Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
| Quote (Ftk @ June 28 2007,07:34) | | Quote | | What is the difference between your explanation of the genesis of icefish globin genes and an explanation that would be given by a theistic evolutionist? |
That would depend on how far you go back in the evolutionary story. A TE would tell you that there is absolutely no indication that a Designer is necessary for the process....they merely believe in that ultimate designer on *faith*. There is no difference between a TE and an atheist except a feeling of *faith* that there is a divine creator.
I, OTOH, do not see any empirical evidence for common descent. Everything that has been offered is speculation and historical inference. So, I do not hold to the belief that there is no evidence for design. |
Waffling. Goal-post moving. Note that we are not discussing the difference between a TE and an atheist. We are discussing the difference between a TE and you.
Here's what you originally said.. | Quote | | Since virtually all other vertebrates (and especially other Antarctic fish) have red blood cells, it would seem quite probable that whatever ancestoral (sic) fish the icefish adapted from had originally had the gene which accounts for red blood cells. |
This sentence clearly accepts common descent. Theistic evolutionists accept common descent.
And when I asked about mechanisms for this speciation event, you wrote | Quote | | Well, duh, the mechanisms would be those of evolution. |
This sentence clearly accepts the mechanisms of evolution, AND the context is not microevolution, but speciation. Theistic evolutionists accept this mechanism.
| Quote | | Next question will be: What is that evidence? And, I will pass on that question because ID advocates have been giving ample evidence that the comos did not arise on there own from absolutely nothing. That is illogical. I've also already stated that science is not the only means we have to conclude that there is a divine cause of our existence. |
This is classic. You MUST (not will) pass on the question because ID advocates have NOT provided any evidence (only inference) for anything other than their own mendacity.
Re my weeks-old request for proof, with page numbers, of your claim that there is lots of unwarranted speculation in the Campbell intro biology text, you wrote: | Quote | | Now? Good grief, I'm on my way to work. Dave, the book states verbatim we arose through common descent from a minimicrobe, and bases everything in the book on the creation story of evolution. The whole book is based on speculation big guy...plain and simple. |
Baloney. Besides the fact that I (and several others) originally asked this question weeks ago, there is, as you say, a "mountain of evidence" for the idea that we arose by common descent from microscopic life forms. Statements supported by evidence are not unwarranted speculation. In the icefish example (a small foothill in that mountain range) you seemed to accept the basis for that evidence. It is, indeed, very hard to overlook those mountains once you open your eyes. On the contrary, there is NOT A SHRED of evidence (only inference) for your creation story.
So, to summarize, you have not provided any rebuttal to my conclusion that your view of the genesis of globin genes in icefish puts you in the same category as Miller and other theistic evolutionists. You have not provided any examples (and certainly no page numbers) for your claim that an intro biology book contains speculation.
Wanna try again, this time with some real facts or logic?
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
