- Oct 20, 2017
- 890
- 103
- 93
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You're the one who provided the quote, why don't you put it into context?
Wait...
You did actually LOOK at the original source, didn't you? I mean, surely you didn't just go to some creationist propaganda website and cut 'n' paste? Right?
Curiously enough there were a number of civilizations that continued unabated during the supposed "catastrophic change" taking place. Odd, that.
For instance:
The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed and breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.This, and many more examples found here: Some More Observed Speciation Events
Do you accept Grasse’s authority on the subject?
If someone says something it is up to them to prove what they say.
I'm not the one citing it, you are. I tried looking it up and all I can find is that quote in a handle of creationist articles with a reference from 1977.
So what does the full quote say in context or do you even know?
Of course I do. I not I would not have quoted him.
What fault do you find with his qualifications?
LOL, good stuff, I don't find fault with his qualifications, see above.
Then do you accept his statement as true?
Then do you accept his statement as true?
Correct, you posted the quote, it's up to you to provide the source. It is being questioned because Grasse also wrote...
"Zoologists and botanists are nearly unanimous in considering evolution as a fact and not a hypothesis. I agree with this position and base it primarily on documents provided by paleontology"
link
How do I know, you won't provide the context, which is all important as we've seen by the way Darwin's quote about the evolution of the eye has been abused by shady creationists.
Also, you do realize that science doesn't stand or fall on the opinions of any particular scientist? I could offer a quote from Francis Collins about how common ancestry is a fact, so what, would you accept it?
I also notice that Grasse's book was written in the early seventies, our understanding of genetics has moved on a bit since then.
That is SO GOOD! I have found that to be so true! All the links ever say is that it happened or give suppositions. They NEVER provide any evidence that it really did happen. It's all assumptive.
Here is the information I have. What he said was quoted in ICR Impact statement 89, Nov 1980. Grasse wrote book, "Evolution of living Organisms." What he said was quoted by William Baur in his review of the book.
It doesn't matter if 100% of the zoologist and botanists agree unless they can offer the scientific evidence that make it true.
You can't offer even one example of a mutation changing the species.
Most of the scientist of today have been taught evolution is a fact since they were in grammer school. When children only hear one side of the debate and are to young to understand science, they have not been properly educated. They have been indoctrinated.
If you understood mutations, the context is not necessary. What has been abused in the evolution of the eye is evolutionist saying it happened when it is genetically impossible. If you understood genetics, you would know it is impossible for the offspring to receive a characteristic that is not in the gene pool of its parents.
Are you aware of the proposed pathways for the evolution of the eye and the evidence supporting them? Could you share a few of the scientific papers you've studied to arrive at that conclusion, maybe we could discuss whatever issues you have.
It is foolish to accept what people say without some evidence to support it. I guarantee you Collins did not provide and scientific evidence for common ancestry being a fact.
Not the basics. It is still impossible for an offspring to receive a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents.
Most of the discoveries made by science in the last 50 years refute evolution. Fundie evolutionist try to use similar DNA to support common descent. However DNA separates species, not links them.
Close only counts in horse shoes and hand granades.
DNA will show you and I are not biologically related, but that we are the same species. It will also show we are not related to apes.
Yes, I am well aware that you copied it from some creationist website, I didn't think you had actually read the book yourself.
So you no longer accept Grasse's opinion as worthwhile? Extremely hypocritical but in no way surprising.
How do you know what I can "offer"?
LOL, sure thing! None of them are as smart as you!
I agree, you've made a fool out of yourself by using a second or third hand Grasse quote from a creationist website.
Francis Collins is the head of the Human Genome project, I dare say that you haven't even glanced at any evidence he may have provided, would that be correct? Besides, I'm not using his quote as an argument for common descent, just as an example of the pointlessness as using quotes as authorititve in a scientific discussion.
Why? On what do you base this assertion, citation please.
What discoveries? Citation please.
EH?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?