huxley:

Let me cut to the chase by asking two questions.  I shall address the rest of the post later:

Thanks - it's a great relief to see the brevity of your reply. Now to answer your two questions:

1)  Do you accept that lifeforms have changed and are charging over time?

No. Let me explain - my answer remains No until you explain what you mean.
To expect me to just "accept" anything said is to commit me to a position that would turn out knotty later on. The reason why I would ask for clarification is simple: the Darwinian arguments often shifts. An example? I've pointed out the idea of an argument of Birds evolving from Dinousaurs - I also stated clearly that such an argument is not mine. If someone then says that "do you accept that lifeforms have changed and are charging over time?", I would then ask them to tell me where and how the 'Bird-evolved-from Dinos' argument would be "accepted".

2)  How would you explain the fact that some whales (about 5%) are born with fully developed hindlimbs, much like a cow's hindlimbs?

I would not 'explain' that as the "change" on a grand scale Darwinism. It would lead to a necessary question: what is the whale 'evolving' to in that form with hindlimbs as cows?

KunleOshob:

I am here oh, even science does not claim that evolution has been proven and that it why it is classified as a theory[postulation] and not a law.

You're missing the point. Theories do not get "classified" as laws on the basis of one proof or another. When we fail to understand the nature of theories and laws, then some people would begin to question the theory of gravity! Yes indeed, some people are already arguing that same thing - I don't know if this forum behaves like other fora where I've been to, but in some others you get banned for simply posting a link (not the fault of the admin or mods, just the software they use). So, I don't want to risk suffering that experience if I post a link; but you can Google up "Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed". You'll find it on 'the onion dot com'.

Theories and laws are quite mishandled in your response.

'fie upon you and upon what you worship besides Allah ! Don't you have sense ?'
Quran 21:67

viaro:

Thanks - it's a great relief to see the brevity of your reply. Now to answer your two questions:

No. Let me explain - my answer remains No until you explain what you mean.
To expect me to just "accept" anything said is to commit me to a position that would turn out knotty later on. The reason why I would ask for clarification is simple: the Darwinian arguments often shifts. An example? I've pointed out the idea of an argument of Birds evolving from Dinousaurs - I also stated clearly that such an argument is not mine. If someone then says that "do you accept that lifeforms have changed and are charging over time?", I would then ask them to tell me where and how the 'Bird-evolved-from Dinos' argument would be "accepted".

I did not say anything about Darwinism or Darwin in my question, did I?  Changes in lifeforms is somethings that had been observed for many tens or hundreds of years before Darwin.  And further, I am not asking you about the HOW this happens.  I am simply asking whether the evidence on the ground shows that lifeform is immutable or mutable.  Forget about Darwin, Natural Selection, theory, etc, etc, for now.  Let us just deal with the facts on the ground, which are:


a)  Why are the fossils of mammals NEVER found in the pre-cambrian era?  Why is it that about 600 MYA to 800 MYA, there are no evidence of multicellular organisms?   What happened between 600MYA and today that resulted in multicellular organisms with complex bodyplans?

viaro:

I would not 'explain' that as the "change" on a grand scale Darwinism. It would lead to a necessary question: what is the whale 'evolving' to in that form with hindlimbs as cows?

No - you have not addressed the question.  I asked - What explains the fact that about 5% of Whales are born with fully developed hindlimbs?  Where did these limb come from?  Could it be that whales have the genes for making legs, which for 95% of the time are not expressed?

'and fear the fire of hell which is prepared for the disbelievers' Quran 3:131

ALL FORMS undergo change. Not only lifeforms. I want to join Heraclitus in stating that "Panta Rhei". Everything is subject to Process.

viaro:

but you can Google up "Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed". You'll find it on 'the onion dot com'.

Theories and laws are quite mishandled in your response.

But the Theories of Gravity are flawed. There isn't one but two that are widely accepted in the scientific community. The first one is Newton's theory of Gravity.

The second one is Einstein's theory of Gravity which is a lot more accurate than Newton's. Einstein's theory is the best that we've got so far but some genius might still come up with another better one.

huxley:

I did not say anything about Darwinism or Darwin in my question, did I?

No, you did not - I did. I would bet you can't seperate your discussion of evolution from Darwinism; and if you could, it would be wonderful to see and a different angle for your take.

Changes in lifeforms is somethings that had been observed for many tens or hundreds of years before Darwin.

Who was making these observations 'many tens or hundreds of years before Darwin'? I know that Darwin catalogues others to push for his own theory - agreeing with some, disagreeing with others. Yes, I'm aware of that. But "changes in lifeforms" as he theorised is not a linear postulation as simplistic as what many evolutionists argue today. This is why I quipped about the dino-bird inference.

