Audie
Veteran Member
Evolutionary biologists generally agree that humans and other living species are descended from bacterialike ancestors. But before about two billion years ago, human ancestors branched off. This new group, called eukaryotes, also gave rise to other animals, plants, fungi and protozoans.
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We can test, observe, measure adaptation, we can't say the same for such macro evolution speculation- no way around that.
It is not just the sudden appearances that are remarkable and problematic for Darwinian predictions, but the vast periods of stasis, 100s of millions of years with no evolution taking place. These observations could hardly diverge any more from the slow steady changes originally predicted
It would be helpful if the theory could be modeled mathematically, there are many extraordinary systems in nature we can do this for, Darwinian evolution is not one of them, we run into fundamental problems and limitations with the algorithm
Dar·win·ism
ˈdärwəˌnizəm/
noun
- the theory of the evolution of species by natural selection advanced by Charles Darwin.
it's pretty commonly understood, some Darwinists refer to themselves as Neo-Darwinists- Darwinist, Darwinian.. is just quicker.
You can call it ToE if you like and I will assume you are referring generally to a Darwinian model of evolution.. would I be wrong?
The Cambrian explosion was known in Victorian times, but the explicit prediction was that it was an artifact of an incomplete record, that should be filled in and smoothed out over time as more fossils were found. 21st C science reveals the exact opposite, the cambrian (and other explosive appearances) have become ever more distinct, abrupt, explosive- to the extent that even many evolutionists have increasingly splintered off into punctuated equilibrium, acknowledging what skeptics predicted all along- the gaps are real
None of these are slam dunk refutations in themselves, but the reality v prediction could hard be less harmonious
well if I had a nickel for every ignored question...
No I don't think science is wrong, I think Darwinism is wrong, atheism is wrong-
^ not only that, but one that can also account for the complete LACK of change over 100's of millions of years observed in some species-
As I said, maybe to somebody else. Darwinism was formulated within a Victorian age model of reality. It was a perfectly logical extrapolation of classical physics at the time, whereby a handful of simple 'immutable' laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in.. were all you needed for jolly interesting results to organize themselves eventually!
I agree with Darwin's original premise, life DOES develop in the same general manner as the physics and chemistry which came before it.
Only today that means something else entirely; by a vast archive of finely detailed, guiding instructions, predetermining how where and when development occurs. I see no reason to believe that the mechanism reverts back to a Victorian model at the first replicator.
Physical apples still fall from trees, and genetic apples still fall not far from theirs.. we can observe both scientifically yes? The problem, I submit to you, is extrapolating either of these into comprehensive explanatory mechanisms, they are features of a deeper design, determined by a deeper layer in a hierarchical information system.
i.e. you cannot explain evolution with adaptation, any more than you can explain gravity with classical physics, it is doomed to paradoxical failure
sorry for the length here..
Well, I did ask for one data set and I got a gish.
Sorry for not attempting to deal with it.