Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?
- Thread starter Dredd
- Start date
Misdirection again.
You've HAD the links.
You've got (you claim) the books.
Go read them.
Have you tried Google?
I doubt it...
There is indeed a great variety present in any species. It can be represented by a bell curve. But what happens with evolution is that the peak of the bell curve shifts. Evolution is simply a change in the frequency of genes in the gene pool (or, reproducing population).
No.
No.
Evolution is observable. Evolution is change over time. This is proof that evolution does indeed occur. Evolution is a fact.
The theory of natural selection is a reasonable inference from observation, but it is still one of the best supported theories in all of science. Natural selection is not necessarily considered a fact, but it's very close. Consider, for instance, that the theory that the moon is smaller than the sun is less well supported.
Ok I googled
Here is something I found on the eye.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm
Here is something I found on the eye.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm
Yes, funny how your Googling, rather than using a term such as, say, "Evidence for evolution" to find what science's evidence is, you go instead for an website intended to promote Intelligent Design.
So your claim that you'd actually read stuff provided was more misdirection and you choose, deliberately(?) to pick an anti-evolution site and quote that at us.
How very honest of you...
Not.
The equivalent of telling us Ferraris must be rubbish because the BMW site says nothing good about them.
Stupid argument. You deliberately chose an anti-science site get a scientific explanation?
Hardly honest.
Only if you're incredibly stupid.
ID has no science.
Evolution is not observable. You do not see cats becoming dogs. There is a large variety in cats, and dogs, but no cats become dogs.
Evolution is random, creation is not unless designed to be.
In creation if you have all the parts you need written, as DNA, to make some animal, then you change it up to make another type, that is creation , even though animals can be similar. The DNA still tells you that it was creation. Scientists will have to figure out how DNA got into the cell with instructions in it. In other words where did the instructions from to make a heart, or leg?
So you're still clueless as to what evolution is.
Wrong again.
Your persistent refusal to bother reading anything that would give you some actual background on what evolutions is and how it works is becoming tedious.
You're still trolling.
Actually no I didn't I was looking for the Lucy site because , that was supposed to be another missing link. But that turned out not to be correct either. I stumbled upon the article on the eye.
The point is that the science and the article are still correct. Science is not the only place to get answers. Science does not have all the answers, and in time even the ones they think they know, can change.
So you're not looking for the actual evidence...
No, the "science" and article are wrong.
On scientific questions it is the only place.
Strawman.
Misdirection again.
Still trolling.
It not only is observable, it has been observed in the lab and in the field. I gave you examples of both.
Now you want examples of evolution that changes an animal to such a degree it fits our definition of speciation. Speciation has been observed in the lab too, with fruit flies.
Evolution via natural selection is exactly the opposite of randomness.
You can see a cat become a dog. Follow the line of ancestors of dogs back far enough and you will find the common ancestor of the cat and the dog. Made a u-turn, and you can follow the evolution of that common ancestor into a dog. Every animal is linked in such a fashion to every other one.
The instructions for making an arm or leg or heart evolved from simpler structures, all the way back to a cell. We see animals with still successful structures that aren't complete hearts, they are more like tubes that contract.
Correction: you're the one that's indoctrinated.
I at no time said, or implied, that all I do is get my information from science. What I did say is that for scientific information one should go to science.
For art information I go to an artist, etc.
No you aren't, you're trolling and maintaining your ignorance.
You're testing nothing but our patience.
When do you jump in a say science has got it correct this time. Because the whole point of science is to correct itself, so I have been told. So how do you know what is said today is correct? If science finds that it takes creation for the start to life what happens then with evolution. Because now you have a creator?
Remember that science does not know how life started, so they have to have an open mind on this.
Even if a creator created the first life, which seems unlikely, since every species from the first cell came about by evolution, that means that God did not deliberately create human beings, and that humans are the result of chance (not the evolution is chance, but there is no direction). Start the process all over again, and maybe humans would not be the result. That contradicts almost all creation stories, which is the source of the theory in the first place.
It not only is observable, it has been observed in the lab and in the field. I gave you examples of both.
We don't see it today and the fossil record does not show it either. That is why theories come up time to time on jumps in the chain. Science would have to show this as happening. There would be no reason for evolution to stop doing this so we should see it today as well. Even if you have to start very simply , there would be great randomness in evolution because it doesn't know it is making something.
Why would a heart be started when none is need, or there is no muscles to pump blood to. And there are no bones to make the blood or veins to carry it, etc.
All these systems have to be complete before they are useful.
So from a single cell without DNA, how does this start to happen. If this is fact then science should know about this. If it just made up , they might not, have thought all of this through.
This is the whole point what I have been saying. Because animals look the same or similar, does not mean they came from one another. Creation can do this. This is a leap science has taken with out the proof of it ever happening.
We don't see it today and the fossil record does not show it either. That is why theories come up time to time on jumps in the chain. Science would have to show this as happening. There would be no reason for evolution to stop doing this so we should see it today as well. Even if you have to start very simply , there would be great randomness in evolution because it doesn't know it is making something.
Why would a heart be started when none is need, or there is no muscles to pump blood to. And there are no bones to make the blood or veins to carry it, etc.
All these systems have to be complete before they are useful.
So from a single cell without DNA, how does this start to happen. If this is fact then science should know about this. If it just made up , they might not, have thought all of this through.