-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evolution: Do you see the resemblence
- Thread starter roli
- Start date
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
I am not very learned, but do understand basic evolutionary theory, but thank you. I think my strength is more in being able to explain it than in being very knowledgeable.
Thank you, that's great.
Yes, I do hold strong opinion. They do accord with the scientific mainstream, which gives me an advantage. Some sources are invalid. As I've said; I can prove it.
Umm, well, I don't think I'm a zealot, since my views are pretty mainstream. I don't as a rule try to convert someone to atheism and away from their religion. I do think the truth is very important, and evolution is in that category of factual truth, not a matter of opinion like religion.
No, sorry, not going to let you get away with calling any opinion a faith. The difference is, it's based on evidence, facts and reasoning.
Hmmm. Well, it is true that accepting the fact of evolution is going to have to change your theology, if your theology is YEC. Atheism is one option, but not the only one by far.
No, I'm sorry, you're quite mistaken about how science works. Finding gaps and doing good research that supports doubts and reservations is exactly what gets you funding and grants, also fame and glory...and Nobel prizes.
First, we're not concerned with all scientists in all fields, just those with the relevant expertise, which is to say, Biology. As I've said, over 99% of working Biologists do accept ToE. Evolution is going on around us all the time. Chances are that eventually a new species will emerge from Homo sapiens sapiens. Chances are also that eventually our species will go extinct; that's what usually happens...eventually.
so roli, I'm not done with the evidence yet, maybe half way through. Are you willing to stop saying that there is no evidence in support of ToE?
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
How do you know what you're looking for, if you never define it?
Been given by whom? For what?
Have you been reading the thread? I almost get the idea that you've got some canned responses that you use regardless of whatever anyone else posts. The evidence that I've given in this very thread is not "micro-evolutionary" at all. It's not a hypothesis, it's a theory, a theory amply supported by the evidence, as I am in the process of showing, and none of which you've refuted.
Of course it can. For example, as I've just said, had the earth turned out to be only 100 million years old, ToE would have been falsified. ToE predicted that it would be several billion years old, and it is. The Cambrian Explosion is not evidence against ToE, why would you think it is? I don't think you understand how science works. All that science does is generate new hypotheses to keep the understanding coherent. So, what you're saying is, these scientists do science! Horrors! ToE could easily be falsified. For example, take any of the evidences I've given. Had the pattern been the opposite of what I described, it would tend to falsify ToE. That's what makes them evidence in support of ToE. And I haven't even gotten to the two strongest pieces of evidence yet, fossils and DNA! Well, more to come then.
No, I just use the scientist criteria for science, which makes it scientific. There is no such thing as an evolutionist in the sense in which you are using it.
Stop smilie abuse now. : hamster :
Roli, it's not a matter of authority, it's a matter of factual evidence.
That aside, let's look at your link:
Having a master's degree in a "recognized area of science" does not make a person an authority on evolution or even biology. Also, I see that the graduate degrees listed for some of the Society's board of directors were earned by the ICR and other dubious institutions.
Same comment: knowledge of one field of science does not necessarily imply expertise in another. Just as an evolutionary biologist would likely not know how to invent an "important high-tech alloy", a materials science researcher cannot be expected to be an authority on biology.
The next part of the web site is a long and misleading list of names of scientists. To start off with, I'll separate out the entries on the list who have been dead for at least a century:
And of the ones that are left, here are the ones whose scientific expertise has nothing to do with evolution:
Which leaves these ones who might have anything approaching a modern (within a lifetime) professional knowledge of anything relating to evolutionary theory on which to base an opinion:
And I think it's fair to say that none of these people are held in high regard in the scientific communities to which they belong.
So... now that we've removed the explosives inventors and people who died a century before Darwin was born, of the people we have left, were there any of their specific claims that you wanted to talk about?
ericmurphy
Member
Thanks for the definition, which is functionally identical to the one I gave. I also explained how homoplasies are distinguished from homologies, which completely obliterates your argument that convergent evolution presents a problem for evolutionary theory.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Now remember when I said that all creationist websites are inaccurate, and that I could prove it? This is a good example. Click on the link. They are trying to persuade you that:
I think you will agree that we are not concerned with what engineers or mathematicians believe, but that the only relevant inquiry is among biologists or related fields. Otherwise it's just a fallacious appeal to authority: This smart guy believes it, so you should to. The question is, what is the mainstream, consensus view of Biology and related fields? Then they start listing something called "creation scientists." Think about that for a minute. What is a "creation scientist?" There is no specialty of science called "creation." The relevant question is, do you accept ToE, or don't you?
Now let's look at their list. As 9/10 pointed out, most of them died before ToE was discovered. So how on earth would that be helpful? I mean, all the astronomers 500 years ago thought the sun revolved around the earth, but we've learned a lot since then. Science progresses. So right there, they're deceptive. Why would you even mention someone like Newton, who died centuries before ToE was discovered? If you think about it, it's so dishonest that it's a form of lying. Kepler??? He died in 1630!! How could he possibly have had an opinion on a theory that wasn't developed for another 200 years? They're lying to you, roli.
Then you have bunch of guys whose field doesn't touch on biology. Just randomly, because I had heard of him, I chose Werner Von Braun. I thought, why would a rocket scientist be commenting on Biology? And of course, he never did. I cannot find anything whatsoever about his views regarding ToE. He seems to have believed in God, and a divine designer, but as I have shown in this thread, that belief is entirely consistent with ToE. For all we know, he may have been an ardent proponent of evolution. Again--it's so careless, so regardless of accuracy, that it's actually dishonest. All creationist websites lie. I can prove it.
And, as as has been said repeatedly, what does an engineer or astronomer know about Biology? And who cares?
In fact, I didn't find a single working biologist on their list, did you? What a steaming pile of Baloney.
btw, there are a couple of biologists who reject ToE in favor of special creation, and in the interest of honest, since I'm not a lying creationist, I'll name the ones I know:
Jonathan Wells
Michael Behe
Ken Cumming
Duane Gish
Maybe anyone else could name any others? There are thousands of biologists in the world. As I have said repeatedly, >99% accept ToE. It is the mainstream, uncontroversial, foundation of modern Biology. You've been lied to. By creationists. Aren't you angry?
ericmurphy
Member
Anyone who thinks there's no evidence for macroevolution obviously hasn't read Theobald's "29+ Evidences for Evolution," available at the TalkOrigins site. Here's a list of 27 different falsifiable predictions of evolutionary theory:
Prediction 1: a universal genetic code.
Potential falsification: a finding of multiple, unrelated genetic codes.
Prediction 2: a nested hierarchy of species.
Potential falsification: organisms that violate nested hierarchies, such as feathered platypuses, non-vascular plants with seeds, birds with mammary glands, insects with placentas.
Prediction 3: consilience of independent phylogenies.
Potential falsification: independently-derived phylogenies which do not converge, or which produce wildly divergent hierarchies.
Prediction 4: intermediate and transitional forms in the fossil record.
Potential falsification: fossils which do not fit into nested hierarchies, such as a mammal-like bird or an insect-like starfish.
Prediction 5: chronological order of intermediates.
Potential falsification: a negative correlation between the stratigraphy and the phylogenetic tree. E.g., mammal-reptile intermediates older than reptile-amphiban intermediates, or reptile-amphibian intermediates older than proterostome-deuterostome intermediates.
Prediction 6: anatomical vestiges.
Potential falsification: a vestigial feature that was not functional in an ancestor. Examples: snakes with vestigial wings, insects with vestigial backbones, primates with vestigial horns, mammals with vestigial gizzards.
Prediction 7: Atavisms (e.g., living whales with legs, living humans with tails)
Potential falsification: the same as the falsification for anatomical vestiges.
Prediction 8: Molecular vestiges (e.g., the broken human gene for ascorbic acid).
Potential falsification: essentially the same as for anatomical vestiges and atavisms. A finding of pseudogenes for chloroplasts in any metazoan.
Prediction 9: embryonic features of ancestors, such as gills in amniotes.
Potential falsification: embryonic features that do not exist in ancestral lines, e.g., nipples in reptile embryos or bird-like beaks in eutherian mammal embryos, leg buds in teleost fish.
Prediction 10: Present biogeography should reflect common descent.
Potential falsification: elephants on remote Pacific islands, amphibians on remote islands, Antarctic or Australian indigenous cacti.
Prediction 11: Past biogeography. We should not find the same taxon on two landmasses that separated before the taxon evolved (excepting, of course, later imports)
Potential falsification: ape fossils in South America, elephant fossils in Australia.
Prediction 12: human and ape fossils should not be found in Australia, South America, or on remote islands which would have been inaccessible to ancestral apes at the time they evolved.
Potential falsification: human, H. erectus, Australopithicus, etc. fossils in Australia, the Americas, Antarctica, etc.
Prediction 13: Anatomical parahomology. There should be no anatomical features that are not derived from previously existing structures.
