RE: Natural Selection (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins



Message

alex123 -> RE: Natural Selection (12/9/2008 5:14:15 AM)

quote:

Sorry if I was rude, I just don't appreciate you coming over here and accusing us of things like quoting people out of context without substantiation. You could show us a little respect or even give us the benefit of the doubt (or better yet, look up the quotes yourself) before making such accusations.

No probs. I, in turn, apologise if I have given the impression of disrespect - it was certainly not my intention. Having said that, I have a serious aversion to anyone who argue their case by wholesale 'cut-and-paste' from 'resource sites' (whether they be TO or AiG or whatever) without acknowledging that that is what they have done. Many sites do take quotes out of context and so often when it is possible to read the original work in its entirety one finds that the quote does not say what it seems to say. In the instance to which you refer I explained fully why I thought the quotes were misleading and asked for context (which was not forthcoming, confirming my suspicion of its origin). Had these quotes been on the net I would have been happy to look them up for myself but one is out of print and one is available on subscription only (and I am not prepared to pay $135 second-hand or $31 respectively to clarify someone else's citation!). I am all for citation in support of opinion but it has to be readily available for inspection and clarification.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Natural Selection (12/9/2008 12:02:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alex123
Many sites do take quotes out of context and so often when it is possible to read the original work in its entirety one finds that the quote does not say what it seems to say.


The quotes may not say what the author believes and someone may even make an argument from the quotes that the author disagrees with, but that's not to say they are out of context (so long as they don't attribute a position to the author that the author doesn't agree with). The most common thing is that people (including myself) may quote an author describing the difficulties with evolution and later trying to explain those difficulties with his/her model. In this situation, everyone knows the author does believe in evolution, so there is nothing wrong with quoting the author to describe the difficulties with evolution (or the difficulties with other models of evolution), so long as we don't attribute the author as being someone who disbelieves in evolution.

quote:


In the instance to which you refer I explained fully why I thought the quotes were misleading and asked for context (which was not forthcoming, confirming my suspicion of its origin).


No, actually what you did was assume the quotes were out of context. You asked for context because you did not know that the quotes were out of context.

quote:


I am all for citation in support of opinion but it has to be readily available for inspection and clarification.


Not all sources are easily available. I'm sure you can go to a library and find some of these sources, but it's not fair to require that we not discuss a source just because you don't have (easy) access to it.



Bettawrekonize -> RE: Natural Selection (12/9/2008 12:38:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: alex123
Morphologically related species from sequential strata often show slight changes in skeletal structure (homologies) suggesting that descendants of earlier species are inheriting small cumulative modifications.


First of all, the notion that they are "Morphologically related" is an assumption. They may have morphological similarities but that doesn't necessarily mean they are related.

Secondly, none of this is evidence for UCD (universal common descent). No one denies that modifications occur from generation to generation, but that's not to say that those inherited modifications from generation to generation are responsible for all of the diversity of life (ie: original appendages, limbs, organs, organ systems, body plans, the DNA that codes for them, etc...).

quote:


Analysis of these sequential changes shows broad divergence of different lineages from earlier common ancestors.


The notion that all variation is a result of divergence is speculation. There maybe some sequential changes (ie: from your grandparents to your parents to you), but even Darwin himself acknowledged the huge gaps within the fossil record (and attributed them to geological factors and the incomplete nature of the geological record).

quote:


Comparisons of the structures of homologous metabolic enzymes and control genes (e.g. Cytochrome C, Pax and Hox gene clusters) show accumulation of neutral mutations that follows the same broad outline of diversification.


Just because different structures of various metabolic enzymes and control genes have similarities and differences does not mean that every enzyme and every control gene from every organism originated from a common ancestor and is a result of accumulated mutations from that common ancestor.

You claim these comparisons show the accumulation of neutral mutations, I'm assuming you mean they show the accumulation of mutations from a common ancestor. Has anyone actually observed this accumulation of mutations from every organism originate from a common ancestor (in order for them to "show" such a thing), or is that just speculation? How can comparisons actually show such a thing? How exactly do these comparisons show such a thing? Just because similarities and differences exist is no reason to assume common ancestry.

Cars and bikes have similarities and differences, for instance, it doesn't mean they share a common ancestor. Yes, we can compare and contrast various genes, but we can do the same for files on a computer, just because similarities and differences exist does not mean those files (or a combination of code) share a common file (ie: in the case of a computer virus).



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI