius Dobzhansky.
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml
"The testing and validation of good science is its predictive results that can be verified. Evolutionary biology has no such offerings."
Not true.
Let's take a simple example. If you look at whales, you will notice that they are mammals. From their development we know that they have little rear legs that are absorbed before birth. Some whales have been documented as being born with rear legs. There are vestiges of a pelvis. It is a safe prediction that whales descended from land animals.
All the way back, Darwin mistakenly supposed some swimming bear that evolved into a whale. The bear part was far from correct, but you can see how long ago it was recognized that whales had land dwelling ancesotors. So a prediction could be made that we should be able to find such ancestors.
Well, with some digging, scientists were able to discover that whales did evolve from lad dwelling ancestors. A series of transitional fossils have been found. Some of these include Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackrecetus, Indocetus, Gaviocetus, Durodon, and Basilosaurus.
One thing that became apparent in the fossil studies was that whales not only evolved from land animals, but that they evolved from even toed hooved animals. So another prediction can be made that whales should test as genetically similar to modern even toed hooved animals.
As it turns out, they do.
"Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates," Shimamura M, Yasue H, Ohshima K, Abe H, Kato H, Kishiro T, Goto M, Munechika I, Okada N, Nature. 1997 Aug 14;388(6643):666-70.
It also should seem a reasonable prediction that whales should also possess vestiges of genes from land dwelling animals. Once again, it turns out that they do.
"Olfactory receptors in aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates," J. Freitag, G. Ludwig, I. Andreini, P. Rössler, H. Breer, Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, Volume 183, Number 5, November 1998, Pages: 635 - 650.
This is a limited example. But for all of the types of evidence that support evolution, one can make predictions about what types of additional findings should be and should not be found.
But we do observe the processes of evolution. Mutation, selection, recombination, gene flow, migration, etc. We see new genes being formed. We see novel features in organisms. We see new species apearing.
We also have a wealth of observations about changes in the past through observations in areas such as the fossil record, genetics, homology, ontogeny, atavisms, vestiges and biogeography.
"Can you name one biological application that would fall if evolution were abandoned tomorrow?"
I'll let someone far better qualified than me make the case.
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution by Theodosius Dobzhansky.
http://www.2think.org/dobzhansky.shtml
"The testing and validation of good science is its predictive results that can be verified. Evolutionary biology has no such offerings."
Not true.
Let's take a simple example. If you look at whales, you will notice that they are mammals. From their development we know that they have little rear legs that are absorbed before birth. Some whales have been documented as being born with rear legs. There are vestiges of a pelvis. It is a safe prediction that whales descended from land animals.
All the way back, Darwin mistakenly supposed some swimming bear that evolved into a whale. The bear part was far from correct, but you can see how long ago it was recognized that whales had land dwelling ancesotors. So a prediction could be made that we should be able to find such ancestors.
Well, with some digging, scientists were able to discover that whales did evolve from lad dwelling ancestors. A series of transitional fossils have been found. Some of these include Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Dalanistes, Rodhocetus, Tackrecetus, Indocetus, Gaviocetus, Durodon, and Basilosaurus.
One thing that became apparent in the fossil studies was that whales not only evolved from land animals, but that they evolved from even toed hooved animals. So another prediction can be made that whales should test as genetically similar to modern even toed hooved animals.
As it turns out, they do.
"Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates," Shimamura M, Yasue H, Ohshima K, Abe H, Kato H, Kishiro T, Goto M, Munechika I, Okada N, Nature. 1997 Aug 14;388(6643):666-70.
It also should seem a reasonable prediction that whales should also possess vestiges of genes from land dwelling animals. Once again, it turns out that they do.
"Olfactory receptors in aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates," J. Freitag, G. Ludwig, I. Andreini, P. Rössler, H. Breer, Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology, Volume 183, Number 5, November 1998, Pages: 635 - 650.
This is a limited example. But for all of the types of evidence that support evolution, one can make predictions about what types of additional findings should be and should not be found.
You have taken the statement out of context. They understand their specific functions and applications but they have little understanding of the philosophy of science or its limitations. Many are technicians performing functions without a broader understanding of the whole field. IMHO, the majority of scientists and engineers do perfunctory tasks without a larger grasp of what science is. They color in the spaces but they fail to see the whole picture. From your posts, I would confidently include you and all evolutionists in this group. Without a proper theology and view of God, science is meaningless and absurd although the individual parts work. At a Princeton conference on mathematics a number of years ago, some NASA mathematicians expressed amazement that their calculation actually worked in real world space and time since there was no reason behind reality why mathematics should work in the physical world.
BTW, you were whining about ad hominem attacks in an earlier post when I busted your ideas. Now, you are doing a real ad hominem maneuver by innuendo. You have accused the poster (i.e. me) of doing something despicable by intimating that he/she stooped to low depths. This, my friend, is a real ad hominem attack. Since you are doing exactly what you accused me without grounds, then I confidentially say you are a hypocrite. You condemn in me what you allow in yourself. The definition fits, so wear it proudly.
