Not Acknowledging the Theory of Evolution

Ahhhhhh, a huge dragon is attcking me and spitting fire at me. Heeeelllppp!!!!

LOL, did you used be a comedian IAC?
 
Explain to me again why a lizard is less able to find higher ground then a dinosaur?

Also, why did God rest on the seventh day? Was he tired?

IceAgeCivilizations said:
I hope Greg finds the time.
Click to expand...

He doesn't have to. You, and everyone else, can simply read the articles.
 
Last edited:
Sure, camels, alpacas, and lamas, variation within a syngameon.
Click to expand...

That however is an admittance that evolution is a fact. Now we just need to argue details. Out of interest, how different is a dog from a cat?
 
IceAgeCivilizations:

Punctuated equillibrium usually requires tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of years itself.

It took well over a billion years for bacteria to morph into fish, by the way.
 
Prince James
“
That is reasonable - such endeavors however should be contained by the word 'theory' - that doesn't seem to be the case however with evolution
”
In as much as evolution is fallsifiable in principle, it only claims to have the massive amount of evidence on its side.
Click to expand...
until that evidence enables repeatability it is a theory - is that not the general principle that the integrity of science operates on?
“
or alternatively they could operate out of the same essential design - just like a motorcycle could be defined as something like 99% identical to a motor car
”
This could indeed be an argument were it not for the "junk" DNA which is shared by both.

Junk DNA shared between chimps and humans indicates that at least some of their DNA shared serves no purpose in either yet remains. This seems to indicate they come from a common source that once did use this junk DNA, but now no longer does.
Click to expand...
again this is tentative theory - like for instance if I insist on using a screw driver as a lever to open a paint tin and also as a chisel it also contains some "junk" properties not suited to either application - in other word if I use the same design for two or more applications, you would expect some "junk" elements of the design to be apparent
“
Again, it remains tentative that speciation confirms the truth of evolution, since they are both separate phenomena
”
Actually, isn't that the entire foundation for evolution? Producing new species?
Click to expand...
the foundation for evolution is abiogenisis, or perhaps in a more general sense, that matter is the essential property of life.
Regardless on one's thoughts on the matter, speciation is not evidence of evolution, since transitions between genus is not evidenced by it
The problem is that any MASSIVE changes, like a bacteria into a fish, are hard to show in a laboratory, as they take far too many generations to produce. A sexually-producing microorganism is less dramatic by definition, but if it no longer can mate, and is different in crucial ways from its forebear species, then it fits the definition of evolution.
Click to expand...
therefore inquiry into the origins of life is another aspect of knowledge that is impenetrable by empiricism. I don't think it is reasonable for science to say "Since we cannot know it our ideas on how it might be real must be accepted as the truth" (unless of course one wants to talk about scientific theory)
 
lightgigantic said:
well given that there is no empirical evidence (particularly for macro-evolution, which is the gist of your stab at creation) to take the theory to a higher stance of credibility, it should be obvious
Click to expand...

that is not why most monotheists do not believe it. The arguments are put forward to justify their beliefs. (this is of course true of believers of all kinds, scientists to). To say that monotheists in general have made this decision after sitting down and analyzing various studies, research findings, etc. is absurd. The vast majority either made a gut decision or listened to authority. This is not necessarily wrong, especially the former, but to assert it comes from some sort of carefully thought out analysis is pure fantasy.

the question then becomes, why feel the need to assert such a fantasy?
 
Grantywanty said:
that is not why most monotheists do not believe it.
Click to expand...
most monotheists educated in science?
The arguments are put forward to justify their beliefs. (this is of course true of believers of all kinds, scientists to).
Click to expand...
thats the point - if the claim of evolution was not tentative there would be no scope whatsoever for suggesting otherwise
To say that monotheists in general have made this decision after sitting down and analyzing various studies, research findings, etc. is absurd.
Click to expand...
are you denying that they do?
Or are you saying that just because some religious minded persons postulate on emotional/sentimental grounds they are all condemned?
The vast majority either made a gut decision or listened to authority.
Click to expand...
given that there are practically a handful of persons at the level of directly perceiving the evidence for evolution in science, most people argue from the point of evolution - like for instance when was the last time you were involved in carbon dating anything?
This is not necessarily wrong, especially the former, but to assert it comes from some sort of carefully thought out analysis is pure fantasy.
Click to expand...
and its not ironic that in the absence of repeatability, the tentative claims of evolution as fact could also be similarly defined?

the question then becomes, why feel the need to assert such a fantasy?
Click to expand...
will the irony never end?
 
lightgigantic said:
until that evidence enables repeatability it is a theory - is that not the general principle that the integrity of science operates on?
Click to expand...
Evolution has been repeatedly observed.
Unfortunately evolution is not as simple as C + O2 --> CO2, in that it doesn't follow the same path each time - due to the vast array of environmental and genetic factors involved.
But evolution has been observed repeatedly.

the foundation for evolution is abiogenisis, or perhaps in a more general sense, that matter is the essential property of life.
Click to expand...
Bollox. Evolution makes NO attempt to state that life = matter / matter = life, or deal with abiogenesis at all.
It merely requires the existence of an adapting / mutating medium.

That is all.

Regardless on one's thoughts on the matter, speciation is not evidence of evolution, since transitions between genus is not evidenced by it
Click to expand...
Excuse me? Are you now changing the world's understanding of evolution, redefining it to suit your argument?
If evolution is not evidenced by speciation, what is evolution??? :confused:

therefore inquiry into the origins of life is another aspect of knowledge that is impenetrable by empiricism.
Click to expand...
No one disagrees, I think.

I don't think it is reasonable for science to say "Since we cannot know it our ideas on how it might be real must be accepted as the truth"
Click to expand...
Strawman logical fallacy, LG. :rolleyes:

Noone in the scientific community says this!

All we can provide, regarding the origin of life on this planet, is theories of how it happened - and try and recreate that in the lab.
If we manage to do so then it certainly adds weight to the theory (pushing it beyond mere hypothesis) but it can NOT claim to have solved how life on earth started, merely claim to be a possibility.

Your ideas of science and what it claims are warped, LG.
And while they continue to be warped you will continue to argue out of your depth in the matter.
 
lightgigantic said:
and its not ironic that in the absence of repeatability, the tentative claims of evolution as fact could also be similarly defined?
Click to expand...
Let's get this straight, LG....
Evolution IS fact.
Evolution happens.
Evolution has been observed.

What you might argue is that it is not applicable to the macro- point of view, but that does not detract from the point that EVOLUTION IS FACT.


Let's use an analogy - as you are so fond of doing...

Waves are a fact, yes?
You agree that there are waves on the oceans?

You might not agree that "super-waves" (100+m waves) can exist without some major catastrophe (e.g. tsunami) - but you can surely not deny the existence of waves.

Or do you?

What is stopping you from getting past the understanding, and thus accepting, that EVOLUTION IS FACT?
 
lightgigantic:

until that evidence enables repeatability it is a theory - is that not the general principle that the integrity of science operates on?
Click to expand...

Or at least observability. Which one could say is found in the fossil record all ready.

But then again, I do believe eugenical research can produce new species in theory at the very least. I'd like to try to find some evidence of simple sexually producing organisms doing so.

again this is tentative theory - like for instance if I insist on using a screw driver as a lever to open a paint tin and also as a chisel it also contains some "junk" properties not suited to either application - in other word if I use the same design for two or more applications, you would expect some "junk" elements of the design to be apparent
Click to expand...

I am not so sure this could be applied to the evolutionary issue. For assuming a designer of some intelligence, the superfluous elements (I.E. junk DNA) would simply be removed and not kept. Presuming junk DNA serves no purpose, mind you.

the foundation for evolution is abiogenisis, or perhaps in a more general sense, that matter is the essential property of life.
Regardless on one's thoughts on the matter, speciation is not evidence of evolution, since transitions between genus is not evidenced by it
Click to expand...

Isn't it rather a logical progression that once you have speciation, you also have genus-ication? For presuming breeding advantages in natural selection can differentiate a duck from a loon, then said duck could go one route, said loon another, and end up radically different from one another.

therefore inquiry into the origins of life is another aspect of knowledge that is impenetrable by empiricism. I don't think it is reasonable for science to say "Since we cannot know it our ideas on how it might be real must be accepted as the truth" (unless of course one wants to talk about scientific theory)
Click to expand...

Well theoretically, the ideas behind abiogenesis could be proven if we understood the composition. For instance, the famous amino acid experiments that showed that complex molecules can result from a super heated soup with no rhyme or reason. It seems only a matter of time before real abiogenesis is shown.
 
As always, you're missing the point, only about 20,000 kinds (syngameons) of animals need have been on the Ark because within those respective gene pools were the genes for all the "species" (meaningless term) of animals, such as llamas, alpacas, and camels of that syngameon.

Very simple, and obvious, to those not joined at the hip to Darwin and his minions.
 
IceAgeCivilizations said:
As always, you're missing the point, only about 20,000 kinds (syngameons) of animals need have been on the Ark because within those respective gene pools were the genes for all the "species" (meaningless term) of animals, such as llamas, alpacas, and camels of that syngameon.

Very simple, and obvious, to those not joined at the hip to Darwin and his minions.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point IAC. Science has defined syngameon and you are raping the definition for the purpose of religious propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top