|
|
#81
09-24-2007, 10:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] could you post a link? [/ QUOTE ] Here [/ QUOTE ] NotReady, I read the article you linked, and all it is saying is that its not easy for scientists to make phylogenetic trees of hominid species (evolutionary family trees, drawn from anatomical and genetic information). This doesn't mean that its impossible. Of course the author Fuz Rana, takes this to mean that the scientists are spinning their wheels and the quest is hopeless. There has been progress in phylogenetic analysis of many clades of animals. Including humans. enter this article. CLIFFS NOTES: these scientists have tracked repetitive DNA fragments in primates. These 'retroposons' get copied and proliferate throughout a genome with successive generations. A genetic tree drawn up from the analysis of spread of these retroposons in human, and primate DNAsources matches the family tree that is drawn up from mophological analysis (e.g. evolutionary family trees based on anatomy) and BTW NotReady, did you ever watch the video from my OP? 
|
|
#82
09-24-2007, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you suppose that is? [/ QUOTE ] For the same reason a huge majority of those who accept it do so. Nice well poisoning. Notice how it cuts both ways?
|
|
#83
09-24-2007, 11:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
And there are many examples in controlled and natural settings of evolution actually happening - the peppered moths are the classic example. [/ QUOTE ] Nobody really questions the kind of microevolution represented by peppered moths or finch beaks, even though as I understand it the moth example was fraudulent and the beaks don't really evolve in a line but bounce back and forth. Are you really saying it matters to current technology whether OCA is true?
|
|
#84
09-24-2007, 11:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
Notice how it cuts both ways? [/ QUOTE ] No, actually I don't. There are many, many religious people who accept evolution. Conversely, there are approximately zero non-religious people who don't. If it really is purely a question of insufficient evidence, why are all the people on your side religious?
|
|
#85
09-24-2007, 11:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
Conversely, there are approximately zero non-religious people who don't. [/ QUOTE ] If evolution is false, what's the alternative? But for Christians, evolution is an alternative method of biodiversity. So the real ulterior motives belong to the non-religious. Can we poison some more wells?
|
|
#86
09-24-2007, 11:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
Might I ask what this ulterior motive is?
|
|
#89
09-24-2007, 11:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ken Miller: scientist and believeing Catholic
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Might I ask what this ulterior motive is? [/ QUOTE ] Atheism. [/ QUOTE ] Miller is a athiest? I KNEW it !! luckyme [/ QUOTE ] Aaw, I was going to smack him in the head with some semantic nitpicking about the meaning of ulterior, and now you went along and made it fit! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
