At 12:18 PM 5/29/98 -0500, Ron Chitwood wrote:
>>>>>>> If one is to attempt a solution for the
>science/scriptural issues, one must be willing to read in a lot of fields
>and NOT dispute the experts in the various fields. I can't see how a
>layman can come in and tell the experts that they are wrong when the expert
>has more info than the layman. <<<<
>
>Just ran across another one. Some 26 year old patent employee had the
>temerity to challenge the experts when he came up with E=MC2.
Actually, since the Young-earth Creationist, Tom Barnes derives E=mc2 from
classical physics, the physics held by the experts of that time, you claim
were wrong, I find it difficult to believe this claim. See (Richard R.
Pemper and Thomas G. Barns, "A New Theory of the Electron", Creation
Research Society Quarterly, 14(march 1978), pp 210-220
ON Fri, 29 May 1998 01:55:19 -0500 you wrote:
>How about the recapitulation theory. Do you agree that it is still taught
>in some rudimentary science textbooks? If so, does that constitute fraud
>by some current scientific academia?
It depends upon how it is taught. Gilbert does it correctly and Gould
follows suit.
, then, can one modify one Bauplan to create another Bauplan? The first way
would be to modify the earliest stages of development. According to von
Baer, animals of different species but of the same genus diverge very late
in development. The more divergent the species are from one another, the
earlier one can distinguish their embryos. Thus, embryos of the snow
goose are indistinguishable from those of the blue goose until the very
last stages. However, snow goose development diverges from chick embryos a
bit earlier, and goose embryos can be distinguished from lizard embryos at
even earlier stages. It appears then, that mutations that create new
Bauplan could do so by altering the earliest stages of development."~Scott
F. Gilbert,Developmental Biology (Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates,
Inc., 1991),p. 831-832
**
"If embryology is a hierarchical system with surprizingly few master
switches at high levels, then we might draw an evolutionary message after
all. If genetic programs were beanbags of independent genes,each
responsible for building a single part of the body, then evolution would
have to occur slowly and sequentially as thousands of parts achieved their
independent modifications. But genetic programs are hierarchies of master
switches, and small genetic changes that happen to affect the switches,
might engender cascading effects throughout the body. Homeotic mutants
teach us that small genetic changes can affect the switches and produce
remarkable changes in an adult fly. Major evolutionary transitions may be
instigated (although not finished all at once as hopeful monster
enthusiasts argue) by small genetic changes that translate into
fundamentally altered bodies. If classical Darwinian gradualism is now
under attack in evolutionary circles, the hierarchical structure of genetic
programs forms a powerful argument for the critics."Stephen J. Gould,
Helpful Monsters," _Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes_, 1984, Penguin,p196
**
"Thus when we say that the contemporary one-toed horse evolved from a
five-toed ancestor, we are saying that hereditable changes occurred in the
differentiation of limb mesoderm into chondrocytes during embryogenesis in
the horse lineage. In this perspective, evolution is the result of
hereditary changes affecting development. This is the case whether the
mutation is one that changes the reptilian embryo into a bird or one that
changes the color of Drosophila eyes."~Scott F. Gilbert, Developmental
Biology (Sunderland: Sinauer Assoc. Inc., 1991), p. 841
On Fri, 29 May 1998 02:04:39 -0500
you wrote:\
Glenn wrote:
>>>the indeterminant useages are in Genesis 1 and Genesis 6-9
>which can be translated either way<<<
>
>What specific passages are you referring to? I read 6:9, but you must mean
>from the 6th through the ninth chapters.
yes.
On Fri, 29 May 1998 02:12:43 -0500
>Since we are speculating and trying to place our minds inside God why, from
>your viewpoint, would it make any difference for time to be a factor? It
>would be more 'efficient', by the way, for God to create immediately to
>begin with rather than ooze through the slow, inefficient,
>macroevolutionary, hit-or-miss process you apparently think HE did,
>wouldn't it?
Who says God must be efficient? Where does it say that in the Bible?
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm