Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

Mike, I just making light. I know that, alloys aside, you're an Iron Age Man, and that's one of the things that I respect most about you.

The etymology of the name "Ferrara"
Occupational name for a metal worker or smith, derived from Latin ferrum meaning "iron", and thus an Italian version of Smith. The name may also refer to an inhabitant of the city of Ferrara.

Regards,
Iron Mike

 

[Thalassamania]

The etymology of the name "Ferrara"
Occupational name for a metal worker or smith, derived from Latin ferrum meaning "iron", and thus an Italian version of Smith. The name may also refer to an inhabitant of the city of Ferrara.

Regards,
Iron Mike

I guess it was fate.

 

[TCDiver1]

I believe this is where we all start humming "Iron Man".

 

[MikeFerrara]

I guess it was fate.

I don't know about that but since the Italian branch of my family wasn't from the province or city of Ferrara (Sicilian as far as I know), I don't think I'm the first blacksmith in the family.

 

[MikeFerrara]

So...

After having the TM article covering the debate between Collins and Dawkins brought to my attention, I found the aticle and read it. Afterward, I looked up a few other things written by Dr. Collins.

He isn't exactly someone we could think of as uneducated or ignorant of the sciences. While he doesn't debate the theory of evolution or the measured age of the Earth, he sees the finger prints and the footprints of God when he looks at the natural world.

Collins is far from being the only (or the first) scientist with similar views. Newton and Pasteur are a couple of other big names that would have fallen into that camp. In the three of them we have some of the greatest contributions to science in history...Newton (physics, calculus and optics) Pasteur (pasteurization/germ theory and imunization) and Collins (mapping of the human genome). Collins has a book out called "The Language of God" and Newton devoted a good portion of his life to Biblical studies and wrote quit a bit on the subject.

I suppose there a number of lessons here but especially for those of us who might feel the need to make it an either/or proposition.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Here's something kind of interesting that I haven't seen mentioned yet in the thread. I'm having trouble getting to the "fact sheets they link" but I'm still trying.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

 

[H2Andy]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/15/neanderthal.ap/index.html

To bad its fantasy.

that pic of the Neanderthal is too much...

our luck to find the Fabio of the Neanderthal world

 

[H2Andy]

Here's something kind of interesting that I haven't seen mentioned yet in the thread. I'm having trouble getting to the "fact sheets they link" but I'm still trying.

http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

sigh

same old same old, Mike

first, there is no real scientific difference between macro evolution and micro evolution. they are both the same process, at different time intervals. evolution is evoluiton: a series of changes in genetic makeup over time (time is your variable)

second, the Cambrian explosion must be understood as a "snapshot" of tremendous change. evolution has no problems with sudden, accelerated change, particularly if prompted by environmental changes. besides, recent DNA studies show that the basic "body plan flexibility" that would allow dramatic change in a short period of time is present in all DNA studied on Earth (in other words, DNA is modular, and it can make great changes simply by rearrangement ... remember that word from the chimp-human discussion?)


third, the last guy looks at old issues representing 5% of evolutionary evidence and ignores the 95% of evidence that supports it

if you look hard enough at any subject, you will find a few misteps. basically, it's like arguing that American democracy is worthless because slavery was part of the constitution. we fixed it; we're moving on.

by the way, none of the issues listed are "beaktrhough discoveries"

scientists have known about them for years

 

[MikeFerrara]

Is anyone here familiar with these papers? I haven't looked yet but are they accessible online?

From http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118

David L.Stern,"Perspective:Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the
Problem of Variation,"Evolution 54 (2000):1079-1091.

"One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved …
Historically,the neo-Darwinian synthesizers stressed the predominance of
micromutations in evolution,whereas others noted the similarities between some
dramatic mutations and evolutionary transitions to argue for macromutationism."

• Robert L.Carroll,"Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,"Trends in Ecology
and Evolution,15 (January,2000):27.

"Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of
extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and
species.”

• Andrew M.Simons,"The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,"
Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002):688-701.

"A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of
microevolution and macroevolution --whether macroevolutionary trends are
governed by the principles of microevolution."

 

[H2Andy]

i only know the last article, and Mike, you got to read it

even you will have to admit it is quoted totally out of context. the author goes on to state:

the evolutionary outcome of major environmental change may be viewed as identical in principle to the outcome of minor environmental fluctuations over the short-term.

(i.e. both micro and macro work the same way; there's no difference; btw, that's the majority position in science).

basically all those quotes are short snippets taken out of context, again, from the edges of research, and represented as the majority opinion

[edit] never mind...see my next post