Potential falsification: an existing anatomical structure that cannot be derived from more primitive, ancestral features. A horse with wings would be a falsification, since there would be no anatomical features of any horse that could be modified into wings (no ancestors of horses have six limbs).
Prediction 14: molecular parahomology. All proteins currently in existence should statistically significant similarities to proteins with more primitive, core functions.
Potential falsification: proteins that are no related to any previously existing proteins (i.e., "new" proteins, in Dave's sense of the term, which are not derived from any previously-existing proteins). Also, derived proteins that are more deeply rooted in the phylogeny, i.e., older, than the core proteins they derive from.
Prediction 15: anatomical analogy. If two unrelated organisms evolve an analogous structure, that analogous structure must be explicable in terms of modification of ancestral structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: gills in aquatic mammals or birds. There are no structures available in immediate ancestors from which gills can evolve. Evolution can't "skip steps."
Prediction 16: molecular analogy. If two different organisms evolve analogous molecular structures, those structures must be modifications of previously-existing structures in both organisms.
Potential falsification: no cases of molecular analogy, where all organisms that perform a function with a particular structure all use exactly the same structure; i.e., no convergent evolution.
Prediction 17: anatomical suboptimality. Since evolution can only work by modifying pre-existing structures, there should be many examples of suboptimal evolution.
Potential falsification: a mammal or reptile with no optical blind spots. Evolution cannot got back and "fix" a suboptimal design after the fact, since the ultimate use for any structure cannot be "known" by evolution.
Prediction 18: molecular suboptimality. There should be evidence of suboptimal design at the molecular level, such as the large amount of the human genome that seems to serve no known function. E.g., the human GDPH gene. There is one functional GDPH gene, and at least 20 non-functional copies of the gene.
Potential falsification: if the genomes of all organisms were efficiently designed, with only the DNA required and no more (no pseudogenes, no nonfunctional tandem repeats, "junk DNA."
Prediction 19: protein functional redundancy. There should be many genes that are common to all organisms regardless of whether they are needed. I.e., there should be genes in bacteria that also appear in humans even though they serve no function in human beings. Further, organisms which are related should have similar ubiquitous genes, and less closely-related organisms should have less closely-related ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: no pattern of relatedness to ubiquitous proteins. A chimp cytochrome c protein should be no more closely related to the human version than the rat protein, or the douglas fir protein, or the yeast protein, or the e. coli protein.
Prediction 20: DNA coding redundancy. The same pattern of relatedness should show up in the DNA coding for ubiquitous proteins. The more closely related two organisms are, the more similar their DNA sequences should be for ubiquitous genes.
Potential falsification: there should be no pattern of relatedness to DNA sequencing for ubiquitous genes, or a different pattern that is unrelated to the pattern for the amino acid sequence for the protein.
Prediction 21: transposons. Since transposons are random, but heritable, there should be a pattern in transposition that follows the phylogenetic tree.
Potential falsification: transposons that do not fit into nested hierarchies, or fit into different nested hierarchies from the phylogenetic tree.
Prediction 22: redundant pseudogenes. There should also be a pattern among pseudogenes that follows the phylogenetic tree.
Potential falsification: since pseudogenes are rare, it should be extraordinarily unlikely that the exact same pseudogene would appear in two distantly-related organisms. Therefore, pseudogenes should fit into the same nested hierarchies established by the phylogenetic tree. If there were no pattern, or a different pattern from that required by common descent, common descent would be falsified.
Prediction 23: endogenous retroviruses. Since endogenous retroviruses are heritable, their presence should mirror common descent, nested hierarchies, and the phylogenentic tree.
Potential falsification: endogenous retroriviruses which do not fit into the same nested hierarchies and patterns of common descent as the phylogenetic tree.
Prediction 24: genetic change. There should be sufficient genetic change to support the existence of macroevolution. When we compare the genomes of various organisms, we should see that genetic change traced out in the same pattern as the phylogenetic tree. Genetic change should be heritable and largely irreversible.
Potential falsification: if genomes were highly resistant to change, or commonly and typically reverted to wild type, macroevolution would be difficult to explain.
Prediction 25: the fossil record. Macroevolution predicts that as one looks at older and older sediments, one should see organisms that have increasingly primitive (in the cladistics sense of the term) features.
Potential falsification: essentially modern organisms all the way back in the fossil record, or alternatively, no pattern of primitive and derived characteristics chronologically.
