|
nferyn (m)
|
Einsteins theory of relativity attempts to explain many things. Newtons law of gravity still holds in a certain framework where the frame of reference speed is much less than the speed of light, in such a framework relativistic forces hardly play a part. Hence Eintsteins relativity theory made Newtons law of gravity more precise. The original law holds and still holds for most macro objects that move at comparitively lower speeds than c. A Scientific Law is and always has been above a Scientific theory.
Absolute, utter bullshit. Laws are descriptive and theories are explanative. They serve different purposes. Taken from a wiki article on law. Laws are understood to be unmutable. Hence over time the theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status. There is a clear heirarchy. String theory for example may become a law when it is proven using empirical data and scientific methods. I do not get why you are still arguing this.
You are completely clueless when it comes to the difference between laws and theories. Go and read some Popper, so that you get an insight into the scientific method. yes, I did the same as well. Both support my statements. The theory of evolution is NOT A LAW YET because it has not be rigorously tested to elevate it to law status like the theory of electromagnetism. And while it explains genetic mutations it does not explain how and why species evolve. Show me ONE INSTANCE of a physical experiment showing a species that has been made to evolve to a totally new species. And no, cross breeding and mixed breeding is NOT EVOLUTION.
Let's make it simple. Descent with modification is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution is an explanation for that fact of evolution. Laws don't even enter the discussion. As to your show me one instance, I will give you several instances using consensus definitions of species in the field of biology. But first I would like you to define physical experiment, then define species, then define totally new species. If you can do that, we will have the parameters to answer your question. If you can't do that you'll shift the goalposts continuously and discussion is pointless. evolution is not a fact IT IS A THEORY. The theory explains certain facts like genetic mutations, it is not itself a fact.
It does not explain facts like genetic mutations at all. Can you tell me which version of the TOE you use to explain genetic mutations? It is not a fact that things evolve. If it was it would be the law of evolution.
It wouldn't. Laws are descriptive, not explanative The TOE does not fully explain how one species evolves to another, it hypothesizes based on certain observable facts, like shared phenotypical traits, genetic mutations, etc.
The TOE is the only explantion of our current biodiversity that: * fits all the evidence * has not been falsified * enables us to make predictions and it does offer convincing explanations on how species involve into other species. Here's a simple primer on speciation If it truly is a fact like you say, please explain how the homo erectus evolved to the homo sapien. GO ON. EXPLAIN IT. EVOLUTION IS A FACT RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND USE THE FACT OF EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN THE EVOLUTION BETWEEN THE TWO SPECIES MENTIONED.
Just read the Talkorgins articles on human evolution. If the explanation is not sufficiently clear or convincing to you, tell us your specific objections so that we can address them. You also could read Carl Zimmer's Intimate Guide to Human OriginsI bet my life you cannot, and I wonder why
Well, bet again. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
@kag
Evolution is NOT a fact. T.oe tries to expalin something that does not exist. No, evolution is a fact, and the theory of evolution explains at its very simplest level the change in allele frequencies of a population. Change in allele frequencies has been observed overe and over again, and denying it "exists" is no different, as far as I'm concerned, from those who claim gravity doesn't actually exist (I've run into a couple, and for the love all humanity, I hope they were really trolls. Unfortunately though their post records said otherwise). About the elephants i think i've posted about them before, i'm not too sure but until u expalin to me xctly how the african variety is a different species from the asian variety i'll just have to keep quiet Well, I posted on the two African elephant species, which I pointed out were "as distinct as lions and tigers, which I’m sure you’ll agree, are different species.", and it seemed to have pretty much ended there, until you popped up asking for examples of speciation yet again. I can't pull up links on the Asian elephant, so I'll leave it at the African elephants, which is more than enough. I take it the peonies are to your satisfaction? |
|
|
|
|
|
shango (m)
|
Absolute, utter bullshit. Laws are descriptive and theories are explanative. They serve different purposes. Absolute utter bullshit. Great rebuttal. Why not backup your comments with sources instead of making moronic ad hominems. I told you the differences and backed it up with a wiki article AND examples of a thoery becoming a law like the theory of electromagnetism. You come back with ABSOLUTE UTTER BULLSHIT. Brilliant. JUST BRILLIANT. You are completely clueless when it comes to the difference between laws and theories. Go and read some Popper, so that you get an insight into the scientific method. No I am not. And I proved why. You on the other hand are. And you have proved why with your continous logical fallacies. Let's make it simple. Descent with modification is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution is an explanation for that fact of evolution. Laws don't even enter the discussion.
As to your show me one instance, I will give you several instances using consensus definitions of species in the field of biology. But first I would like you to define physical experiment, then define species, then define totally new species. If you can do that, we will have the parameters to answer your question. If you can't do that you'll shift the goalposts continuously and discussion is pointless. Crossbreeding, genetic mutations, speciation, micro-evolution etc all support the theory of evolution. All aformentioned are observable reproducable facts in nature. When I say evolution in the overall sense I would assume it saying for a fact that for example we evolved from monkeys. This fact has not been proven scientifically. Sure we share common genetic traits, sure speciation occurs and we can say such facts in the evolution theory lead to macro evolution and therefore the pine tree evolved to a dog over billions of years. That is the theory. Until scientists can make a pine tree evovle or explain why it evolves and the exact mechanisms that led the pinetree or the guinea pig to evolve to a human IT IS STILL A THEORY. DO not try to be coy and say speciation is evolution. Only an idiot will try to say that when we talk about Evolution we are reffering to speciation and genetic mutations. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MACRO EVOLUTION DUMMY. None of your sources explains how, why and how we can reproduce macroevolution. It theorizes it using facts we observe in nature. Mechanisms of evolution
Evolution consists of two basic types of processes: those that introduce new genetic variation into a population, and those that affect the frequencies of existing variation. "Variation proposes and selection disposes." [24]
These mechanisms of evolution have all been observed in the present and in evidence of their existence in the past. Their study is being used to guide the development of new medicines and other health aids such as the current effort to prevent a H5N1 (i.e. bird flu) pandemic. [25]
[edit]
Mutation
Main article: Mutation
Mutation occurs because of a small number of errors that occur during DNA replication.
Natural genetic variation arises as random mutations that inevitably occur at a certain rate in genes. Mutations are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell, and can be caused by: "copying errors" in the genetic material during cell division; by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations that occur in the gametes and thus can be passed on to progeny, and somatic mutations that often lead to the malfunction or death of a cell and can cause cancer.