 And further, I am not asking you about the HOW this happens.

Okay, I apologise where I might have unwittingly assumed that. In my view, I don't think you had asked me about the HOW.

I am simply asking whether the evidence on the ground shows that lifeform is immutable or mutable.

"Lifeforms" needs to be contextualized - that was my point. If a lifeform (dino) evolved into a another lifeform (bird), how do I defend that view if I was to say that I accepted it? Now, if it could be argued that "other lifeforms" change into "other lifeforms", it would first make me think of HOW that happens (even though you did not suggest the question to me, I had to ask myself that same question first to know what I am talking about). I hope you see my point?

Forget about Darwin, Natural Selection, theory, etc, etc, for now.

Okay, for now.

Let us just deal with the facts on the ground, which are:

a)  Why are the fossils of mammals NEVER found in the pre-cambrian era?  Why is it that about 600 MYA to 800 MYA, there are no evidence of multicellular organisms?   What happened between 600MYA and today that resulted in multicellular organisms with complex bodyplans?

I think I've addressed these issue from two points: philosophy and paleontology. I won't be tedious again on the "iff" (I promise - for now); but I also highlighted that while it was not in my place to sort out any arguments for Darwinists, I wonder why the 'transitional fossils' are not the strong points of such evolutionary theorizing. To argue that they "evolved" would bring us back to specifics - and then take us back to paleontology.

No - you have not addressed the question.

Okay.

I asked - What explains the fact that about 5% of Whales are born with fully developed hindlimbs?

Dear sir, are you not asking me HOW that happens? It is not just stating the fact as it is that you're playing with here; but you're asking me to "explain" - which simply means I should proffer answers for HOW. I'm sorry, that is not my domain.

Where did these limb come from?

I don't know - you tell me, afterall you described them as akin to those of a cow.

Could it be that whales have the genes for making legs, which for 95% of the time are not expressed?

It could be, but I don't know and cannot hazard any guesses. Science does not work by guesses but by testable hypothesis which progress to falsifiable theories. You are well informed on that, I assume - so that is why you should appreciate the fact that if I have to discuss with you in the language of scientists, I should not expose myself to an attitude of dogmatism.

'say (o muhammad) 'GOD is one, the self sufficient. He did not beget nor was He begotten' Quran 112:1-3

Pastor AIO:

But the Theories of Gravity are flawed.

I know that's what is being argued by some. The point I tried to make is that subjecting a theory to falsifiability does not mean the same thing as saying that a theory is false "iff" it has not been proven to be a "law".

Bro, i'm weary of such kinds of talk - which was why I used that example. Why? Because in a case as gravity, even though people talk about the "law of gravity", there are still theories of gravity. Are we going to say that gravity is "unproven" because some people think that the theories of gravity are flawed? The fact we have a law of gravity does not mean that gravity is "unproven" because it is a "mere" theory. It is the same thing when people come up with the TOE is a "mere" theory because (yes, "because" the scientific community does not recognize it as a "law". That idea does not fit with current paradigm in science.

viaro:

I don't know - you tell me, afterall you described them as akin to those of a cow.

It could be, but I don't know and cannot hazard any guesses. Science does not work by guesses but by testable hypothesis which progress to falsifiable theories. You are well informed on that, I assume - so that is why you should appreciate the fact that if I have to discuss with you in the language of scientists, I should not expose myself to an attitude of dogmatism.

OK - I like statement. Suppose I were to make the following hypothesis:

The genome of the whale animal would show genes for the development of mammalian hindlimbs. These genes are most of the time suppressed but occasionally they are expressed.

Do you think this is a testable hypothesis?

viaro:

I know that's what is being argued by some. The point I tried to make is that subjecting a theory to falsifiability does not mean the same thing as saying that a theory is false "iff" it has not been proven to be a "law".

Bro, i'm weary of such kinds of talk - which was why I used that example. Why? Because in a case as gravity, even though people talk about the "law of gravity", there are still theories of gravity. Are we going to say that gravity is "unproven" because some people think that the theories of gravity are flawed? The fact we have a law of gravity does not mean that gravity is "unproven" because it is a "mere" theory. It is the same thing when people come up with the TOE is a "mere" theory because (yes, "because" the scientific community does not recognize it as a "law". That idea does not fit with current paradigm in science.

I didn't fully understand this post but I'll address the parts that I think I understand.

Gravity is a fact. Apples fall to the ground due to gravity.

Theories of Gravity are an attempt to explain How it occurs.

Evolution of Forms is a fact observed around us.

Theories of Evolution are attempts to explain how the process occurs.

