Joined: May 2007
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 27 2008,18:16)|
|Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Oct. 26 2008,13:36)|
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 26 2008,14:48)|
|I'm predicting that future research will bring to light more problems that cannot be resolved - so long as scientists insist on undirected natural mechanisms.|
Implying, of course, that the answers lie in directed supernatural mechanisms, which must be your favorite source of explanations. And for which you provide no support other than your incredulity about current scientific attempts to provide explanations.
OK, Daniel. I'll bite. What sort of research should be pursued if we want to invoke directed supernatural mechanisms? What kinds of experiments do you propose that would help you find the "truth" that you allegedly are seeking?
I don't think we need to look for a "direct supernatural mechanism" (as you call it). Such a search would be futile anyway. No, the avenue that I think holds the most promise is the evidence that life on this planet was a planned event. One way of pursuing this with empirical research would be to follow the path Denton et al. outlined and seek the answer to the question: "Are there laws that govern evolution?". Nomogenesis (evolution determined by law) is not a new concept, in fact it was the title of a book written in the 1920's by the great Russian biologist Leo Berg. That book cataloged evidences of evolution by law including convergent evolution, mimicry, the polyphyletic origin of similar forms, and the geographical landscape as an agency for evolution. Schindewolf, as you know, continued where Berg left off and cataloged the fossil evidence in favor of such an interpretation. Others such as Pierre Grasse, John Davison and now Denton have continued in this vein.
The thing that you may not realize is that modern research, when viewed from the perspective of nomogenesis, unwittingly backs up such a view. I'll give you an example: The paper I recently read entitled Mitochondrial Evolution contains the following:
|The possibility has been raised more generally that the earliest branchings of the eukaryotic tree may all be suspect for similar reasons (34, 53), with both “early” and “intermediate” branchings actually collapsing to an unresolved radiation (polychotomy) (54). The emerging revisionist view of eukaryotic evolution is a scenario characterized by a massive and virtually simultaneous radiation (big bang) at the base of the eukaryotic tree, involving virtually all extant eukaryotic phyla (34). [my bolding]|
Such an observation is a prediction of nomogenesis. There are countless predictions put forth by Schindewolf, Berg, Davison, etc., that evolution consisted of rapid "explosions" of phyla.
Here's another observation from the same paper:
|If, on the other hand, “the divergence of amitochondriate protists and crown eukaryotes is radically overestimated and actually corresponds to a very short period of time” (55), then the above time conflict between the origin of mitochondria and the divergence of the a-Proteobacteria is essentially resolved. We believe this solution is the most consistent with existing data. [again, my bolding]|
Again, this radical overestimate of the time involved for divergence of phyla is no surprise to those espousing nomogenesis, but is rather a prediction of the theory.
We are here to amuse ourselves and thankyou thankyou thankyou.
Man you have scored the trifecta.
Quoting krackpots from the 1920's and 1990's AND YOUR CONSIDERED OPINION!!!!!
.....ooooooooh that's so last century
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his
clownDaveTard suit." dogdidit
Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror. DAVE TARD