Prediction 26: speciation. If speciation is an ongoing process, we should see various degrees of speciation, from fully-interbreeding populations to partially interbreeding populations to populations with reduced fertility or complete infertility to completely genetically isolated populations.
Potential falsification: if all species were genetically reproductively isolated and there were no instances of hybrids, it would be difficult for macroevolution to be true.
Prediction 27: speciation rates. Current estimates, based on the fossil record and mutation rates, are ~3 million years for complete reproductive isolation, on average. Rates of speciation and of morphological change should be as high as or higher than that observed in the fossil record.
Potential falsification: rates of morphological change that are much slower than that observed in the fossil record.
ericmurphy
Member
What you're asking for would be a falsification of evolutionary theory, not a confirmation of it. Evolution can only modify what is already present; it cannot create new structures (or information) ex nihilo.
If what you are asking for could actually be found, that would be a falsification of evolutionary theory.
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
The unfortunate fact is that "Creation science" is so lacking in any actual scientific content that no serious biologist will take it seriously.
So creationists have to appeal to emotion and twisted logic to make thier points and try to gain a specal exemption from the hard realities of competeing in the scientific community.
There is no science coming out of ID or creationists... just lawers and pop-lit.
They have spent the past fifty years claming that scientists were abandoning evolution and that "any day now" evolution would fall.
Sadly they are still using the same tired arguments from so many decades past. Meanwhile evolution and biology in general have been steadily advancing.
wa:do
So creationists have to appeal to emotion and twisted logic to make thier points and try to gain a specal exemption from the hard realities of competeing in the scientific community.
There is no science coming out of ID or creationists... just lawers and pop-lit.
They have spent the past fifty years claming that scientists were abandoning evolution and that "any day now" evolution would fall.
Sadly they are still using the same tired arguments from so many decades past. Meanwhile evolution and biology in general have been steadily advancing.
wa:do
Autodidact
Intentionally Blank
What are you talking about? There are thousands of scientific papers quantifying every aspect of evolutionary theory; that's kind of what scientific papers are all about. I'm sure you missed a paper or two, you probably missed all the papers. Are you in the habit of reading scientific papers?
What missing links? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? We haven't even begun on the fossil evidence, which is the strongest evidence of all. What "missing links" are you looking for in particular, and why do you think that falsifies ToE?
I get so tired of typing these words over and over. Why do you think some people have trouble understanding them? Is it hard-headedness, stupidity, or deliberate blindness? EVOLUTION IS NOT THE THEORY THAT THERE IS NO GOD. Evolution is not a world view or "something to believe in." Evolution is a scientific theory in the field of biology. It tells us how we get so many different kinds of organisms on earth. That's all.
It's not a guess, nor is it proven. It's a theory. A scientific theory. Like atomic theory and the theory of gravity, get it? Science doesn't prove anything. Ever. No scientific truth taught in any classroom anywhere, or that forms the basis for scientific discovery, has been proven. Science isn't about proof; it's about evidence. The golden word in science is EVIDENCE. There, I put it in gold to help you remember it. What we're talking about here isn't proof--it's evidence. That's what science is all about.
I guess what's starting to get on my nerves is people who know nothing about science, what it is, how it works, nothing. They don't know what a theory is, or that it's not about proof, or anything at all, but:
(1) They think they know more than all the scientists in the world.
(2) They sure take advantage of all the nice things that science figured out for them.
Sorry for the delay, had to have supper few freinds around.
First i agree with you science is about evidence which is lacking in the case of toe as if it was say like the theory of relativity that dear old albert proved and made him a household name whereas the modern supporters of toe unlike albert who's theory was
actually proven or tesla who's theorys we are using every day of our lives cannot prove it.
It's all very well saying evidence this and that but the bottom dollar is proof,in England we hung a poor chap as he was found guilty with far more evidence than toe followers have yet he was later found to be innocent.