Mutations that are not affected by natural selection are called neutral mutations. Their frequency in the population is governed by mutation rate, genetic drift and selective pressure on linked alleles. It is understood that a species' genome, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations.
Not all mutations are created equal; simple point mutations (substitutions) or SNPs (Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms), which comprise a major class of genetic variation, and insertions and deletions (indels) usually can only alter the function or regulation (spatial and temporal expression; levels of expression) of existing genes.
On the other hand, gene duplications, which may occur via a number of mechanisms, are believed to be one major source of raw material for evolving new genes; most genes belong to larger "families" of genes derived from a common ancestral gene (two genes from a species that are in the same family are dubbed "paralogs"). Another mechanism for is intergenic recombinatin, particularly 'exon shuffling', i.e., an abberant recombination that joins the 'upstream' part of one gene with the 'downstream' part of another.
Finally, large chromosomal rearrangements (like the fusion of two chromosomes in the chimp/human common ancestor that produced human chromosome 2) do not necessarily change gene function, but do generally result in reproductive isolation, and, by definition, speciation (since "species" (in sexual organisms) are usually defined by the ability to interbreed). It does not explain facts like genetic mutations at all. Can you tell me which version of the TOE you use to explain genetic mutations? There you go ignoramous and it does offer convincing explanations on how species involve into other species. Here's a simple primer on speciation Its evolve not involve, and no speciation does not explain how a guinea pig evolved to a human being. Go ahead, use speciation and other merchanisms of evolution to explain said evolution. I AM WAITING. The facts of evolution are out there right? We are to dumb to explain using the facts infront of us. Go on oh wise dutchman. Just read the Talkorgins articles on human evolution. If the explanation is not sufficiently clear or convincing to you, tell us your specific objections so that we can address them.
You also could read Carl Zimmer's Intimate Guide to Human Origins explain how the homo erectus evolved to the homo sapien, or the guinea pig into the human using scientific facts and how we can reproduce said evolutions in the lab, how do we make a guinea pig into a human using the facts of evolution and its mechanisms. SHOOT, |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
Absolute, utter bullshit. Laws are descriptive and theories are explanative. They serve different purposes. Absolute utter bullshit. Great rebuttal. Why not backup your comments with sources instead of making moronic ad hominems. I have given you some sources before, but you rather ignore them than go through them. Apparently you don't know what an ad hominem is, as I did not attack you, but your absolute, utter bullshit statement that A Scientific Law is and always has been above a Scientific theory. I told you the differences and backed it up with a wiki article AND examples of a thoery becoming a law like the theory of electromagnetism. You come back with ABSOLUTE UTTER BULLSHIT. Brilliant. JUST BRILLIANT. 1. your unsourced wiki article quote does not discuss the differences between laws and theories. It only states that laws can be derived from implications of theories, a far cry from a law is above a theory. A law is only above a theory in your hyperactive mind (and maybe that of some others as well) 2. Hence over time the theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status is only your implication, not that of the quote you provided. Your deductive capabilities are lacking if you can read this into the quote you provided. 3. I have already said before that the claim laws are above theories is incorrect. Your insistence on repeating that falsehood, compel me to label it as absolute, utter bullshit, a poignant description of what it really is: absolute, utter bullshit. You are completely clueless when it comes to the difference between laws and theories. Go and read some Popper, so that you get an insight into the scientific method. No I am not. And I proved why. You on the other hand are. And you have proved why with your continuous logical fallacies. 1. Yes you are clueless. Read this to get some insight into (the) scientific method(s) and this for some insight into the difference between laws and theories. 2. No, you have not proven anything. By the way, proof is for mathematics and logic, not for science. 3. Can you point out the logical fallacies? Preferably with a logical explanation as to why they are fallacies. Show me ONE INSTANCE of a physical experiment showing a species that has been made to evolve to a totally new species. Let's make it simple. Descent with modification is the fact of evolution. The theory of evolution is an explanation for that fact of evolution. Laws don't even enter the discussion. As to your show me one instance, I will give you several instances using consensus definitions of species in the field of biology. But first I would like you to define physical experiment, then define species, then define totally new species. If you can do that, we will have the parameters to answer your question. If you can't do that you'll shift the goalposts continuously and discussion is pointless. Crossbreeding, genetic mutations, speciation, micro-evolution etc all support the theory of evolution. All aformentioned are observable reproducable facts in nature. Ducking the question, are we? Define me species, physical experiment and totally new species and I will show you several instances. When I say evolution in the overall sense I would assume it saying for a fact that for example we evolved from monkeys.
evolution in the overall sense, saying for a fact, for example: all nicely pointing out your cluelessness when it comes to scientific thought. Maybe you can try to be a little less vague, ambiguous and more precise. This fact has not been proven scientifically.
You don't prove something scientifically. you prove something logically or mathematically. In science, evidence and falsifiability are key. Sure we share common genetic traits, sure speciation occurs and we can say such facts in the evolution theory lead to macro evolution and therefore the pine tree evolved to a dog over billions of years. Where in the TOE does it say that a pine tree evolved to a dog? One more indication that you are clueless. It really would help you to go and read the Understanding Evolution site at Berkeley, that way you can get rid of your misconceptions about the TOE. That is the theory.
In your alternative universe it is, yes. Until scientists can make a pine tree evovle or explain why it evolves and the exact mechanisms that led the pinetree or the guinea pig to evolve to a human IT IS STILL A THEORY.
Right. Disprove your strawman of the TOE on your unclear terms trying to prove something that is not implied by the real TOE is the way to convince you. Never going to happen. Indeed the TOE is still and always will be a theory. Nothing wrong with a theory that has expanded, has not been falsified in 150 years and is the fundamental framework underlying all biological sciences. Biologist and Theologist Theodosius Dobzhansky made it perfectly clear: "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"DO not try to be coy and say speciation is evolution.
It is a mechanism through which evolution works. It is not evolution. Only an idiot will try to say that when we talk about Evolution we are referring to speciation and genetic mutations. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MACRO EVOLUTION DUMMY. None of your sources explains how, why and how we can reproduce macroevolution. It theorizes it using facts we observe in nature.
