Genesis 6:19.
Would you care to define "sort" for us in this context?
No need thanks, we've seen it four or five times now.
This has been dealt with by five or so posters, on multiple occasions. It's tantamount to spamming now, please desist, or start your own thread.
Unlike you, I suspect, I have read Schwartz's paper. It cautions about ignoring the assumptions inherent in molecular systematics, and encourages objective scrutiny.
I don't know why you have this strange obsession with this paper, do you think that critically examining the validity of scientific processes is somehow a bad thing?
Actually the quote is not saying that, as common ancestry is an accepted fact. The quote says that "degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness" is the assumption and that we should be wary of this assumption.
The author is optimistic... "Acknowledging that organismal development is a tightly controlled process lends itself to a melding of “morphology” and “molecules” in a way that can lead to more realistic models of evolutionary change and to methodological approaches to phylogenetic reconstruction."
I'm sure that you're attempting to argue against common descent, but so far you've provided nothing to suggest that it hasn't occurred with these strange misrepresentations of valid scientific research.
From the Online Etymology Dictionary:
sort (n.)
late 14c., "group of people, animals, etc.; kind or variety of person or animal," from Old French sorte "class, kind," from Latin sortem (nominative sors) "lot; fate, destiny; share, portion; rank, category; sex, class, oracular response, prophecy," from PIE root *ser- (2) "to line up."
I was asked to start my own thread on evolution, so I think I am not wanted anymore, and thats ok. But I don't really like this topic, it's sort of boring to me, as it's actually too easy to refute. But I won't respond to any more posts as I am unsubscribing, but anyway here is one last post,
evolution is not science...and I can prove it:
Even evolutionary Biology which is a hard science, is actually not science when you think about it this way:
- until it is observed (evolution between genus or higher), it cannot be hypothesized about,
- until it has a hypothesis,
- it can't be tested
- until it is tested it cannot be a scientific theory,
“A hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observed phenomenon.”
States a miami college of arts and sciences:
The Scientific Method
again:
If a hypothesis does not generate any observational tests, there is nothing that a scientist can do with it.- Batesville Community School
Hypotheses
basically if a hypothesis is not testable through observations, then it cannot be considered a hypothesis as it breaks the first rules: testability.
So if Chemical and Macro Evolution lacks observation then it lacks the ability to be tested. If it lacks ability to be tested, then it cannot be a hypothesis and resultantly cannot be a theory scientifically speaking. If it is not either a hypothesis nor a theory, then it’s not science.
“empirical science deals only with observable, repeatable, and regular events in the present. These events have only natural causes. Into this sphere no supernatural or intelligent causes are permitted. Empirical science is king of this domain. But neither macro-evolutionary speculation about unobserved and unrepeated events of origin nor creation is part of empirical science.”- Norman Geisler in His book Creation and the courts.
“However, unless it is an observable, regular, and repeatable event, they have no right to consider it an object of empirical science. And if it is an unobserved, unrepeated event of the past, then it does not qualify as empirical science. In that case, it must be treated as forensic science—for which both macroevolution and creation qualify.”
“1999 Nature magazine published a letter from Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, who said, “even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”22- Scott Todd, letter to the editor, Nature 401/6752 (September 30, 1999): 423.”- Geisler, Ibid.
No origin science, either chemical evolution or ID can be repeated, or observed currently. Therefore it’s not science. The next question is, should it be legal to teach ID in public school? Yes. I don’t recommend it due to lack of updated textbooks and lack of training for instructors. But I think it should be legal. Just as legal as Evolutionary Biology, or Origin science (chemical evolution) is legal to teach. We can’t simply toss them out of public school because they are not observed, forensic science is not currently observed but it is still a science being taught. So too ID should be included as one that is legal to teach to any school student. Again, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean that we (ID’ers) are ready to publiclly teach it.
Various Areas of Origin Science. Now that the basic principles of origin science are set forth, they can be applied to the three main areas of origin: the beginning of the universe, the emergence of first life, and the appearance of human (rational) beings. In each case this yields a distinction between origin and operation science. Names already exist to distinguish them.
Origin Science
Operation Science
Universe Life
Cosmogony Biogeny
Cosmology Biology
Human Beings
Anthropogeny
Anthropology
The scientific evidence is presented elsewhere for the creationists’ view of cosmogony (
see Evolution, Cosmic), biogeny (
see Evolution, Chemical), and anthropogeny (
see Evolution, Biological). Hence, it remains here simply to ask whether creation is a science.
Creation Science. A creationist view of origins can be just as scientific as an evolutionist view. The belief that there is an intelligent Creator of the universe, first life, and new life forms is just as scientific as the naturalistic views of macroevolutionary theory. Both are origin science, not operation science. Both deal with past singularities. Both take a forensic approach by reconstructing a plausible scenario of the past unobserved event in the light of the evidence that remains in the present. Both use the principles of causality and analogy. Both seek an appropriate explanation of the data. Both sometimes appeal to a primary (intelligent) cause to explain the data. Archaeology posits an intelligent cause for pottery. Anthropologists do the same for ancient tools. Likewise, when creationists see the same kind of specified complexity in a simple one-cell animal, such as the first living thing is supposed to be, they too posit an intelligent cause for it. Their view is as scientific in procedure as the evolutionists when they offer a natural explanation for the first living thing.
-Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by: Norman Geisler, 1999, Baker Books, Grand Rapids.
There is also a continuing debate about whether it is necessary to “decouple macroevolution from microevolution.” Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn’t the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible. In science, as in other fields, you can’t beat something with nothing, and so the Darwinist paradigm remains in place.
For all the controversies over these issues, however, there is a basic philosophical point on which the evolutionary biologists all agree. Some say new mechanisms have to be introduced and others say the old mechanisms are adequate, but nobody with a reputation to lose proposes to invoke a supernatural creator or a mystical “life force” to help out with the difficulties. The theory in question is a theory of
naturalistic evolution, which means that it absolutely rules out any miraculous or supernatural intervention at any point. Everything is conclusively presumed to have happened through purely material mechanisms that are in principle accessible to scientific investigation, whether they have yet been discovered or not.
The controversy over how macroevolution could have occurred has been caused largely by the increasing awareness in scientific circles that the fossil evidence is very difficult to reconcile with the Darwinist scenario. If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms linking the vastly different organisms of today, such as moths, trees, and humans, with their hypothetical common ancestors. From Darwin’s time to the present, paleontologists have hoped to find the ancestors and transitional intermediates and trace the course of macroevolution. Despite claims of success in some areas, however, the results have been on the whole disappointing. That the fossil record is in important respects hostile to a Darwinist interpretation has long been known to insiders as the “trade secret of paleontology.” The secret is now coming out in the open. New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance, as were the fossil remains in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved.
Above section from Phillip Johnson in book entitled-
UNCOMMON DISSENT-
Intellectuals Who Find
Darwinism Unconvincing-
Edited by William A. Dembski- 2004
Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature, writes, “To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Quote from:
Norman Geisler and Frank Turek; in their book: I don’t have faith enough to be an Atheist.
“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”
-Charles Robert Darwin (1809–1882). Origin of Species.
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.