Yes i agree people should stick to the facts and as for fossils cool if you have found something new which i doubt you sadly lack facts.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A transitional fossil is the fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with the more derived life-forms it is related to. According to evolutionary theory, a transitional form represents an evolutionary stage.[74] [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same.[4][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then the fossil record contradicts evolution.[4][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Given the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists quietly acknowledge this is still a "research issue".[34][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form When apparent examples of useful mutations are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist anywhere in the fossil record.[34][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.[2][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.[2][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So many questions arise in the study of fossils (paleontology) that even many evolutionary paleontologists put little stock in the fossil record. Basing one's belief in evolution on the shaky ground of paleontology can scarcely be considered scientific.[40][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We are about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information .... " - D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (1), p. 24, 25[57][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fossil record is often so sparse that . . . there are numerous cases where groups survived for tens of millions of years [ET*] without leaving a single fossil.[64][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A criticism of the evolutionary idea was, and is, the lack of the hypothesized intermediates between one species and another. If land animals truly came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this, such as fossils of fish with their fins turning into legs. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.[11][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different. Instead, if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same.[4][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different, then the fossil record contradicts evolution.[4][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Given the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists quietly acknowledge this is still a "research issue".[34][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form When apparent examples of useful mutations are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist anywhere in the fossil record.[34][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.[2][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.[2][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So many questions arise in the study of fossils (paleontology) that even many evolutionary paleontologists put little stock in the fossil record. Basing one's belief in evolution on the shaky ground of paleontology can scarcely be considered scientific.[40][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"We are about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information .... " - D. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, vol. 50 (1), p. 24, 25[57][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The fossil record is often so sparse that . . . there are numerous cases where groups survived for tens of millions of years [ET*] without leaving a single fossil.[64][/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A criticism of the evolutionary idea was, and is, the lack of the hypothesized intermediates between one species and another. If land animals truly came from sea creatures, one would expect to find plenty of evidence of this, such as fossils of fish with their fins turning into legs. Darwin wrote in his Origin of Species that "innumerable transitional forms must have existed." The predicted large numbers of fossil intermediate forms were never found.[11][/FONT]
There is a problem for both sides of this argument ie creationist and toe in that they are ideas not facts are not only something agreed within a small proffesional body but something understood by all.
To say that only biologists can provide evidence pro or against toe is nonsense especially when you have a scientist of the calibre of Mr Einstein saying the Earth did'nt come about by a throw of the dice.
Biology has done a lot for mankind but until there is prof to show the world it shoud not be bandid about as actual fact.
To say that only biologists can provide evidence pro or against toe is nonsense especially when you have a scientist of the calibre of Mr Einstein saying the Earth did'nt come about by a throw of the dice.
Biology has done a lot for mankind but until there is prof to show the world it shoud not be bandid about as actual fact.
It is very easy to search the net and find some garbage to support your assertions and then just copy and past it here. But if you are going to do that the very least you should do is cite a reference!
What you are doing is plagiarism! It is unethical, annoying, and I think it is against forum rules.
I questioned the application of your own criteria to Evolution itself, and I personally find it wanting and therefore is hard-pressed at considering MACRO-evolution as science.
A) Verification of macro-evolution
Despite all the conjectures in your previous posts, you have yet to give us ANY verifiable evidence for MACRO-evolution.* All you've given us an appeal to micro-evolution, and a claim that micro-evolution + time and predictions = macro-evolution.* But again, the issue is VERIFICATION, a mere claim isn't one.* Besides, your appeal to micro-evolution is nothing but the fallacy of illicit conversion.* Can you give us a clear example of NEW GENETIC INFO being produced naturally which created a new organ or a new functionality on an organism, resulting in a new specie of it?
B) Falsification of macro-evolution
Because many, if not most, evolutionary scientists view their theory as "fact" it has become virtually impossible to falsify macro-evolution.* Again, for example, one known problem of this view is the Cambrian Explosion.* While you may claim that "the fossil record is complete", the Cambrian Explosion falsifies that.* It is precisely because of this problem in the fossil record that devout evolutionists like Stephen Jay Gould have invented a mechanism to explain CE away, i.e. the theory of Punctuated Equillibrium, just to keep evolution coherent.
That is precisely the point! I am glad evolutionist is beginning to admit their theory is flawed. The reason the observable micro-evolution cannot be extrapolated as the basis for the Unobservable macro-evolution is because it is genetically impossible.* Micro-evolution involves either maintenance or LOSS of genetic information between species.* Whereas, macro-evolution requires NEW genetic information to create the varying organs we see different animals have.* IOW, evolutions reliance on mutation and natural selection can only give you loss of sight or flight for example, but not new functionalities and organs resulting to new genetic information.
* I assume from your other posts that by “evolution” you mean macro-evolution, the molecules-to-man theory, correct me if I’m wrong.* Well for you to VERIFY for us this theory you will have to show evidence that organism can change genetically from simple organisms to more complex organisms that we human beings are.
Here’s another classic example of a bluff, pretending to know more than what s/he could handle – resulting to appeal to ignorance - scrambling for help.
It is here: Call for help on another forum: "information" - Rants 'n Raves
Just so we know.