Wanna get into the definition game again? Unambiguously define macro-evolution and speciation. From there one we will have a starting point to refute your poorly informed statements. By the way, what mechanisms prevent micro-evolution to lead to macro-evolution; If you can provide me these, I will consider your statements not to be out of personal incredulence. It does not explain facts like genetic mutations at all. Can you tell me which version of the TOE you use to explain genetic mutations? There you go ignoramous Your unsourced quote still does not equate to TOE explains genetic mutations. You really need to get back to a basic introduction into informal logic, as your mastery of that subject is below par. One more thing, if you (unjustly) accuse me of using ad hominems and assume that that gives you the right to use ad hominems yourself, you aresadly mistaken. Its evolve not involve,
Says the person who himself was annoyed of someone pointing out a typo by himself. thanks for pointing out a TYPO on a inet forum. Can you also correct my punctuation pretty please. Forgive me, next time I will reread what I type so it can face the scrutiny of a faceless Inet board user such as yourself. and no speciation does not explain how a guinea pig evolved to a human being.
No such thing ever happened, except maybe in your overactive imagination. Go ahead, use speciation and other merchanisms of evolution to explain said evolution. I AM WAITING. The facts of evolution are out there right? We are to dumb to explain using the facts infront of us. Go on oh wise dutchman.
Are you capable of constructing a coherent argument? If so, please go ahead, as this rant above does not qualify as coherent. explain how the homo erectus evolved to the homo sapien, or the guinea pig into the human using scientific facts and how we can reproduce said evolutions in the lab, how do we make a guinea pig into a human using the facts of evolution and its mechanisms.
Just an indication in anticipation of your definitions: the divergence in mitochondrial dna of all currently investigated species perfectly correlates with the cladistical predictions made by the TOE. If that weren't the case, it would be a perfect falsification of the TOE. Divergences in Mitochondrial DNA among all living species can only be explained by common descent, unless of course you have an alternative explanation, maybe goddidit for his own inscrutable reasons? |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Sorry about the posting disreprancy. This post should have appeared at a little after my response to Simmy, but I got disconnected till this morning (disadvantage of parents). I saved it though, and I see you guys have moved on a little, but I'll still post it. If I don't respond to your new post today, Shango, then I'll do it as soon as the internet let's me. Einsteins theory of relativity attempts to explain many things. Newtons law of gravity still holds in a certain framework where the frame of reference speed is much less than the speed of light, in such a framework relativistic forces hardly play a part. Hence Eintsteins relativity theory made Newtons law of gravity more precise. The original law holds and still holds for most macro objects that move at comparitively lower speeds than c. A Scientific Law is and always has been above a Scientific theory. Thanks for explaining the relativity thingie etc, don't rightly know if you are right, but it does seem plausible, so…. I do disagree though with your last sentence, and rightly so. To add on to NFeryn's post, I pulled this from the Wiki link, it explains the point adequately: "Physical laws are distinguished from scientific theories by their simplicity. Scientific theories are generally more complex than laws; they have many component parts, and are more likely to be changed as the body of available experimental data and analysis develops. This is because a physical law is a summary observation of strictly empirical matters, whereas a theory is a model that accounts for the observation, explains it, relates it to other observations, and makes testable predictions based upon it. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens, in terms of the more fundamental laws."Taken from a wiki article on law. Laws are understood to be unmutable. Hence over time the theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status. There is a clear heirarchy. String theory for example may become a law when it is proven using empirical data and scientific methods. I do not get why you are still arguing this. Erm, could you point out where wiki stated that the "theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status." What it actually says is, "depending on the context, an extremely well-confirmed theory may allow the terms "theory" and "law" to be used interchangeably without any objection by experts familiar with the current state of the research.". This *surprise* applies to evolution too. yes, I did the same as well. Both support my statements. The theory of evolution is NOT A LAW YET because it has not be rigorously tested to elevate it to law status like the theory of electromagnetism. See above. Also, the theory of evolution has been tested over and over again, and is still yet to be falsified. And while it explains genetic mutations it does not explain how and why species evolve. Show me ONE INSTANCE of a physical experiment showing a species that has been made to evolve to a totally new species. And no, cross breeding and mixed breeding is NOT EVOLUTION. Erm, it explains and gives several reasons for how and why speciation can occur. An experiment? What about Drosophila (yeah, fruit flies)? IIRC, fruitflies with a percentage of genetic difference that surpasses or is about the same (I forget) that of humans and chimps would be a good example of speciation. No linkys though. Uhhh, those are all facts. Uhh, no they are still unbacked claims you've made. Substantiate or retract. And what cell thing. Be specific. That would be this cell thing: "It is a known fact that a single human cell kept alive for years does not spontaneously mutate (and as such what caused and drove the evolution of unicellular organisms to multicellular is not known).". thanks for pointing out a TYPO on a inet forum. You are welcome. Can you also correct my punctuation pretty please. Let me think about it. Forgive me, next time I will reread what I type so it can face the scrutiny of a faceless Inet board user such as yourself. It was bound to happen, especially considering you called a lot of people [science~] illiterates. evolution is not a fact IT IS A THEORY. The theory explains certain facts like genetic mutations, it is not itself a fact. It is not a fact that things evolve. If it was it would be the law of evolution. Didn't we just do this? Or perhaps that was some other person, I forget. Anyway, the ToE attempts to explain many things, including the fact that the allele frequencies of populations change over time. It also is a fact that things evolve, even most staunch anti-evolutionists agree that organisms evolve, they are careful to point out though, that it's "just micro-evolution and macro-evolution doesn't happen". They still haven't told us, at least to my knowledge, what magical barrier separates the two though. The TOE does not fully explain how one species evolves to another, it hypothesizes based on certain observable facts, like shared phenotypical traits, genetic mutations, etc. No, it theorises. If it truly is a fact like you say, please explain how the homo erectus evolved to the homo sapien. GO ON. EXPLAIN IT. EVOLUTION IS A FACT RIGHT. GO AHEAD AND USE THE FACT OF EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN THE EVOLUTION BETWEEN THE TWO SPECIES MENTIONED. First, there's a good chance homo sapiens aren't direct descendants of homo erectus, although homo erectus would most likely have been in the same genus as the homo sapiens ancestor (someone correct me if I'm wrong, because it's being a good while since I read anything on human evolution, and my memory is kind of hazy). So, how could homo erectus have evolved into homo sapiens? simply put, mutations, selection, and genetic drift. I bet my life you cannot, and I wonder why
