I predict we will not see human beings evolve into another distinct and separate species... Certainly there is, and has been sufficient environmental influences, cloning, gene splicing, scientific experimentation, nuclear radioactivity etc. to produce mutations that are required for Darwinism to hold true for the human species... Evolutionary theory has to predict a new species evolving from a human being...unless there is something else at work beyond evolutionary theory.
>Certainly there is, and has been sufficient environmental >influences, cloning, gene splicing, scientific experimentation, >nuclear radioactivity etc. to produce mutations that are >required for Darwinism to hold true for the human species... The zTroll apparently thinks these thing occur overnight (relatively speaking). It'll happen... just don't hope to hang around and see it. JB
the point remains, ID = Creationism not necessarily just "modern" creationism, but also hindu, jain etc type creationism, renamed, rebranded or not... all the same form of craving for a soothing concept of ultimate causality / unity... thats just not there... but the craving is, right zizzz? cause thats what life is primarily about, craving, identifying causal relations leading to satisfactory outcomes in an attempt to expand the realm of such causal relationships etc for as long as they seem to remain causal etc... to the unenlightened at least...
why the waste of time... this should suffice if our friend likes to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibhajjavada otherwise just use common sense...
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Neutral_Evolution_Has_Helped_Shape_Our_Genome_999.html http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Researchers_Find_Evidence_Of_Very_Recent_Human_Adaptation_999.html now back to my cloud somewhere in the troposphere above the Jomon world... sayounara and happy craving to all our creationists moles on this thread ;-)
Rubbydubdubrubbish. How is this a useful and testable prediction? Especially since human evolution clearly shows that the homo sapien is the product of species evolution? Let me give you an example of a useful and testable prediction. There was this program on the Discovery Channel where a new species of orchid was found which had its nectar contained in a 12 inch long tube. Most Orchids have their nectar contained in short tubes. And most moths who eat that nectar have tongues which correspond to the length of the average orchid. The prediction was that there must be a moth which has a long tongue. So an evolutionary biologist set up a camera at night to try to test his prediction. Lo and behold, a new species of moth was found which had a long enough tongue fit for obtaining the nectar in this particular species of Orchid. What did this prove? Two things. That the prediction based upon evolutionary theory was correct and that it was testable. And that the orchid and the moth have evolved over millions of years to be perfect partners. Can we say that this particular species of Hawk moth and orchid were designed for each other? Sure. You can say anything. But can you prove it? No. It's pure conjecture based on unscientific dogma. On the flip side, you can't say, "geepers! Look at that Orchid! There must be a moth designed for it." Because design suggests a static state of being by the very nature of the word. And it puts a considerable onus upon the one who asserts that to prove symbiotic design as oppossed to proving punctuated evolution. http://encarta.msn.com/media_461530192_761578331_1_1/Darwin's_Hawk_Moth.html http://notexactlyrocketscience.word...ators-–-a-case-study-in-punctuated-evolution/
Parroting - do you know the difference between quotes of physicists and propaganda. Putting in Parenthesis - so what? it was not misleading. (and I am not sure if they did put in the parenthesis- Although I own the book and have read it, it is in storage as my family and I are selling our house and moving back to San Diego. ) I am not debating who designed the universe only that there is credible scientific argument that the universe is designed. Although I own the book and have read it, it is in storage as my family and I are selling our house and moving back to San Diego.
A likely story. But I'll take you at your word. Whenever you get your hands on the copy again, we'll swap notes. Without the context of Hawkings quote, one would be lead to believe he's refering to God in the sense of a designer. And that again is why it matters where you get the quote. I mean, don't you hate it when atheists quote things from the bible out of context to debase the bible or the God of it?