Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,176 Year: 5,433/9,624 Month: 458/323 Week: 98/204 Day: 14/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Galapagos finches
capeo
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 104 (335497)
07-26-2006 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by MurkyWaters
07-26-2006 1:16 AM


Re: here we go ...
Nearly all mutations are harmful or neutral at best.
This is a patently false premise propounded by creationists over and over:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
This though, LOL:
This is blatantly false. On the contrary, the creation axiom has been overwhelmingly supported by ALL of these fields, particularly genetics, archeology, geology and physics. 700,000 layers don't correspond to years but to snowfalls. How else can you account for the fact that an abandoned plane left there just a few years earlier was found miles under the ice?
I'm not sure what science journals you read but they aren't the ones actual scientists are publishing in. To date there has been not one single iota of scientific evidence supporting the "creationist axiom". Your third sentence displays a complete lack of understanding of ice core dating and the general climate of Antarctica, the DRIEST continent on the planet. So please cite some sources for a plane found under miles of ice. Aside from that check out a few laymen’s sites on how ice cores are dated:
http://www.chem.hope.edu/...ik/warming/IceCore/IceCore2.html
Ice core - Wikipedia
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/icecore/review.php
and a fairly recent (2004) technical Nature paper that displays, with great detail, the dating back to 780,000 years ago:
TYPO3 Exception
This doesn't pertain to finches so further discussion should be continued in a new post (after you've read the ascribed above).
So far, finches or no, your science is bad.
PS, the "evolutionary axiom" postulates nothing about abiogenisis. That too is a creationist attempt to make the argument philosophical rather than evidential.
Back to finches somebody.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by MurkyWaters, posted 07-26-2006 1:16 AM MurkyWaters has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Wounded King, posted 07-26-2006 3:53 PM capeo has replied

  
capeo
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 104 (335553)
07-26-2006 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Wounded King
07-26-2006 3:53 PM


Re: here we go ...
I think you overstate here.
Actually, I should have quoted the entire paragraph that was contained in because Murky states that:
I dispute your "sickle-cell" example as adding informational content. Nearly all mutations are harmful or neutral at best. Rarely, a loss or re-shuffling of genetic content has some side benefit like the loss of wings being beneficial to beetles on a windy island preventing them from being blown out to sea. Your example is this type of change.
Which I took as meaning random recombination cannot produce anything but informational loss. A statement that has been shown to be untrue in the lab (see above) as well as through computer modeling once selection is applied. (I believe Dawkins put something like this together). I should have been more thorough(I'm also tired of that argument), sorry.
As for The Lost Squadron, I'd never heard of it, but active glaciation, 50 years and not being miles under ice certainly explains it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Wounded King, posted 07-26-2006 3:53 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024