You owe me part of your life at the very least. edit: I forgot to ask you what exactly you meant when you wrote: "And no, cross breeding and mixed breeding is NOT EVOLUTION". Could you please explain. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
shango (m)
|
I have given you some sources before, but you rather ignore them than go through them. Apparently you don't know what an ad hominem is, as I did not attack you, but your absolute, utter bullshit statement that A Scientific Law is and always has been above a Scientific theory. Your sources say nothing on wether a law is above a theory. I posted a source with an example that proved my point and was pertinent to the argument at hadn. Where in the TOE does it say that a pine tree evolved to a dog? One more indication that you are clueless. It really would help you to go and read the Understanding Evolution site at Berkeley, that way you can get rid of your misconceptions about the TOE. I never said the TOE says a pine evolved to a dog. My point of that statement is The TOE implies common lineage. From websters dictionary
to establish the existence, truth, or validity You don't prove something scientifically. you prove something logically or mathematically. In science, evidence and falsifiability are key. Look at the context I used the word, read the definition above and draw the right conclusion on what I actually said No, it theorises. It theorises after hypothesizing. Do you even know what the scientific process is. A Hypothesis has to be made and evidence shown before you can theorise. Ducking the question, are we? Define me species, physical experiment and totally new species and I will show you several instances. I am going to start defining individual words now so you know the parameters to construct your arguments? If you do not know what simple english words mean LOOK THEM UP. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens, in terms of the more fundamental laws. Take Newton's law. One of its tenets is that the force of an object equals the mass times the acceleration due to gravity. That simple statement explains a multitude of things and events that occur macroscopically in nature, such as the rotation of planets, the flow of liquids macroscopically and a million other things. Tha law does not simply note that something happens. It tells us why as well. So your source and that statement, simply stated, is WRONG. Erm, could you point out where wiki stated that the "theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status." I quoted the article verbatim and it said that, I am not going to repost my sources each time you request it when it is in this same thread. Just go up a few posts and read and you will discover where I quoted that source. Erm, it explains and gives several reasons for how and why speciation can occur. An experiment? What about Drosophila (yeah, fruit flies)? IIRC, fruitflies with a percentage of genetic difference that surpasses or is about the same (I forget) that of humans and chimps would be a good example of speciation. No linkys though. Speciation occurs and is reproduceable. I have said this since the beggining. However it doesnt prove macroevolution and show how macroevolution occurs. just micro-evolution and macro-evolution doesn't happen When we say evolution generically OFCOURSE we mean MACROEVOLUTION. Haven't I reiterated this point ad nauseum. And I am not even saying macroevolution doesnt happen. I am just saying the TOE doesn't prove for a fact that Macroevolution does happen and doesnt adequately explain how and the mechanisms of how it occurs. There is definately extraplolations that occur when going from micro to macro evolution. When so called creationists argue against evolution, I am sure even some of the most hard headed ones know for a fact microevolution occurs, they are not arguing about speciation or breeding or other microevolutionary mechanisms, they are arguing about macroevolution. If it isnt obvious that when people say evolution generically they mean macro evolution then I can see why you have trouble with statements that speciation isnt evolution, because that means speciation is not the same as Macroevolution, it certainly supports the the hypothesis that Macroevolution does occur just as genetic similarity between species supports the hypothesis that Macroevolution occurs. You owe me part of your life at the very least. Aha. Try again. edit: I forgot to ask you what exactly you meant when you wrote: "And no, cross breeding and mixed breeding is NOT EVOLUTION". Could you please explain. Thanks. is NOT (MACRO) EVOLUTION. The macro is implied. Make sense now |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
Your sources say nothing on wether a law is above a theory. I posted a source with an example that proved my point and was pertinent to the argument at hadn. Yeah, so I got the response below from former physics student, graduate and avid science nut Cav~., from a response he gave to a similar claim as yours. “Not quite. They're "laws" because of a shift in language over the last few hundred years. Nothing differentiates these laws from theories of today, and it's worth noting that these "laws" aren't even true outside of a narrow range of observation. For example, Key gives the example of the Law of Gravity and then gives Newtonian gravity. While a very successful theory in its range, it is not accurate in general. We keep it because the range in which it is successful matches the range in which we live, and it is a relatively simple equation. Second, Key goes on to describe facts versus theories. He uses gravity as an example again. He correctly says that gravity is a fact (he uses the word "law"), but then incorrectly states this as Newtontian gravity. The problem here is that, while we may agree that we know a phenomenon exists, our theories are likely to just be approximations. We can't know that even GR is a perfect description. I think his willingness to state that his pet theories are fact, but the ones that he dislikes are "just theories" is a sign of hubris.” I never said the TOE says a pine evolved to a dog. My point of that statement is The TOE implies common lineage. No, no you did, see: “Sure we share common genetic traits, sure speciation occurs and we can say such facts in the evolution theory lead to macro evolution and therefore the pine tree evolved to a dog over billions of years.” It theorises after hypothesizing. Do you even know what the scientific process is. A Hypothesis has to be made and evidence shown before you can theorise. That’s wonderful, because the TOE does explain how one species evolves to another and theorises based on observable facts. Ducking the question, are we? Define me species, physical experiment and totally new species and I will show you several instances.
I am going to start defining individual words now so you know the parameters to construct your arguments? If you do not know what simple english words mean LOOK THEM UP. Actually it’s a valid and reasonable request, especially given the tendency for anti-evolution proponents to have different definitions for established terms, and their propensity to move goalposts on a whim. There’s also the added fact that it already looks like your definition of evolution and macro-evolution differs significantly from the science community. Simply stated, while a law notes that something happens, a theory explains why and how something happens, in terms of the more fundamental laws.
Take Newton's law. One of its tenets is that the force of an object equals the mass times the acceleration due to gravity. That simple statement explains a multitude of things and events that occur macroscopically in nature, such as the rotation of planets, the flow of liquids macroscopically and a million other things. Tha law does not simply note that something happens. It tells us why as well. So your source and that statement, simply stated, is WRONG. Er, no. Newtons laws do not explain gravity or how it works. The laws simply state what happens. “The force of an object equals the mass times the acceleration due to gravity” is not an explanation, it’s clearly just an observed phenomena, like change in allele frequencies in populations occur over time, or organisms fall sick when subject to this type of bacteria”. Erm, could you point out where wiki stated that the "theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status."
I quoted the article verbatim and it said that, I am not going to repost my sources each time you request it when it is in this same thread. Just go up a few posts and read and you will discover where I quoted that source. So you seem to be claiming, but I have read them over again, and still nothing on "theory of electromagnetism has been ELEVATED to law status.", what I still see however is, “depending on the context, an extremely well-confirmed theory may allow the terms "theory" and "law" to be used interchangeably without any objection by experts familiar with the current state of the research."; which, of course, is totally different from what you’ve claimed. Speciation occurs and is reproduceable. I have said this since the beggining. However it doesnt prove macroevolution and show how macroevolution occurs. Perhaps it’s time to give your definition of macro-evolution, which clearly must be different from the rest of the science community. When we say evolution generically OFCOURSE we mean MACROEVOLUTION. Haven't I reiterated this point ad nauseum. No you haven’t reiterated the point ad nauseam, and it’s more accurate to say, when YOU say evolution, YOU generically [probably] mean MACRO-EVOLUTION. Nobody, to my knowledge, in the science community uses evolution as a generic substitute for Macro-. And I am not even saying macroevolution doesnt happen. I am just saying the TOE doesn't prove for a fact that Macroevolution does happen and doesnt adequately explain how and the mechanisms of how it occurs.
There are definitely extrapolations that occur when going from micro to macro evolution. Here is the same old problem again, it doesn’t prove macro-evolution, but then again science does not prove anything, Also, there are extrapolations involved in both micro- and macro- evolutions but that’s not a problem, because ample evidence is given to support the extrapolations. When so called creationists argue against evolution, I am sure even some of the most hard headed ones know for a fact microevolution occurs, they are not arguing about speciation or breeding or other microevolutionary mechanisms, they are arguing about macroevolution. If it isnt obvious that when people say evolution generically they mean macro evolution then I can see why you have trouble with statements that speciation isnt evolution, because that means speciation is not the same as Macroevolution, it certainly supports the the hypothesis that Macroevolution does occur just as genetic similarity between species supports the hypothesis that Macroevolution occurs. Erm, then what is macro-evolution if it isn’t speciation? And no, macro-evolution isn’t a hypothesis. Aha. Try again. That’s the best you can offer? is NOT (MACRO) EVOLUTION. The macro is implied. Make sense now I don’t see how the macro- was implied, but that makes sense now. |
|
|
|
|
|
shango (m)
|
Second, Key goes on to describe facts versus theories. He uses gravity as an example again. He correctly says that gravity is a fact (he uses the word "law"), but then incorrectly states this as Newtontian gravity. The problem here is that, while we may agree that we know a phenomenon exists, our theories are likely to just be approximations. We can't know that even GR is a perfect description. I think his willingness to state that his pet theories are fact, but the ones that he dislikes are "just theories" is a sign of hubris.” gravity is an observable mechanism in nature. The law of gravity or Newtonian gravity attempts to explain this mechanism scientifically and has held up to intense scrutiny mathematically and physically when the frame of reference is not moving at speeds approaching the speed of light. I never said laws where perfect, but they are always above and hold more weight than theories. Sure we share common genetic traits, sure speciation occurs and we can say such facts in the evolution theory lead to macro evolution and therefore the pine tree evolved to a dog over billions of years read it again, those are some of the conclusions drawn from the TOE, the TOE never explicitely said that, it is a theory used to explain many things, one of those things is that macroevolution occurs over billions of years to create distinct species from previous species, the TOE in of itself doesnt state this. Again, read and understand what i said. That’s wonderful, because the TOE does explain how one species evolves to another and theorises based on observable facts. Again, using the TOE, please explain how the homo erectus became the homo sapien, this is the second time I will ask, explain away since the TOE explains this. Actually it’s a valid and reasonable request, especially given the tendency for anti-evolution proponents to have different definitions for established terms, and their propensity to move goalposts on a whim. There’s also the added fact that it already looks like your definition of evolution and macro-evolution differs significantly from the science community. Get your head out of your ass and read what I have stated. I am NOT ANTI-EVOLUTION dumbass. I believe in evolution. All I am arguing is it is a theory and is not the end all and be all in explaining the origin of man, it still has a long way to go in explaining our origins, much like any other THEORY, my point is theory have been and will continue to undergo revisions and corrections because they do not precisely explain mechanisms and events like laws do. And laws are often times approximations as well and have strict limits within which they can be used. Erm, then what is macro-evolution if it isn’t speciation? And no, macro-evolution isn’t a hypothesis. If it is speciation explain how the homo erectus became the homo sapien through speciation/macroevolution. Shoot, No you haven’t reiterated the point ad nauseam, and it’s more accurate to say, when YOU say evolution, YOU generically [probably] mean MACRO-EVOLUTION. Nobody, to my knowledge, in the science community uses evolution as a generic substitute for Macro-. We are not talking about the science community when discussing opponents of evolution we are talking about the community at large. DUH. |
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
gravity is an observable mechanism in nature. So is evolution. The law of gravity or Newtonian gravity attempts to explain this mechanism scientifically and has held up to intense scrutiny mathematically and physically when the frame of reference is not moving at speeds approaching the speed of light. I never said laws where perfect, but they are always above and hold more weight than theories. This is getting rather inane and ridculous. Newtonians's law of gravity only represented mathematically the phenomena known as gravity. The theory of gravity sought to explain that phenomena. Einstein's theory of relativity has taken up the explanation of the phenomena known as gravity. read it again, those are some of the conclusions drawn from the TOE, the TOE never explicitely said that, it is a theory used to explain many things, one of those things is that macroevolution occurs over billions of years to create distinct species from previous species, the TOE in of itself doesnt state this. Again, read and understand what i said. At least this time you didn't try claiming that wasn't what you wrote. Those are not the conclusions drawn from the ToE, because while the ToE does include common descent and the relatedness of all species, it does not claim "therefore the pine tree evolved to a dog over billions of years". That's a misconception many (at least in my experience) anti-evolution proponents share. Something that I wouldn't expect anybody who accepts the theory of evolution, to write\say. Again, using the TOE, please explain how the homo erectus became the homo sapien, this is the second time I will ask, explain away since the TOE explains this. You probably missed it, so I'll post it again, a brief explanation: "First, there's a good chance homo sapiens aren't direct descendants of homo erectus, although homo erectus would most likely have been in the same genus as the homo sapiens ancestor (someone correct me if I'm wrong, because it's being a good while since I read anything on human evolution, and my memory is kind of hazy). So, how could homo erectus or a similar species, have evolved into homo sapiens? Simply put, mutations, selection, and genetic drift." Get your head out of your ass and read what I have stated. I am NOT ANTI-EVOLUTION dumbass. I believe in evolution. If it looks like a duck, spouts as much mis-information, has no idea what the theory states, and seems absurdly clueless, then it would probably be better if it played for the other team. All I am arguing is it is a theory and is not the end all and be all in explaining the origin of man, it still has a long way to go in explaining our origins, much like any other THEORY, my point is theory have been and will continue to undergo revisions and corrections because they do not precisely explain mechanisms and events like laws do. And laws are often times approximations as well and have strict limits within which they can be used. the law of evolution would be: change in allele frequencies in populations of organisms happen over time theory would be explaining how that affects changes in life, the mechanisms that drive it, etc. Also, I don't think anybody claims the theory of evolution has explained to a T, the orgins of man, but it has howver established a good case for the origins and relationship of man with not just other apes, but other species as well. If it is speciation explain how the homo erectus became the homo sapien through speciation/macroevolution. Shoot, See above. We are not talking about the science community when discussing opponents of evolution we are talking about the community at large. DUH.
