Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Yes, but two can play at that game. Watch now as I brilliantly change my wording to produce a seemingly-new answer to his questions!
Philosophical, maybe, but science, like any other human endeavor, needs certain rules to guide it. The most important of those rules is falsifiability. Rules like this have governed science well for hundreds of years, so I don't think you or I are in any position to change that. ID, as you say, is unfalsifiable, and because of that it isn't science.
Some people might say that, but the vast, overwhelming majority would consider that statement to be completely rediculous.
And exactly when did I say that?!?! That's exactly the point I'm trying to make to you!!!! Don't put words in my mouth . . .
Evolution (not the mechanism) is about how life changes to adapt to changing environments. Falsification would therefor be very simple: If life doesn't change with the environment, but instead becomes extinct, then it can be falsified. Obviously this doesn't happen; life changes when the environment does. Evolution occurs.
1) Random interactions: If only a few dozen-base-long code is required for life, or even a few hundred bases long, given enough time, occuring on enough planets, then there's more than enough possibilities. Sooner or later, just like someone winning the lottery, it's going to happen.
2) Nonrandom interactions: My high-school biology teacher once told me that, when biological molecules are present together, they naturally interact to produce simple structures. A common example is when phospholipids produce micelles and phospholipid bilayers. The same is true of nucleotides forming single- and double-helix chains. Given this, the probability mentioned in #1 becomes even more favorable.
So, we agree that we're really talking about God here? I suppose it's good that we can agree on something, but I am NOT a materialist. I despise their philosophy and do not in any way share their views. Materialism is a philosophy concerned only with the pleasures of this earth. I am much more interested in living a good spiritual life than a good material life. Now who's inaccurate stereotyping?
Let me say this more clearly, NATURAL selection. As in NATURAL, not SUPERnatural. How did you ever draw this conclusion?
As for the feather, I must apologize on this one. I know I promised to look that up this weekend, but sadly it slipped my mind. I know that sounds weak but it's true. As for molecules to cells, we've already been over this.
Why do transitional species have to be living? What's wrong with them being extinct? That seems quite probable, considering that when one species evolved into another, the ancestral species becomes extinct. After all, the whole reason it evolves is that the ancestral species can no longer survive in its environment. And to claim that there's no transitions is false; I have already listed several.
Since you are religious, here's an interesting bit of trivia. The Big Bang was proposed by the Catholic Church in order to prove that God exists. That makes sense, too; I mean, what else could've caused the Big Bang.
Yes, my beliefs are also based on observation as well as faith. And I never said that I see no evidence of God's existence. If you'll remember, I've already cited the precision with which the universe is balanced to support life. And I could also list some spiritual experiences that to me were nothing short of miraculous, although for personal reasons I'd rather not disclose what those were. I see evidence for God, so I have faith in Him; likewise, I see evidence for evolution, so I conclude that's how God created life. In my opinion it's a quite beautiful way to look at things.
To my knowledge Karl Popper first introduced the concept of falsifiability in 1963. It is not a universally agreed upon standard.
When most people speak of "evolution", they are referring to macroevolution. Examples such as industrial melanism, antimicrobial resistance in bacteria, and fruit-fly mutations are all examples of microevolution. Macroevolution has never been observed. This is acknowledged by evolutionists and creationists alike. Thus, according to your above criteria, evolution has been falsified. Life does not change (in the sense of macroevolution) with the environment.
The reason I submit that evolution cannot be falsified is because evolutionists appeal to unknown laws to support their theory. They brush off any and all hostile evidence with the disclaimer, " we don't understand all the mechanisms or laws of science that caused evolution... we just know that it happened".
The simplest single cell life that we can observe requires DNA with hundreds of thousands of base pairs. You suppose that a few hundred base pairs would support life. That is a baseless conjecture.
How many planets do you think are in existence that could support molecules to man evolution? (i.e., the correct composition, distance from the sun, atmosphere, abundant surface water, ideal mixtures of organic compounds, etc., etc.) Even if you seize every benefit of the doubt, which you can't, you are still left with an impossibility.
You need to realistically think of the probabilities before you make a statement like that.
Yes, some organic molecules react non-randomly. That does not provide any indication that DNA can form into a complex genetic code without intelligent input.
No, DNA cannot self-organize. That is baseless conjecture.
You think that undirected random events can lead to complexity, such as powered flight in birds, photosynthesis, and the binary code of the optic nerve. That is truely miraculous.
Evolutionists are always insisting that extinction is not predicted by evolution. Punctuated equilibrium states that small populations evolve rapidly,... not replacing the entire species. Given the innumerable living species, there is no reason why there shouldn't be living transitional species... evolution has failed in another prediction.
What makes you so certain that there ever was a "big bang"? I have never read any compelling evidence that such an event occurred.
I understand that you have had spiritual experiences, and use that as evidence of God's existence. That is logical. However, I cannot understand why you acknowledge God's existence, but think that he had nothing to do with the creation and diversity of life. You apparently think that natural selection did everything. That is perplexing, when you consider the fact that there are so many things that cannot be explained in nature in terms of gradualism. I invite you to just consider the feather, as I mentioned before. There is no credible explanation as to how such a specialized structure could have evolved from a scale through natural selection. Why don't you think it was design? You believe in God. Why are you denying His hand in nature?
I think the reason that a lot of people have trouble with evolution is that it is so difficult to step back and consider the macro picture. (That's one reason why some early scientists were slow to come out and formulate the theory: until the late 1700s, the creation of the earth was placed at around 5,000 BC, so macro-evolution didn't make any sense. ) We naturally think in terms of time as measured in our own life experience. In that sense, a concept of macro-evolution will always be a theoretical construct.
I cannot accept the common extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution. It is illogical and unscientific. Evolutionists think that by simply adding time that anything is possible. In the first place, the mechanisms of macroevolution and microevolution are different.
Biologists prior to Darwin were not constrained to 5,000 year old earth. They rejected evolution because they viewed nature as discontinuuous,
recognized irreducible complexity, and believed it impossible to bridge the gaps.
That's exactly what Darwin said: "the gift of time."
If you are saying that a given microevolutionary change doesn't have to lead to a particular macrodevelopment, I would agree in the sense that the macro changes are ultimately dependent on so many outside factors. But the micro changes do necessarily point in a certain direction. That's what the micro changes are all about.
Of course they were constrained by this concept. Even in the 1780s, serious biologists and geologists were afraid of publishing ideas based on a cosmic model that included an older earth. Even in England (which was not especially religious at the time), the universities were dominated by the religious establishment. Spreading heretical theories was a good way to lose your job.
It's open because people keep repeating the same questions. Look over the previous 10+ pages and you'll probably find every question repeated at least twice....plus we're against censorship(as long as it doesn't violate the forum rules, our hands are pretty much tied)
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
What is evidence of possibility? The formation of the components of proto-bionts violate no physical or chemical rules and to me that seems reason enough to believe it's possible. You keeping wanting specifics, how specific? If it was known in a detailed step-by-step manuscript wouldn't it have been created already in a lab?
No it isn't an argument. I'm saying it because I'm tired of doing your research for you. Read above comments on how the demand for specifics will go unanswered.
That's the point, you claim it makes no scientific sense but how much do you know about science? How can you claim it makes no scientific sense when you attack scientists for being materialistic when the basis of science is naturalistic and empirical observations!
This had nothing to do with belief. It's about what is scientific and what isn''t(ID). This board is a forum of science. I have my own personal beliefs and I try to separate them from science when I post. You should too.
Enjoying one moment at a time;
Accepting hardships as the pathway to peace;
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests