Evolution? How?

Quote:

Our Courts of law, for instance, would grind to a halt if past events had to be replicatable in order to be established as "proven".

Yet we seem to try these Creationist cases like clockwork even after the USSC ruled that "teaching Creationsim in Science is a religious worldview that fails under the establishment clause of the First Amendment"

Please, dont get me started on what is , or is not , mannerism.

0 Replies

Quote:

volution (or anything else) cannot be considered falsifiable if it is not observable.

HOZHIT, when they refuse to even acknowledge what weve been saying and keep repeating the brain-dead mantra of "It aint observable" , Im goin to bed,
Night all

0 Replies

Back to basics.

"Isn't evolution just a theory that remains unproven?

In science, a theory is a rigorously tested statement of general principles that explains observable and recorded aspects of the world. A scientific theory therefore describes a higher level of understanding that ties "facts" together. A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago. Indeed, many scientific advances, in a range of scientific disciplines including physics, geology, chemistry, and molecular biology, have supported, refined, and expanded evolutionary theory far beyond anything Darwin could have imagined."

0 Replies

ID = Religious Belief
There is no way to regorously test ID, because it cannot be observed. It's based on "faith" alone. Faith cannot be tested or observed. It cannot be proven.

0 Replies

The divine power has no specific form like that of an object or a being, but it pervades the entire creation. Out of the divine power originated all other powers with various names and forms. There is only one power and that is the Soul. The same Soul exists in the accuser and the accused, the worshipper and the worshipped. The person who realizes this principle of oneness will never give room to anger or jealousy. There is diversity at the level of the body and the mind, but the Soul is the same in all.

0 Replies

If that be so, Jesus, just precisely what do you suggest be offered as science education to children who need to someday make their way in an increasingly complex and competitive world which relegates thinking such as yours to the lunatic fringe?

0 Replies

Quote:

As the kids say, pullllllllllllleeeeaaaaaaaaasssssssseeeeeee !!!!!!! The Peppered Moth again?

*whispers* It's still a moth. *

Evolution (or anything else) cannot be considered falsifiable if it is not observable.

The peppered moth shows how genetic frequency in a specie can change, and it shows natural selection of animals. Give an objection to it if you can, but I dont' see any here.

I suppose creationism is observable? There are many evidences for evolution. Not to mention that microbacteria has been seen to evolve.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

There are many evidences for evolution. Not to mention that microbacteria has been seen to evolve.

Good point! Evolutionary theory has actually become an applied science with epidemiologists studying the evolution of viruses.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Quote:
As the kids say, pullllllllllllleeeeaaaaaaaaasssssssseeeeeee !!!!!!! The Peppered Moth again?

*whispers* It's still a moth. *

Evolution (or anything else) cannot be considered falsifiable if it is not observable.

The peppered moth shows how genetic frequency in a specie can change, and it shows natural selection of animals. Give an objection to it if you can, but I dont' see any here.

I suppose creationism is observable? There are many evidences for evolution. Not to mention that microbacteria has been seen to evolve.

Ray--

Read my posts and you will see that I have said that BOTH creation AND evolution are unobservable.

Yes and let's NOT mention microbacteria because they have NOT been seen to evolve beyond what they are. They are still microbacteria.

When you are resistant to a disease (as some microbacteria are to some things) and your neighbor is not, so that he gets sick during the winter and you do not, is it because he is not as highly evolved as you? Or is it because your immune system functions "better" i.e. it was successful IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE in protecting you against a particular harmful substance, while your neighbor's immune system was not successful this time.

You have not evolved to a 'higher order of being', and neither has the microbacteria. They are still microbacteria.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The Darwinian theory of evolution has withstood the test of time and thousands of scientific experiments; nothing has disproved it since Darwin first proposed it more than 150 years ago.

Hi CI,

A few questions, if I may, sir.

In the thousands of experiments that you refer to, can you give us 1 example where a creature was observed to evolve into a different creature than what it was?

We can test all around the fringes of the proposition, but what about testing and observing the proposition itself?

Isn't evolution, as put forth by yourself and others, inherently untestable due to the purported length of time it would supposedly take to occur?

0 Replies

Quote:

Ray--

Read my posts and you will see that I have said that BOTH creation AND evolution are unobservable.

Yes and let's NOT mention microbacteria because they have NOT been seen to evolve beyond what they are. They are still microbacteria.