It's usually those that actually make use of the theory in question, that define the meanings of terms used in the theories. You would also hope that anybody with at least a decent understanding of the theory, would have the ability to not conflate terms (which does nothing but confuse issues). In fact most who discuss the theory, have enough sense to say exactly what they mean, and that's why we get many creationists who try to seperate macro- from micro-, stressing on macro-evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
Maxwelle (m)
|
Whew! Not so much ad hominem as ad argumentum. You two are tearing the other's arguments apart, seldom touching on the subject. Or so it appears. Time for a breath of fresh air. Creation is (and I'm trying to be generous here) the idea that the origin of the multitudinous and various life forms present on Earth is explicable by appeal to the design of a , er, Designer. Presumably, said Designer's will, motive, and means can be discerned by appeal to sacred writings (and by "sacred writings," I mean the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.) If the Bible (Torah, Koran, etc.) says, "And then, after a nice nap, The Mighty Designer Thing created the Ocelot," then that's exactly what happened (except I don't think any of them mention ocelots specifically, but I digress). If the sacred work says: Then God said, ‘Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it.’ And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. and does not go on to mention any other kind of plants, what do we learn? Did the EDITORS of the sacred work forget something? Now. Suppose a hated secular scientist mentions that there may be something in common between, say, a gymnosperm and a bryophyte. Some kind of hinky DNA thing, or a science thing, or something about , oh, I don't know, chromosomes or speciation, or alleles (which, as far as I can tell, are NEVER MENTIONED IN ANY SACRED WORK. EVER, ). Bryophytes do NOT have seeds. Yet they seem to exist. Is it POSSIBLE that since thousands of years ago, when the sacred works were first put to paper (or papyrus, or whatever) that human knowledge about the external universe has progressed a little bit? Is it POSSIBLE that ideas that were completely inconceivable to the holders of those stylii (or feathers, or quills, or whatever) etching on that paper (or papyrus or parchment) are now within our grasp? Is it POSSIBLE that an idea (such that, say, mosses exist) which is not mentioned in the sacred work might be true? Is it possible that the Creator of the universe (which, I think, really does exist, the universe, that is) acts in ways that are as inconceivable to us as the actions of seed formation are inconceivable to a moss? Is it possible that the editors of the sacred works were GUESSING about the nature of creation? Is it? Are we being tested? Are mosses there to test our faith in God? I'm rambling a little. I apologize (ahead of time.) |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
@ Maxwelle,
I don't really get your point, but it seems that you are a proponent of theistic evolution, which is a perfectly reasonable position. The idea that a deity created our biodiversity by means of evolutionary processes does not contradict the scientific evidence.
However, when people propose that a literal interpretation of the Bible is correct, they are clearly in conflict with reason, reality and science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
simmy (m)
|
It's really sad, really sad, t.o.e fails very miserably in explaining a host of things, fossil evidence shows that complex organisms' appeared on stage' totally complex and very suddenly;there's ABSOLUTELY NO shred of evidence to support speciation; (read carefully for yourself through any such claims that might exist on the net and even if you're armed with o -level knowledge of biology you should be able to show that these claims are nothing more than glorified variation) and yet evolutionists cling dogmatically to their belief in t.oe, !!!
Until scientists can come up with more convincing arguments to support t.oe, it will continue to be the greatest myth of the scientific world
|
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
says simmy, our clueles creationist who fails to be convinced by any type of evidence that does not point in the direction of the active hand of the creator. Dear mr. simmy, do you have an alternative explanation for the fact that mitochondrial dna divergences among species are perfectly in line with the cladistical prediction made from the fossil evidence, except for the usual goddidit of course
|
|
|
|
|
|
KAG (f)
|
It's really sad, really sad, t.o.e fails very miserably in explaining a host of things, fossil evidence shows that complex organisms' appeared on stage' totally complex and very suddenly;there's ABSOLUTELY NO shred of evidence to support speciation; (read carefully for yourself through any such claims that might exist on the net and even if you're armed with o -level knowledge of biology you should be able to show that these claims are nothing more than glorified variation) and yet evolutionists cling dogmatically to their belief in t.oe, !!!
Until scientists can come up with more convincing arguments to support t.oe, it will continue to be the greatest myth of the scientific world
Funny guy. So no actual reply to my examples of the Elephants and peonies, eh? Can't say I'm surprised, though. I mean who needs to bother reading up on, and responding to evidence like ERVs, transitionals, etc, when it's easier to just attempt to handwave them away, shut off your brain, and yell "glory, we've defeated the evil evilutionists once again, in the name of our God". I'm sorry, but what fossil evidence shows "complex organisms' appeared on stage' totally complex and very suddenly"? I guess moving on to a totally new topic wouldn't be amiss in such a heavily one-sided thread. Oh, and what ever you do don't say the Cambrian, just saying. |
|
|
|
|
|
Maxwelle (m)
|
Has anyone mentioned whale pelvises?
Whales have pelvises.
Did God just have a lot of extra pelvises lying about when he "created" whales? Is this the "power of explanation" provided by Creationism? Now it can be argued (poorly) that whales need pelvises for reproduction, as there are muscles attached to them. But why shape it like the same bone a terrestrial animal would use to pivot legs about with?
Again, creation needs to peer into the mind of God and say, "Hmm, God must really like the Pelvis."
That's about it, explanatory power-wise, I guess.
Evolution, on the other hand, provides a pretty nifty explanation (see if you can guess what it is, hint, words like "selection" will come up).
I am not a proponent of theistic evolution.
I'm pretty sure that both evolution and creationism (or intelligent design, if you will) are wrong.
Just that evolution is a little less wrong.
BTW, a lot of new species have been discovered outside the Hanford nuclear security area in Washington State.
It's quite possible that they would have been undiscoverable before the mutagenic properties of the area became, er, significantly more abundant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
simmy (m)
|
I do not neccesarily have to prove creationists right, all i have to do is prove t.oe wrong
Mr.kag
I'm not going to xchange words with u until u explain to me in your own words y the african elephant is considered a different specie 4rom the asian one if u can't , then we have nothing to speak about Nb, fossil records are there, these things are supposed to be common knowledge
It's easy to poke fun at creationists and their "Goddidit" answer to everythng but u just have to face the fact that some arguments presented by t.oe are far more incredulous than a creationist answer as silly and unscientific as it sounds
|
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
I do not neccesarily have to prove creationists right, all i have to do is prove t.oe wrong
To achieve what exactly? The truth of the creationist pov? That approach hardly fits the bill. All I've currently seen from you are arguments from personal incredulity, i.e. I don't understand how the TOE explains X, thus TOE is false. Mr.kag
I'm not going to xchange words with u until u explain to me in your own words y the african elephant is considered a different specie 4rom the asian one if u can't , then we have nothing to speak about Nb, fossil records are there, these things are supposed to be common knowledge
Simple: reproductively isolated populations are considered different species. Maybe you could address the arguments of KAG instead of comming up with new arguments against the TOE that have been refuted time and time again. It's easy to poke fun at creationists and their "Goddidit" answer to everythng but u just have to face the fact that some arguments presented by t.oe are far more incredulous than a creationist answer as silly and unscientific as it sounds
Be my guest, dear simmy, what arguments presented by the TOE are incredulous and for what reason? By the way, arguments from strawman versions of the TOE, that say thinks like pine trees evolve into dogs are not what you should be looking at. Also, can you provide an alternative explanation to the fact that the fact that mitochondrial dna divergences among species are perfectly in line with the cladistical prediction made from the fossil evidence and with common descent |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
One of the things that strikes me about the advocates of the Theory of evolution, because that is all it is, a theory, is their inability to see the illogical conclusion, or assumption, behind order after an explosion (Big Bang).
In this part of the universe if something explodes it leads to destruction, and not order. More and more scientist peer into the universe and marvel at the orderliness of the same. They see a design, yet fail to acknowledge a Designer.
Strange indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
@simmy I do not neccesarily have to prove creationists right, all i have to do is prove t.oe wrong
Mr.kag
I'm not going to xchange words with u until u explain to me in your own words y the african elephant is considered a different specie 4rom the asian one if u can't , then we have nothing to speak about Nb, fossil records are there, these things are supposed to be common knowledge
It's easy to poke fun at creationists and their "Goddidit" answer to everythng but u just have to face the fact that some arguments presented by t.oe are far more incredulous than a creationist answer as silly and unscientific as it sounds I agree, and as a matter of fact it may require more faith to believe in TTOE than is required to believe in creation. The bible simply has given a summary of what we have seen around us. We who are looking back at both accounts can only use what is now to explain what was then. I mean how could one unicellular life form have developed into so many varied lifeforms, possessing such complex and orderly processes, under the situations that have been presented by the advocates of TTOE? Today we see a cell producing similar cells, after its kind. The biggest thorn in the flesh for advocates of TTOE, is the missing links, for which they have not been able to give a reasonable answer. If a fish over time lost its fins to develop limbs, how come sceintists have never been able to show a creature showing the changes. Where are the intermediary forms? Strange indeed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
One of the things that strikes me about the advocates of the Theory of evolution, because that is all it is, a theory, is their inability to see the illogical conclusion, or assumption, behind order after an explosion (Big Bang).
The Theory of Evolution is not a cosmological theory, but only deals with life, after the first replicators arose. It does not deal with the origin of life and it does not deal with the origin of the universe. In this part of the universe if something explodes it leads to destruction, and not order.
Meaning? As if the Big bang was anything like a simple explosion. Don't apply our simple sensory understanding of the world surrounding us to something as profoundly against common sense as the Big Bang. More and more scientist peer into the universe and marvel at the orderliness of the same.
Order can only be stated in relation to non-order. Our universe is far from orderly, there are small pockets of order, though. They see a design, yet fail to acknowledge a Designer.
Order does not imply design, only in the overactive minds of those adhering to a theistic cosmology. Strange indeed.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, all problems look like nails |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
I agree, and as a matter of fact it may require more faith to believe in TTOE than is required to believe in creation.
Why? Please ellaborate and substantiate this statement. The bible simply has given a summary of what we have seen around us.
And has been falsified on many occasions if one is to take it's content literally. We who are looking back at both accounts can only use what is now to explain what was then. I mean how could one unicellular life form have developed into so many varied lifeforms, possessing such complex and orderly processes, under the situations that have been presented by the advocates of TTOE?
Please ellaborate. This rambling is void of content as it stands. Today we see a cell producing similar cells, after its kind.
Hugh? Be more specific please. What cells produce what cells under what conditions and by which processes. Could you also define kind? The biggest thorn in the flesh for advocates of TTOE, is the missing links, for which they have not been able to give a reasonable answer. If a fish over time lost its fins to develop limbs, how come sceintists have never been able to show a creature showing the changes. Where are the intermediary forms?
