Is the theory of evolution correct?

Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2018 12:20 pm
farmerman wrote:
Ive never really understood why the Creationists had chosen to make such a dumass demarcation line so as to give them some ammo with which to deny evolution. If you can support micro evolution (as adaptive modifications intra species), why does macro evolution not fit within the "spectrum" as youve cleverly assigned it?

I think your'e overthinking it. They're just moving the goalpost again.

Somewhere a while back some preacher probably said, "none of this "evilution" stuff is true. I say a chicken is a chicken is a chicken". And the loyal flock all chanted "amen" (some because they didn't want to get stoned to death) and they went with it. Then everyone looked around and realized that wolves had changed into poodles and terriers and suddenly that argument seemed a bit shaky, so they moved the goalpost. Now they grudgingly concede that a wolf can micro-change into a chihuahua, but "oh no" they say, it can't macro-change change into a coy-wolf... except uh oh... look what happened. Time to move that goalpost again.

It's all so stupid. And tedious. It never ends. The evidence for evolution is so completely overwhelming and obvious that it was understood over a century ago. The only people who can't see it are people who are desperately trying to justify the existence of their own personal god, whichever one (of the billions of incarnations) it may be.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2018 01:06 pm
Quote ‘What would it take to get you to feel that it doesn't require an Intelligent Designer to make evolution work?’

For me, to observe bacteria being created by nonintelligent source, or and example of information being created by a nice n intelligent source.( The best example evolutionists have conjured up so far is penis shaped clouds) got anything better?

It is Interesting as well that it seems many evolutionists avoid the obviousness of intelligent design, to make themselves their own gods dictating right from wrong, their own standard of morality. Fear driven. Pride driven etc.
0 Replies
Reply Thu 20 Sep, 2018 04:56 pm
What would it take to get you to feel that it doesn't require an Intelligent Designer to make evolution work?

There are several possibilities.

* Success of a properly implemented abiogenesis experiment. (Had to happen before evolution could even be a thing)

* A mathematical/chemical/software model demonstrating how a minimal model of a living organism could emerge naturally.

* A computer simulation showing that complexity comparable to any simple living organism can occur by random processes. Unsuccessful iterations can be 'killed off' simulating natural selection. This doesn't even have to be 'life', just something of comparable functional complexity.

* An actual demonstration of a new species emerging from natural or accelerated mutation. (Every attempt has failed so far. 50,000 generations of bacteria resulted in no more than a single bit mutation or most often, birth defects. Never a new species to my knowledge.

* A plausible explanation for how the elaborate temperature control mechanism of male whale testes could have emerged without forethought or going extinct before it developed. (there are many such implausible examples of such evolutionary 'miracles'.)

* Finding Any other example of functional organization occurring naturally that can't be explained by the basic laws of physics.

* Finding biological life has actually developed on places like Mars where all the presumed requirements of life are or have been present.

* A successful demonstration of so called Dynamic Kinetic Stability of significant complexity. (eddy currents do not qualify)

I'd like to point out that the current theory rests primarily on the simple fact that new species came about (fossil evidence) and Methodological Naturalism dogma. It is circular logic with no experimental evidence beyond changing bird beaks and such. Darwin's finches are interbreeding today, how does that show new species are emerging?

I think I've shown that my idea of ID qualifies as 'falsifiable'.
Is your theory 'falsifiable' ?

What would it take to change your mind?

Another thought. If abiogenesis is found to require an intelligent source, would it be reasonable to assume that macro evolution had the same 'help'?
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2018 09:41 am
all well thought out concepts but they seem to cluster about only two arguments. and the opposing argument you propose has no evidence at all (even your conceptual "evidence" is, as you know, "outcome based"). I deal with math models all the time and, unless Im just working on "back calculating" whats been discovered;

(like kriging or variogramming of ore deposits that are based on minimal data) or using the model to solve for on or, at most, three independents,) ITS ALL CRAP. Models in my world are often fraudulent re-creation s of someones faulty reality.
Fluid flow models are the worst. Yet they qre used as bases for spending billions of dollars in resource claims. (And it becomes two experts fighting it out in a civil suit where truth i not a critical outcome, its whoever SOUNDS most convincing) BUT THATS ANOTHER ARGUMENT ENTIRELY

As Ive said to you before, many times life (and several other non-living states) are predominantly closed thermodynamic systems and for their brief existence in their highest state, LIVE AGAINST THE CHEMICAL GRADIENT OF ENTROPY. THAT FACT, coupled with Malthusian properties (wherein the living state enjoys the many benefits of exponential growth) doesnt make a naturalistic evolutionary (no gods needed) difficult.

Another feature of your "wish list" is based on a supposition thaT we have NEVER created the living state. or that "the fossil record is false".

1. We actually hve, in the lab developed living state molecules that demonstrate several of the features through which we define life. (Not all t the same time it true) but weve achieved replication, nutrition transfer and energy , cell wall structures and respiration.
Our problems now are more leading us to recognize that there were, perhaps, many roads to sustainable life and perhaps we wont be left without a good model. We will NOT suffer from lacks of candidate reactions, we will, instead suffer from an overabundance of competing modes .

2. The fossil record does give you guy big problems because it does show the interdependence of living forms, and their propensity to evolve new and wonderful forms as their environments pressure them to do so. Biogeography i doubly troubling to youse all because it demonstrates how so many unique forms can evolve separated by very few kilometers (like two cavern systems in West Virginia can show 4 different sppecies of trogs three of which are unique to cave system 1 and the lst is unique to cave system 2. And they are each new species and higher. That demonstrates a fairly incompetent IDer, ho didnt know about the creation of two different cave systems until AFter the Illinoian Glacial epoch. Whenever you sy that evidence supports ID as much as it does a naturalistic interpretation, thats when you really need to deny the validity of the fossil record and even more, you have to deny the stratigraphic record an"Strata Smith's "Map the Changed the World"

As Dr Pross said about life, that Its like what Woody Allen said

I woulda Asked you, instead, What is it you find compelling to the Intelligent Designer story thats NOT religiously based??
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2018 11:12 am
So you’re saying that science hasn’t come up with anything on that list of falsifiers.

Didn’t think so.
Reply Sun 23 Sep, 2018 12:14 pm
ask a question that makes some sense.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/14/2018 at 03:14:37