You asked for proponents of evolutionary theories before Darwin. Try this for size:

Lamarck's contribution to evolutionary theory consisted of the first truly cohesive theory of evolution, in which an alchemical complexifying force drove organisms up a ladder of complexity, and a second environmental force adapted them to local environments through use and disuse of characteristics, differentiating them from other organisms.[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck#Lamarckian_Evolution

Hi guys,

I was about leaving NL - came in briefly, wanted out (one Tudor guy was such a good spot). Anyhow, let me address these few then I'm off to a pending holiday (can't miss the Carribean for NL - nada, zilch.)

Pastor AIO:

I didn't fully understand this post but I'll address the parts that I think I understand.

Gravity is a fact. Apples fall to the ground due to gravity.

Theories of Gravity are an attempt to explain How it occurs.

Evolution of Forms is a fact observed around us.

Theories of Evolution are attempts to explain how the process occurs.

I follow you; and I knew all that before. The one thing that caught my attention in your previous reply to my post (possibly #37) was pointing back to KunleOshob's view. In summary, I don't think he expressed a good grasp of what theories and laws are in science. If I recall clearly, he had intoned that huxley should "know the difference btw laws and theories in science" (post #10). But the way he handled "law" and "theory" does not help, especially because Evolution cannot be said to be "merely a theory". I'm sure it's not only me who's concerned about these descriptives of saying that a theory is a "MERE" one simply because in his view evolution has not been "proven" and that it why it is classified as a theory[postulation] and not a law. Do theories get classified that way? I don't know if that is what operates now.

You asked for proponents of evolutionary theories before Darwin. Try this for size:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck#Lamarckian_Evolution

No, I didn not ask for "proponents" of evolution before Darwin. I simply asked: "Who was making these observations 'many tens or hundreds of years before Darwin'?" I also noted that: "I know that Darwin catalogues others to push for his own theory - agreeing with some, disagreeing with others." I am quite aware of Lamarck and others (such as Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon). But thanks for the offer.

huxley:

OK - I like statement. Suppose I were to make the following hypothesis:

The genome of the whale animal would show genes for the development of mammalian hindlimbs. These genes are most of the time suppressed but occasionally they are expressed.

Do you think this is a testable hypothesis?

Yes, I would be inclined to say that is a testable hypothesis.

viaro:

Yes, I would be inclined to say that is a testable hypothesis.

OK -  have a good hols and we shall pick this up when you come back!

Okay then.

^{(I seriously look forward to discussing with you - I'm beginning to like your style so far, even though initially I as cautious. Maybe I was mistaking you for someone else - who knows.)}

But thanks again.

But the Theories of Gravity are flawed. There isn't one but two that are widely accepted in the scientific community. The first one is Newton's theory of Gravity.

The second one is Einstein's theory of Gravity which is a lot more accurate than Newton's. Einstein's theory is the best that we've got so far but some genius might still come up with another better one.

slight flaws in the theories doesn't mean gravity and evolution can't be observed.

This is one reason many scientific laws have being disproved. Phenomena's such as gravity, relativity and evolution have being observed but the theories to explain them aren't perfect.

but of course according to kunle, the theory of relativity hasn't being proved since it's just a theory.

It is a pity that most people including some so called scientist do not understand how science works. You cannot say that the theory( let me use Laws) of gravity is flawed. It is not flawed!. You can say Newtons Law of gravity is incomplete, but you can never say it is flawed. In science you must specify the conditions under which your observations and and data is obtained. Newton was dealing with billiard balls and objects with very low velocity, and his Laws hold till today for all objects on earth within those range of size and velocity. Till today if you want to design a car, a plane or a space shuttle you use Newtons laws. If you want to predict the motions of the planets newtons laws are accurate to 99.9999%. Newton did not observe objects traveling close to the speed of light, and definitely he did not observe neutron stars and black holes.

Einsteins on the other hand was observing objects traveling at the speed of light and he was observing massive and very dense objects in space. So he had to modify Newtons laws to accommodate the new data and newtons laws break down at those velocities and densities.

Another good example is Dalton Atomic theory. Dalton was observing simple elements and not heavy nuclei of radioactive elements. And Dalton laws is still valid till today. Atoms still behave like balls possessing whole numbers, that is why one atom of hydrogen would not react with half of oxygen. You chemical equations still follows Daltons Laws, but if you get to uranium then the law changes.

Science works by making provisions for additional data, they do not make their inferences based on hunches, inspirations or revelations.

I don't get how being incomplete is not a flaw. If you got your paycheck and it was short by a couple of hundred pounds wouldn't you say there is a flaw somewhere.