You mean these or rather these? Funny that I can present them after a 1 minute internet search while those pesky scientists have never been able to find them, ever? Or wait, I just refered you to scientists that were able to present them, oh my  |
|
|
|
|
|
Bobbyaf (m)
|
Why? Please ellaborate and substantiate this statement. Well no one was there to see exactly what took place, so the evolutionist has to base his arguments on assumptions first then try to find evidence to match the assumptions. The christian by faith, which is another form of assumption, albeit a good one,  , attempts to base his arguments on evidence also. When you stop to listen to the attempt to supply an abundance of evidence as put forward by the advocates of TTOE, and the way it is presented, and in such jargon, with its confusing terms, you begin to wonder. Please ellaborate. This rambling is void of content as it stands. My English is clear. The onous is on you to explain the jump from unicellular life forms to complex ones. Explain the jump. The bible accounts for a creation of mature humans, and animals who procreated after their own kind. This has continued fom generation to generation. We see it happen everyday. You mean these or rather these?
Funny that I can present them after a 1 minute internet search while those pesky scientists have never been able to find them, ever? Or wait, I just refered you to scientists that were able to present them, oh my I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here. I was hoping you'D address the thorny issue thats been plauging evolutionary scientists for awhile now. In my ignorance I may have overlooked such a dscovery of the missing link, but please be kind enough to show me a reasonable link that will reveal the truth and not some lame attempt at falsifying the facts. The Theory of Evolution is not a cosmological theory, but only deals with life, after the first replicators arose. It does not deal with the origin of life and it does not deal with the origin of the universe. Which carries us right back to square one. Where did life come from? Before there even was an earth where did the bio-molecules come from that program life? So why was the origin of life associated with it, that is the Big Bang? If there were no Big Bang there could have been no life on earth, according to these scientist, right? TTOE had its connections tied up with the Big Bang. Order does not imply design, only in the overactive minds of those adhering to a theistic cosmology So what does if not design? Take a look at nature and tell me if you do not see design and order? Take a look at human cells. Look at the amazing chemical network of hormones working in harmony. Only an all-powerful-Creator-Designer God could have designed man's body. |
|
|
|
|
|
nferyn (m)
|
Why? Please ellaborate and substantiate this statement. Well no one was there to see exactly what took place, so the evolutionist has to base his arguments on assumptions first then try to find evidence to match the assumptions. Incorrect. I think you need to inform yourself about how science works. First there is the data, then scientists try to make sense of the data by hypothesising. These hypothesises get tested, people try to falsify the hypothesis. Once enough evidence speaks in favor of a hypothesis (and no evidence whatsoever falsifies it) it can be ellevated to the level of theory. Theories live or die with the evidence in it's favor/disfavor. The theory of evolution has expanded to include the findings of molecular genetics, developmental biology, etc. After more than 150 years, it's a theory that is so well grounded in the evidence that in all confidence, it can claim the label fact. The christian by faith, which is another form of assumption, albeit a good one, , attempts to base his arguments on evidence also. Faith is acceptance of truth without evidence. A very different mode of thinking than science. I wonder what evidence exactly the literalist creationist christian uses to support his position? Is it another circular reasoning whereby the Bible is used to justify the truth contained in the Bible? This kind of logical phalacies doesn't do the trick you know. When you stop to listen to the attempt to supply an abundance of evidence as put forward by the advocates of TTOE, and the way it is presented, and in such jargon, with its confusing terms, you begin to wonder. You have to understand that science isn't easy. You won't always get neat simple answers to complex questions. Understanding what science has to offer takes a considerable intellectual effort and some things (such as quantum mechanics) you can only begin to grasp after years of hard study and even then it's above most people's intellectual potential. So if you're complaining about the complexity and jargon of biology, you're only saying that you either don't have the ability or the inclination to study the materials. Now, there's good news for you, evolutionary biology, contrary to quantum mechanics can be explained in simpler terms. The website on evolution at Berkely university does a splendid job in that regard. When you want to discuss the primary evidence on the other hand, you will need to study the subject in more detail. Please ellaborate. This rambling is void of content as it stands. My English is clear. The onous is on you to explain the jump from unicellular life forms to complex ones. Explain the jump. The bible accounts for a creation of mature humans, and animals who procreated after their own kind. This has continued fom generation to generation. We see it happen everyday. 1. There are several credible hypothesises on how unicellular life evolved into multicellular life. Findings from molecular genetics (i.e. implications of mutation rates of non-coding DNA) do point conclusively in the direction of common descent of all life from unicellular life. There's no silver bullet found yet though. 2. The alternative you present (Genesis) is so profoundly falsified on all accounts that I won't even bother to discuss it here (if you really want to do that, open another thread and I'll happily join in) You mean these or rather these?
Funny that I can present them after a 1 minute internet search while those pesky scientists have never been able to find them, ever? Or wait, I just refered you to scientists that were able to present them, oh my I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here. I was hoping you'D address the thorny issue thats been plauging evolutionary scientists for awhile now. In my ignorance I may have overlooked such a dscovery of the missing link, but please be kind enough to show me a reasonable link that will reveal the truth and not some lame attempt at falsifying the facts. 1. Those thorny issues only exist in the minds of creationists, unless of course you're referring to specific mechanisms of evolution (e.g. to what level is punctuation responsible for speciation events) 2. So you're accusing my sources of falsifying the facts. Prove it. The Theory of Evolution is not a cosmological theory, but only deals with life, after the first replicators arose. It does not deal with the origin of life and it does not deal with the origin of the universe. Which carries us right back to square one. Where did life come from? Before there even was an earth where did the bio-molecules come from that program life? You really are clueless, aren't you? Evolutionary theory doesn't deal with the origin of life, try a search for abiogenesis. Order, complexity and self-organisation can come into existence through relatively simple natural means. Just look at the formation of hurricanes, cristalisation processes and many auto-regulatory chemical processes (e.g. the ATP cycle) So why was the origin of life associated with it, that is the Big Bang? If there were no Big Bang there could have been no life on earth, according to these scientist, right? TTOE had its connections tied up with the Big Bang.
The Big Bang exlains biodiversity as much as water explains me being born. Without water, I wouldn't be here. Your point? Order does not imply design, only in the overactive minds of those adhering to a theistic cosmology So what does if not design? Take a look at nature and tell me if you do not see design and order? Take a look at human cells. Look at the amazing chemical network of hormones working in harmony. Only an all-powerful-Creator-Designer God could have designed man's body. Personal incredulity at it's best. Do go and study some biology before you come with these crackpot explanations and while you're at it, maybe you can focus on self-organising systems, as they show how simple, unintelligent causes working on independent components can produce incredible complexity and order. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Poll
Author