When you are resistant to a disease (as some microbacteria are to some things) and your neighbor is not, so that he gets sick during the winter and you do not, is it because he is not as highly evolved as you? Or is it because your immune system functions "better" i.e. it was successful IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE in protecting you against a particular harmful substance, while your neighbor's immune system was not successful this time.

You have not evolved to a 'higher order of being', and neither has the microbacteria. They are still microbacteria.

Obviously viruses mutates from people to people. An evolution simply means a change in genetic frequency of a gene pool. It could be for better or for worse for the specie.

Also, the fossil records (which some had been more precisely dated via half-life analysis), has shown the Earth to have been home to living animals for more than millions of years. How can a person just one day appeared out of nowhere? It has also shown a general pattern of the evolution of certain animals.

I have also mentioned similarities within developing embryos.

If you are here to offer a more credible theory than evolutionary theory, then please tell us.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

In the thousands of experiments that you refer to, can you give us 1 example where a creature was observed to evolve into a different creature than what it was?

You continually attempt to retail this idiocy as though it were a valid criticism of evolutionary theory. Darwin's thesis was based upon morphology, and advanced the idea that different species have common ancestors, and that those species diverged in a process of descent through modification, the modifying factor being natural selection. That's why the observations about speckled moths and black moths is relevant, despite your snotty schoolboy retorts. It's certainly nice from your point of view to attempt to twist the meaning of a theory of evolution into terms which you can then deride, but it is invalid. You continue to erect this stawman in order to knock it down, in a childish display of smugness. Darwin's morphological observations have been so well sustained that biological scientists now use alleles (alternative forms of the same genes) to demonstrate the principle, which is why referring to chemically resistant micro-organisms is pertinent. You are the only one here insisting upon some "presto-chango" definition of evolution, and it grows tedious. Why don't you try to devolp some new material?

Quote:

We can test all around the fringes of the proposition, but what about testing and observing the proposition itself?

When someone presents you with the evidence of this, you trot out your witless questions about fish being nothing more than fish--so why would you expect anyone to bother repeating the information to you for the umpteenth time.

Quote:

Isn't evolution, as put forth by yourself and others, inherently untestable due to the purported length of time it would supposedly take to occur?

No.

0 Replies

Also, breeders had been breeding domesticated animals for centuries.

0 Replies

Also, breeders had been breeding domesticated animals with the desired traits for centuries. This involve the alleles which Setanta mentioned, and this shows a change in genetic norm in the gene pool.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Quote:
Ray--

Read my posts and you will see that I have said that BOTH creation AND evolution are unobservable.

Yes and let's NOT mention microbacteria because they have NOT been seen to evolve beyond what they are. They are still microbacteria.

When you are resistant to a disease (as some microbacteria are to some things) and your neighbor is not, so that he gets sick during the winter and you do not, is it because he is not as highly evolved as you? Or is it because your immune system functions "better" i.e. it was successful IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE in protecting you against a particular harmful substance, while your neighbor's immune system was not successful this time.

You have not evolved to a 'higher order of being', and neither has the microbacteria. They are still microbacteria.

Obviously viruses mutates from people to people. An evolution simply means a change in genetic frequency of a gene pool. It could be for better or for worse for the specie.

Also, the fossil records (which some had been more precisely dated via half-life analysis), has shown the Earth to have been home to living animals for more than millions of years. How can a person just one day appeared out of nowhere? It has also shown a general pattern of the evolution of certain animals.

I have also mentioned similarities within developing embryos.

If you are here to offer a more credible theory than evolutionary theory, then please tell us.

Hi Ray,

Actually some very "credible" evolutionists have suggested that new creatures DID just one day appear out of nowhere. This theory, dubbed the Hopeful Monster theory, has been proposed mostly out of frustration by evolutionists when they say things like

Stephen J Gould wrote:

the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favorite account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study

So Gould, among others, proposed things like Punctuated Equilibrium, and it's handmaiden, the Hopeful Monster.

0 Replies

real life,

Why don't you try propping up Creationism for a change? Notice how those who champion Evolution can argue for Evolution without making a single direct attack on Creationism.

You, however, are incapable of doing the same thing but for Creationism. You may be able to "prove" there are holes in Evolution, but "proving" that Evolution is wrong is not equal to proving that Creationism is correct.