</font>[/QUOTE]Nope.Just pointing out my opinion that I think that it is unreasonable to assert that most scientists that are doing the basic field and lab work regarding evolution do not understand science, do not understand their field, do not understand the basis of their own work and do not appreciate the strengths and weaknesses of their own work.
You have sserted this, but I see nothing to back it up. No demonstration that your assertions are true.
And BTW, I said nothing against you personally. I did not attack you. My attack was on the baseless assertion being made. You still have not supported it.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
No, just tell them to alert the public of any observed mutations in the virus which may threaten a human epidemic, and to also alert the public to the damage which racist theories of human evolution have already done to the reputation and credence of biologists, to say nothing of the psychological harm done to people of African descent. </font>[/QUOTE]In the current paradigm, "people of African descent" would be every one of us.
Paul of Eugene
New Member
(sigh) You must not read much. But here, read this article:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/news/flu/index-3.html
Paul of Eugene
New Member
(sigh) You must not read much. But here, read this article:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/news/flu/index-3.html </font>[/QUOTE]paidagogos,
I read it ... I did not see the answer to your question. Did I miss it? Shouldn't the answer to your question be obvious?
[ September 25, 2005, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: El_Guero ]
(sigh) You must not read much. But here, read this article:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/news/flu/index-3.html </font>[/QUOTE]paidagogos,
I read it ... I did not see the answer to your question. Did I miss it? Shouldn't the answer to your question be obvious? </font>[/QUOTE]It was right there.
And you could have just responded to Paul directly.
Do you see how absurd your constant misdirection is?
Maybe if you would use real information, I would waste some more of my time trying to learn from you.
But, as it is - you constantly use smoke and mirrors. I can learn so much more by doing a google search and reading through scientific material than I can learn from your constant misdirection.
PS - The change of a non-life form is not what evolution is about. The usage of a 'key word' in an article does not support for or against evolution.
Maybe if you would use real information, I would waste some more of my time trying to learn from you.
But, as it is - you constantly use smoke and mirrors. I can learn so much more by doing a google search and reading through scientific material than I can learn from your constant misdirection.
PS - The change of a non-life form is not what evolution is about. The usage of a 'key word' in an article does not support for or against evolution.
Why do we continue to allow people to discriminate against Christians and Christianity?
In 2005, this is an absurd waste of American tax dollars and time.
Discrimination against Christianity stifles true research. And while, evolution is counter to what I believe, I would not discriminate against aethiest students if they were in my classroom.
So why do Christians have to tolerate being discriminated against?
In 2005, this is an absurd waste of American tax dollars and time.
Discrimination against Christianity stifles true research. And while, evolution is counter to what I believe, I would not discriminate against aethiest students if they were in my classroom.
So why do Christians have to tolerate being discriminated against?
What misdirection? It was Paul's link, anyhow. But, the link shows how evolution produces new and deadly strains of influenza.
In any case, you made these same charges against me last week.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/108/11.html#000151
When I responded amd challenged you to justify your charges against me, you wnet suspiciously silent. You did not come back and show me where I was ever factually wrong. You never came back and told us where you think I am copying from.
I suppose when the data is against you, you attack the messenger. I guess when you cannot substantiate your allegations and assertions, you just wait a few days and repeat them. After all, a lie told often enough becomes believable. Just look at any YE website.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/108/11.html#000154
What misdirection? It was Paul's link, anyhow. But, the link shows how evolution produces new and deadly strains of influenza.
In any case, you made these same charges against me last week.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/108/11.html#000151
When I responded amd challenged you to justify your charges against me, you wnet suspiciously silent. You did not come back and show me where I was ever factually wrong. You never came back and told us where you think I am copying from.
I suppose when the data is against you, you attack the messenger. I guess when you cannot substantiate your allegations and assertions, you just wait a few days and repeat them. After all, a lie told often enough becomes believable. Just look at any YE website.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/108/11.html#000154
</font>[/QUOTE]No,
I answered you misdirection quite a lot just after my father passed away.
I had gotten to the point of calling your lies, 'lies'. I decided the Christ like attitude would be to allow God to judge you.
If you were to answer intelligently, I might enjoy reading some of your material. Unfortunately, the 3 or 4 evolutionistic theists on this site, that post arguements, never enter into dialogue. Nor do they, nor you, utilize reasonable material.
You often post dozens of pages of material to prove one point, without any explanation of 'how' your links apply.
Then you quote a responder to make you material look longer and more important.
What misdirection? It was Paul's link, anyhow. But, the link shows how evolution produces new and deadly strains of influenza.
In any case, you made these same charges against me last week.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/108/11.html#000151
When I responded amd challenged you to justify your charges against me, you wnet suspiciously silent. You did not come back and show me where I was ever factually wrong. You never came back and told us where you think I am copying from.
I suppose when the data is against you, you attack the messenger. I guess when you cannot substantiate your allegations and assertions, you just wait a few days and repeat them. After all, a lie told often enough becomes believable. Just look at any YE website.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/108/11.html#000154
</font>[/QUOTE]No,
I answered you misdirection quite a lot just after my father passed away.
I had gotten to the point of calling your lies, 'lies'. I decided the Christ like attitude would be to allow God to judge you.
