But it qualifies as a scientific theory, right?
Nuclear fission theory qualifies as a scientific theory because it has been tested again and again and found to pass those tests, not because it "doesn't violate the laws of physics".
You need to focus. Is this the same as this? Nuclear fission was a proven theory [Hiroshima 150,000 death and Nagasaki 75,000 death] just like microevolution, a well-documented, naturally occurring biological phenomenon, is a fact and not a theory, while macroevolution or ToE and eugenics were not, and they still remain as theories, not scientific theories.
The two are not analogous at all; nuclear fission is a proven fact while evolution, from an inorganic to organic to man, is not. One is real and one is just a fantasy.
Now, between NB and Eugenics; one is a result of a proven theory while the other is just a theory or ideology based on baseless theory.
Was it justified nuking Japan? Yes! It’s was a fair game. It’s was a total warfare, but the U.S. gave Japan enough warning on August 1, 1945 to leave Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other cities in Japan.
File:Firebombing leaflet.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did the Japanese give Pearl Harbor the same warning? NO! Not even a minute.
On the other hand; was it justified to sterilize Carrie Buck based on Eugenic principles? NO! Not at all! The 14th Amendment rights of Carrie Buck, the Equal Protection Clause that says the right to procreate, was violated based on Eugenic principles.
Did you see difference between the two?
One is real, i.e., Nuclear Fission/Nuclear Bomb, the means, and the end result, i.e., Nuking Japan, was justifiable based on total warfare and enough warnings.
While the other one is not real, i.e., Evolution/Eugneics, the means, and the end result, i.e., Sterilization of Carrie Buck and others [eliminating the “UNFIT” by the “FIT”], were not justifiable based on their 14 Amendment rights to procreate, or for that matter, the RIGHT TO LIFE of anyone regardless of what law constitutes them.
You're skipping over my question, so here it is again: why would something being proven or not proven have
any effect at all on whether you had to accept any ideologies that were associated with it? By the way, I wasn't talking about nuking Japan specifically, I was talking about nuking people in general: i.e. if one proposes an ideology that nuking people is always good under any circumstance, then why is it that those who accept nuclear fission as a real phenomenon are free to reject this ideology yet those who accept evolution as real are somehow required to accept eugenics? It's a double standard and I want to know your explanation of it.
Explain Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium then.
Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium
It gives or sustains life, but if we apply the 2nd LoT in all of these, the life that it gives also dies and cannot live again or produce life again. IOW, no non-living things can produce life base on the principle of the 2nd LoT. It’s not going to happen and this is what abiogenesis/evolutionist been teaching ever since.
Again, you are conflating abiogenesis with evolution. That's a fallacy.
"This law states that all natural processes generate entropy, a measure of disorder"1
"Entropy, in short, is the measurement of molecular disorder. The law of the irreversible increase in entropy is a law of progressive disorganization, of the complete disappearance of the initial conditions."
Overall, not in smaller parts of the system.
Really, that bait and switch tactic again? So, now you’re changing your premises on evolution. We are still talking about Darwin’s evolution, aren’t we?
Darwinian evolution is not abiogenesis. This is a straw-man. Do you know what a straw-man argument is?
It replicates before or after mutation from glucose to citrate.
Need clarification as to what you are trying to say with this.
E.coli feeds on glucose in an aerobic environment and citrate in an anaerobic environment. If it feeds only on glucose and consumed all of them, and citrate is the only available food, then the gene selector will feed E.coli with citrate, i.e., in a beaker in an aerobic environment. You call that evolution? It’s not like E.coli cannot metabolize citrate at all and created a new mechanism to metabolize it, it’s just a matter of switching it on in a stressful environment if needed and this mechanism is always there.
The mechanism was not always there, because if it was, then the E.coli would have
always had the capability to digest citrate aerobically. It did not. It therefore gained a new capability via mutation.
IOW, there were no successive genetic mutations:
that could have occurred in the past,
that could have created NEW MECHANISMS,
that could have went on indefinitely for millions of years,
Of course there were and are. I can even give you an example of a new body part being formed: the cecal valve in Italian wall lizards. A population of these lizards was put on an island, left there for decades, and were then examined later to search for changes. One of those changes was the evolution of a cecal valve, whose function is to slow down the progress of food to allow it to digest more completely. The ancestral population had no such organs: it was truly the observable development of a new body part.
that could have [supposedly] created the Fish to the Amphibian to the Reptile to the Mammal or E.coli did not or could not possibly have created NEW INFORMATION at all because the mechanism to metabolize citrate was always there.
Then refer to those microbes with the nylonase mutations. They have mutations which allow them to produce enzymes which can break down man-made nylon oligomers and polymers. These chemicals do not exist in nature at all. Therefore, the mutations must have produced a new mechanism which did not exist in the organism before.
If one can’t digest lactose it does not mean there is no mechanism to tolerate this, but if lactose is the only food that is available, or else one will die, then one system will find a way to metabolize it, but one did not create a NEW MECHANISM, to metabolize lactose, because it was always there.
No, that's not how evolution works at all. Do you think your body would find a way to metabolize rocks if that was the only food available? No, it wouldn't. You would starve to death.
E.coli experiment is an example of microevolution, scientifically observed of course, but from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal, as example of macroevolution, is what evolutionist cannot explain scientifically.
Microevolution, yes, as the E.coli did not become a new species. Yet the fossil records does record increases in complexity and development of certain anatomical traits over time that fully supports macroevolution: the oldest unicellular fossils are older than the oldest multicellular fossils, the oldest invertebrates are older than the oldest chordates which are older than the oldest true vertebrates which are older than the oldest true vertebrates with jaws, and so on.
From E.coli to a fish is a huge gap [NO MICROEVOLUTIO CAN BRIDGE THIS GAP] and if anyone can explain this gap scientifically then that would be the end of this debate. There are/were no missing links to bridge this gap.
First of all, E.coli is a modern bacterium and was therefore not the ancestor of any animal. However, there are plenty of forms known in the fossil record intermediate in complexity between prokaryotes and modern bony fish: extinct single-celled eukaryotes, extinct sponges, creatures with the just the beginnings of a head like Pikaia, and creatures with notochords but not true backbones like Haikouichthys.
If they could turn an E.coli to a fish, then to an amphibian, then to a reptile, then to mammal, then that would be the mother of all experiments, then there will be no more debates.
Another straw-man. Evolution doesn't work that way...
Lenski’s experiments did not prove anything that would favor evolutions. After 23 years of experiments I think Lenski hits the wall.
They demonstrate the existence of beneficial mutations, a necessary feature for common descent.
Dalai Lama was once asked what he would do if science proved that his beliefs were erroneous, [not that I believed in his religion] but he said in a heartbeat, “I’d change my mind.” You should too if creationist proved that evolution is erroneous.
Indeed I would, but no creationist has done that yet.
"I have confidence in you in the Lord that you will adopt no other view; but the one who is disturbing you will bear his judgment, whoever he is. -Gal 5:10"
Relevance?
” He is not an authority on the subject” but we are debating about it like we have the authority, aren’t we?
No, we debate (or should be) using the works and evidence found by others that
are authorities in the field of biology to formulate our arguments (as well as avoiding logical fallacies).
Nothing personal, but that’s just my style. Taking one subject at a time is much easier for me to remember things when referencing.
Alright, fine, but it's a headache looking through like 7 or 8 posts trying to gather all of your quotes...
On what theory they based their opinions?
That there is a global conspiracy to hide the fact that the Earth is flat.