Creationists have done nothing to prove that their views are correct and IDers likewise. When you can do so, then scientists will take Creationism and IDism seriously.

0 Replies

real life

Quote:

Actually some very "credible" evolutionists have suggested that new creatures DID just one day appear out of nowhere. This theory, dubbed the Hopeful Monster theory, has been proposed mostly out of frustration by evolutionists

Obviously you are totally without any smidgen of knowledge about your use of the Hopeful Monster term. It was NEVER proposed "out of Frustration" (You must be quoting Safarti, your obvious source of all your crap)
Hopeful Monsters were a colorful term posited based upon a specific larval feature of a Pacific glowworm. The "assumed preadapted" practice of cannibalization of ones own parent gave the author an idea and thus was extended the life of "Neo Darwinian" thought.

The fact that the author had the wrong species mixed together and was totally off with respect to the practice in the key species well, we dont wanna speak of that cause it makes such a great story.
When scientists actually go forth and DO SOMETHING, rather than sit around in fruitless labs in white coats that are worn for no apparent reason, well, even the real scientists make mistakes. Ill go no further because its obvious that you have no clue of the circumstances nor do you even understand the case being made. I assume you just plopped some of Safartis junk from AIG and thought that "HE must know what hes talking about" (always a dangerous proposition with people who are strongly agenda driven)

Quote:

Stephen J Gould wrote:
the extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favorite account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study

I hate doing this cause it so robs the spontaneity of our posts. Only thing Id like to say, for the more open minded of those reading these missives is, Go to the source of Goulds statement "Evolutions Erratic Pace" He wrote it in the mid 80s and had already criiticized the "Hopeful Monster" concept. Although, by evolutions "tinkering" he did recognize that having a large number of species within a genus does favor the adaptive success in a rapidly changing environment.
Real lifes misunderstandings are based upon not having read any of the literature and just cuit and pasting from Genesis Jive and Dr Safartis interpretation. Thats why he, and others like him, usually make a point and then move on with no engagement.

My recent explanation that Macroevolution IS observable went unchallenged or discussed. The real lives and others immdeiately jumped to
"Well, that may be but a fish is always a fish" They dont even realize that, by so stipulating, theyve actually bought into one of Darwins own precepts of "evolution" (Spencers term not Darwins)
I will herein review them

1Species are non constant (They change through time)

2All species derive from common ancestrors

3Gradualism (in other words, a fish is usually a fish through steps of evolution)

4 The rise of species diversity (not complexity please)

5 Its all accomplished by natural selection

So simple yet so profound. Real life( or any of the past Creationistt spokespeople) have not been able to argue any of it away, in fact, as wolf said and I paraphrase;
"Why dont the Creationists do some of their own research to support their view"(and ), why is it that Creation Research is nothing more than trying to find some chink in evolutions armor?
Why?, simple, everything Creationism bases itself upon can be scientifically proven to be just flat wrong by experiment, evidence, or calculation.

0 Replies

I gave up arguing with creationists long ago. Creationism, or its polished form ID, are based on a belief, which is entirely in another league than a scientific theory. I repeat ID is not a theory, but a belief, since it is supported only by religious writings and not by scientific experiment or observation. The two are incompatible and therefore I refrain from reacting to people who state, even before getting into the subject, that they will not change their opinion no matter what evidence is put before them. That in itself is the antithesis of the scientific method. It is in fact the same kind of fanaticism that drives people like the guy who slit the throat of a Dutch filmmaker for alledgedly insulting Islam (how you can insult an impersonal thing like a book or a religion is beyond me, but like I said, this way of thinking is beyond logical reasoning).

0 Replies

While you are correct paasky, remember that there are a greater number of people on these threads who will listen to reason and whose minds are not sealed shut. I always think that theres a few kids on the line who are just curious about all this material.

0 Replies

Your point is well-taken, FM, it is not simply the participants in such a thread who read the material here. It is noteworthy (and i and others noted this a long time ago) that this discussion of a scientific concept was posted in the Religion and Spirituality forum. When i get frustrated with the willfully obtuse silliness that passes for debate on the part of "real" life, and feel like giving up, i remind myself that kids who are confused by a seeming conflict between religion and science may read here, and if a few are armored against the specious contentions of creationists and "IDers," then it will have been worth the effort.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know