The Evolutionary Theory and Schools

[blucher]

.............

Seems to me absolute denial is a card in the evolutionist's deck, the creationist is willing to view all evidence.

You have no evidence nor do you foster Science. Your ONLY intention is to bolster a creation myth since your silly bible is regarded as LITERAL by the hayseeds of ignorance.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Trailer Parody

LITERAL Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Trailer Parody HD - YouTube

LITERAL Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Trailer Parody HD - YouTube

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

I respect that as a statement of what you "believe". Seems to me absolute denial is a card in the evolutionist's deck, the creationist is willing to view all evidence.

Based on your previous comments, "evidence" includes "someone told me about a lump of coal with a gold chain in it. Nobody has ever actually seen that lump of coal, but the story had to come from somewhere, so it must be true and disproves evolution"

In that, you ARE correct, science doesn't consider such "evidence" and creationists do. I agree with you completely, so of course I reject your conclusions.

I was a member of the Creation Research Society for years and its papers addressed problems without ignoring counter theories. ICR seems above board on this as well.

You know what? It's POSSIBLE that they were above board on it. On the other hand, the very names of their organizations demand bias. Do you know what would happen to a biology lab if creationism were conclusively and unequivocally proven? Nothing. The scientists would go to work the following morning, incorporating that new data into their research. What would happen to an organization named "Creation Research Society" if creationism was conclusively and unequivocally disproven?

That sort of bias inherently colors everything they say.

[blucher]

...................

What would happen to an organization named "Creation Research Society" if creationism was conclusively and unequivocally disproven?

I find it most telling that the "First Peoples" website serves all North American Indian tribes and all accept their creation myths as CREATION MYTHS.


Curious that these aboriginal peoples have no problem sorting fairy tales from fact but Baptists can't accept monkeys unless they're on a pulpit.

[blucher]

....................

the creationist is willing to view all evidence

Like they try to suppress Leakey's discoveries? Creationists look at fairy tales and expect the rest of us to dumb down to their level.

[Eddie_T]

I did not climb Ararat or see the lump of coal but I did journey to Addis Ababa and saw Lucy. Those things do not represent ad hoc argument just "that my interest was awakened. Afterwards I began to notice things that failed to fit the evolutionary mold, such as fossils in the wrong strata, the nonexistence of a geological column in the right order and even a lump of coal with a golden chain in it."

I am fascinated with things like the tarantula wasp that stalks a tarantula, stings it and lays its egg in the immobilized tarantula. Then I ponder how natural selection ever made such a path and whether there is enough time in the universe for a naked gene to make that much progress, and why? Or maybe the Jewel Beetle that possessing IR sensors envied by the Forest Service flies in droves straight towards forest fires to mate and lay its eggs in charred bark.

Here's an interesting clip regarding how big a billion is: That's a Fact

[blucher]

..............

Then I ponder how natural selection ever made such a path and whether there is enough time in the universe for a naked gene to make that much progress, and why? Or maybe the Jewel Beetle that possessing IR sensors envied by the Forest Service flies in droves straight towards forest fires to mate and lay its eggs in charred bark.

I was still a kid when someone explained 17 year locusts to me. The explanation seemed pretty weird so I researched it at the library.

The locusts long ago had a predator that evolved to emerge in sync with the locusts to feast on them.

Was there time? Time enough to sophisticate that evolution into something almost unbelievable. Certainly millions of years passed as the two species fought their evolutionary struggle to pursue & elude. Today no one is certain what the predator threat really was but the locust seems the prime example of evolution related patience.

It seems the height of arrogance for a latecomer like man to impose a creation myth on billions of years of the universe doing the things that made life even possible. Ultimately the best proof of evolution will probably be the end of man as nature concludes it was a flawed direction and moves past man.

Good to keep in mind........

[Eddie_T]

I wonder how the naked gene ever found a mechanism that resulted in a tarantula Wasp stalking its prey in which to lay its egg. Where did it lay its egg prior to this? Why did its offspring follow the same pattern? Whatever instilled the desire to do so? The cicada wasps are also amazing, but don't they prey on dog-days cicadas rather than 17 year cicadas? These examples better fit creationist predictions for intelligent design.

[rivalarrival]

Originally Posted by Eddie_T

I wonder how the naked gene ever found a mechanism that resulted in a tarantula Wasp stalking its prey in which to lay its egg. Where did it lay its egg prior to this?

You just made the presumption that the tarantula wasp existed separate and apart from the tarantula. If it is true that the wasp cannot exist without the tarantula, then evolutionary theory tells us that this wasp developed this dependency after tarantulas came into existence. So, assuming that there is no substitute to tarantulas for a tarantula wasp to reproduce (Which seems a rather poor assumption, in my opinion), the answer to your question is "It didn't lay its eggs prior to this, because it didn't yet exist" The progenitors of the tarantula wasp may have been able to reproduce without the need for a tarantula. Natural selection may have favored the tarantula-method of reproduction to the exclusion of all other methods.

These are hypotheses. They could be tested through various methods, such as keeping the wasps isolated from tarantulas, instead exposing them to other creatures that exist(ed) in their environment.


Evolutionary theory answers the age old question: which came first, the chicken or the egg? The answer is unequivocally the egg. The first chicken egg was laid by a proto-chicken, something that was one generation of mutations away from "chicken".

Why did its offspring follow the same pattern? Whatever instilled the desire to do so?

Perhaps most of them didn't, and simply died off without reproducing. Perhaps some tried to use other small desert creatures, but those that chose tarantulas were somehow better off.

Every time I used the word "perhaps", I described a testable hypothesis.

The cicada wasps are also amazing, but don't they prey on dog-days cicadas rather than 17 year cicadas? These examples better fit creationist predictions for intelligent design.

Why shouldn't cicadas naturally evolve a 17-year life span?

[blucher]

...............

Why shouldn't cicadas naturally evolve a 17-year life span?
__________________

It's not that they should not because evolution is how creatures gain advantages but that to evolve an emergence/reproductive cycle so extreme is pretty rare. That they were in a race with their prime predator (who may no longer even exist) speaks to their talent as evolutionary stars of a sort.

It's akin to armadillos looking around and noticing Buicks are cutting into their numbers and then all the armadillos evolved to look like Buicks.

[oldognewtrick]

Originally Posted by blucher

...............



It's not that they should not because evolution is how creatures gain advantages but that to evolve an emergence/reproductive cycle so extreme is pretty rare. That they were in a race with their prime predator (who may no longer even exist) speaks to their talent as evolutionary stars of a sort.

It's akin to armadillos looking around and noticing Buicks are cutting into their numbers and then all the armadillos evolved to look like Buicks.

That 53 is sweet...I think thats what I want to be when I grow up.