If you were to answer intelligently, I might enjoy reading some of your material. Unfortunately, the 3 or 4 evolutionistic theists on this site, that post arguements, never enter into dialogue. Nor do they, nor you, utilize reasonable material.
You often post dozens of pages of material to prove one point, without any explanation of 'how' your links apply.
Then you quote a responder to make you material look longer and more important. </font>[/QUOTE]Do I look more intelligent, yet?
What misdirection? It was Paul's link, anyhow. But, the link shows how evolution produces new and deadly strains of influenza.
In any case, you made these same charges against me last week.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/108/11.html#000151
When I responded amd challenged you to justify your charges against me, you wnet suspiciously silent. You did not come back and show me where I was ever factually wrong. You never came back and told us where you think I am copying from.
I suppose when the data is against you, you attack the messenger. I guess when you cannot substantiate your allegations and assertions, you just wait a few days and repeat them. After all, a lie told often enough becomes believable. Just look at any YE website.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/108/11.html#000154
</font>[/QUOTE]No,
I answered you misdirection quite a lot just after my father passed away.
I had gotten to the point of calling your lies, 'lies'. I decided the Christ like attitude would be to allow God to judge you.
If you were to answer intelligently, I might enjoy reading some of your material. Unfortunately, the 3 or 4 evolutionistic theists on this site, that post arguements, never enter into dialogue. Nor do they, nor you, utilize reasonable material.
You often post dozens of pages of material to prove one point, without any explanation of 'how' your links apply.
Then you quote a responder to make you material look longer and more important. </font>[/QUOTE]Do I look more intelligent, yet? </font>[/QUOTE]Don't quit reading, yet. I might make a real point soon ... hold your breath ...
Back to the original thread.
Why should Christians be discriminated against?
Why do you think that I should agree with a University discriminating against Christians?
And do you really think that I would discriminate against fellow Believers just because you think you came from a monkey?
They have as much right to believe as you do. And they have as much right to a State sponsored university as you do (or did).
Why should Christians be discriminated against?
Why do you think that I should agree with a University discriminating against Christians?
And do you really think that I would discriminate against fellow Believers just because you think you came from a monkey?
They have as much right to believe as you do. And they have as much right to a State sponsored university as you do (or did).
paidagogos
Active Member
(sigh) You must not read much. But here, read this article:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/news/flu/index-3.html </font>[/QUOTE]Your cut and sarcasm was a little misplaced and fell flat especially since you used a school text for your support. This is hardly scientific literature. No, I have not read this particular article but after all I am not in the habit of surveying the serious scientific literature through high school biology texts. Since this seems to be your level of knowledge and comprehension, we have nothing to debate. I cannot possibly persuade a true believer who accepts the veracity of high school biology as the epitome of accurate scientific truth. Please remember that the most widely used high school biology text (Modern Biology by Otto, Graham, Towle, et. al.) was still teaching phylogenetic recapitulation just a decade ago although every reputable graduate embryology text and embryologist had repudiated this theory several decades previously. Perhaps they thought high school students and teachers wouldn’t know the difference because after all it is an impressive piece of evidence for the neophyte evolutionist. It is still good fodder to feed the naïve.
BTW, you didn’t answer my question but I presume that you are unable to give a cogent scientific answer.
I'm wondering what sort of alternate reality you two live in. . . UTEOTW posts from a variety of different sources, most of them well-respected journals. "High school biology texts" is hardly the limit of it. In all of the threads I have seen, it is the young earthers who try to debate from positions of limited understanding--and I noticed this over a year ago before I'd registered here and before I'd decided that young earth creationism is insupportable from the evidence.
If you'd like to try out someone new, how about replying to my post second from the top here. So far the only response I've gotten is essentially, "I'm the only one allowed to assume common ancestry." Discouraging, but not unexpected.
Finally, evolution in a virus is indeed evolution. Evolution is the preservation by natural selection of beneficial DNA mutations. Whether the entity involved has its own organelles or hijacks a cell's organelles is beside the point. Your question should be if mutation and natural selection can produce significant changes in an organism--and from my reading on other threads UTEOTW has already shown that it can.
Oh, by the way, the tactic of disqualifying the entire document posted above on the grounds that it comes from a high school text book and is therefore totally unreliable is an example of the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well." If you think it's wrong, go and prove it. Just throwing it out without examination is sloppy thinking.
If you'd like to try out someone new, how about replying to my post second from the top here. So far the only response I've gotten is essentially, "I'm the only one allowed to assume common ancestry." Discouraging, but not unexpected.
Finally, evolution in a virus is indeed evolution. Evolution is the preservation by natural selection of beneficial DNA mutations. Whether the entity involved has its own organelles or hijacks a cell's organelles is beside the point. Your question should be if mutation and natural selection can produce significant changes in an organism--and from my reading on other threads UTEOTW has already shown that it can.
Oh, by the way, the tactic of disqualifying the entire document posted above on the grounds that it comes from a high school text book and is therefore totally unreliable is an example of the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well." If you think it's wrong, go and prove it. Just throwing it out without examination is sloppy thinking.