RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Official Uncommonly Dense Discussion Thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 11970
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2006,10:18   

Woo, DaveScot has pissed some people off with his possible acceptance of "macroevolution" and common descent.



I donít like to be so blunt but if the ID movement doesnít get its head & tail wired together and accept as settled science that evolution happened, that only the mechanism of random mutation as the sole source of variation is in dispute, then its doomed to the dustbin of history. A million scientists arenít entirely wrong. They got a lot of the story right. Their only error is foisting a notion that evolution is an unguided, unplanned process. Thatís purely a dogmatic concoction driven by an atheistic worldview and in denial of some very compelling evidence to the contrary - namely the patterns in the machinery of life which defy explanation by any plausible unintelligent self-assembly mechanism. Maybe such mechanism will be discovered in the future but for the nonce the benefit of doubt must go to design in any rational, objective analysis.

Comment by DaveScot ó January 23, 2006 @ 3:03 pm


Natural selection isnít even operative in small isolated populations. Itís overwhelmed by genetic drift. To say that speciation is the result of natural selection exhibits shallow knowledge depth in the modern synthesis. Genetic drift is quite capable of speciation. The question is whether thereís any new information required for speciation or is it just a matter of rearranging the deck chairs. It looks to me like most speciation is a mere rearrangement of the deck chairs - a different expression of information that was already there in the genome in question.

In any case, the bottom line remains that no one has observed RM+NS creating any novel cell type, tissue type, organ, or body plan. Itís an huge extrapolation to assign RM+NS massive creative power never once observed in over a century of trying to observe it in nature or reproduce it in a laboratory.

Comment by DaveScot ó January 23, 2006 @ 3:11 pm

DaveScot said: >.[sic]

I do not agree at all with that. Where is all that evidence? To believe in common ancestry is to believe in macroevolution. Both are false and without any proof. Thatís a strange error ID supporters should not do.

Comment by niwrad ó January 23, 2006 @ 3:12 pm

  29999 replies since Jan. 16 2006,11:43 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (1000) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]