Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
So, if not random mutations, what? Do you suggest corn is consciously redisigning itself ? To me it just looks like another aspect of the Red Queen. (Keep the rate of change in your genome at least as high as your parasites or be replaced by someone who does.)
Scottie, if there is design, there is intent or a designer.
You have been arguing that randomness cannot explain the complicated funcctions that are observed in every life form, and that as consequence life has to be designed.
So once again:
who/what is the designer of life, and where did it itself come from.
I am not interested in the rest. you are dodging the essential question and your longwinded evasions are tiring.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
Well you have lost the argument on science and so you are reduced to sarcasm.
OK so that is your method of debate. I’ll run with you then.
Now despite all the evidence, are you really still running with random mutations?
Oh dear I was hoping your claim to be a person of science had some merit.
You might just as well swap “random mutations” with “The Flying Spaghetti Monster” .
No no you have it wrong.
I havn’t been arguing that randomness cannot explain..
I have been proving it.
I take it then you are not interested in the evidence that science provides.
My “long winded evasions “ as you put it are the product of actual empirical evidence provided by peer-reviewed papers from the scientific (evolutionary) community and what is more you have not provided a single refutation.
Come on admit it, you know you have lost the scientific argument so your only avenue of escape now is to change the subject to your religion. But as I have said before I don’t do religion.
I know it hurts to be shown up on actual science, especially when so much emotional energy has been invested in a belief that is coming apart at the seams.
The Pope has the same problem you know, so don’t feel too isolated, you are in good company.
Look isn’t it better to acknowledge you are wrong than to religiously stick to a dogma that simply does not stack up.
Science progresses through the falsification of previously held views or hypotheses.
In fact it is this kind of falsification that elevates true science from a lot of the claptrap that so pervades life.
Still no hints about the nature of the designer?
How can your theory be falsified if you refuse to give any details?
Some direct questions about your designer.
Currently designing? or Finished designing a long time ago?
Does the designer have any interest in my well being?
None of these questions should take more than a few words to answer.(this forum doesn't work well with long arguements.)
Let ‘s try and understand what science can or cannot do.
This is really primary school stuff and I genuinely thought I was in discussion with an intellect beyond this level, but apparently not.
So let’s take for example my Honda Accord vehicle.
Science can determine that it has been designed by someone and manufactured by someone, because firstly it has function, also because it has parts that have the attributes of manufacture. It has circuitry and a computer system that has feedback loops etc. It has heat exchange systems that again have the attributes of design etc etc etc.
That is what science can tell you. Actually it is pretty much a matter of common sense is it not.
However science cannot tell you who designed or manufactured it.
That information can only come from some form of historical record.
What is so difficult to understand?
This is something an eight year old child can understand.
Now the cell has all the attributes of design. That is not in question.
Any biologist will affirm that.
The question is not whether it is designed.
The question is whether that design can come about by random mutations.
The theory of random mutations claims to be a scientific theory, therefore it can be examined by the scientific method to determine whether that can be so.
Now I have at very great lengths presented the evidence from within the scientific community to demonstrate that random mutations cannot produce the attributes of function we observe in the cell.
You have not been able to scientifically refute any of my posts.
Now many of the religions of this world claim to know how this came about.
However they cannot demonstrate it through the scientific method, therefore they rest their case on a belief system and those beliefs are founded on Dogmas which adherents hold dear.
That much is clear is it not.
The problem you have is that you also have a Dogma which is random mutations, but the difference is that you claim it to be scientifically based.
That is where your problem is, because when the scientific method is applied to this Dogma it fails the test.
Now no end of sarcasm and cat calls will alter this very simple fact.
If you say that this is what you believe, then that is a very different matter, simply because a belief system, or philosophy or religion takes this matter beyond science.
What I have done is not present a theory of design.
I have presented facts that demonstrate the cell is designed.
Now who or what designed it is beyond the reach of science.
To determine who or what designed it must be a matter of an historical record and not a scientific record.
Actually, that has no attributes of design, but attributes of creation, but doesn't tell you anything what has created it. Whether it was someone or the previous generation of Hondas.
Cis or trans? That's what matters.
I really don’t understand why you are having such difficulty in recognising the obvious
Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.
The discovery of natural selection, by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, must itself be counted as an extraordinary philosophical advance.
All you have to do is recognise that natural selection is a philosophical concept. No different from the philosophical concepts of other religions.
What is the problem?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests