Originally posted by @apathistI never said it was wrong, but there are limitations, so with some assumptions, they make many conclusions very suspect in my opinion.
Let's say you are right that science is somehow lacking when it tries to explain reality.
Well then. Shiva created the world.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by @apathistIt obviously depends on how you define evolution. If by evolution you simply mean 'a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations' and nothing else, then yes I agree.
If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenot ...[text shortened]... shown to change into other species.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThe definition of the theory of evolution depends neither on one's taste, nor in one's beliefs; according to Darwin's definition in 1859, the theory of evolution by natural selection is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. When we are talking about the theory of evolution, we are talking in the context of the above mentioned definition😵
It obviously depends on how you define evolution. If by evolution you simply mean 'a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations' and nothing else, then yes I agree.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by @black-beetlePre existing organisms yes. Do you think evolution demonstrates how all organisms evolved from a single cell?
The definition of the theory of evolution depends neither on one's taste, nor in one's beliefs; according to Darwin's definition in 1859, the theory of evolution by natural selection is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. When we are talking about the theory of evolution, we are talking in the context of the above mentioned definition😵
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThe studies, along with the scientific facts and evidence, support Darwin's universal common ancestor theory😵
Pre existing organisms yes. Do you think evolution demonstrates how all organisms evolved from a single cell?
Originally posted by @black-beetleI'm sure they do, and if they didn't they wouldn't be called facts or evidence.
The studies, along with the scientific facts and evidence, support Darwin's universal common ancestor theory😵
Originally posted by @kellyjayMind you, the studies, along with the scientific facts and evidence, would support not Darwin's universal common ancestor theory if they were disproving it. In that case, they would be also called scientific facts and evidence😵
I'm sure they do, and if they didn't they wouldn't be called facts or evidence.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by @black-beetleFacts and evidence such as Nebraskan man for example? 😵
The studies, along with the scientific facts and evidence, support Darwin's universal common ancestor theory😵
Originally posted by @dj2beckerMistakes are mistakes, and mistakes happen. This is the reason why this purported species was retracted 5-6 years after the publication of the original article. I will not hold my breath though waiting for the "scientific" creationism proponents to correct themselves😵
Facts and evidence such as Nebraskan man for example? 😵
Originally posted by @black-beetleReally you seem insulting to those with conclusions that don't support evolution. Wouldn't it be difficult to see valid points against it if those who disagree are personally attacked?
Mind you, the studies, along with the scientific facts and evidence, would support not Darwin's universal common ancestor theory if they were disproving it. In that case, they would be also called scientific facts and evidence😵
Originally posted by @kellyjayIt is not my intention to insult. I do not see how did I attack you in person, but anyway I am sorry if my posts make you feel under attack. On the contrary, I believe that everything must be the object of full evaluation.
Really you seem insulting to those with conclusions that don't support evolution. Wouldn't it be difficult to see valid points against it if those who disagree are personally attacked?
To me, the theory of evolution is simply another viable scientific theory herenow amongst many; should the scientific community come up in the future with facts and evidence that do not support it anymore, and if after my evaluation my conclusion too was that the theory must be discarded, I would discard it on the spot.
😵
Originally posted by @black-beetleAs long as you only call them facts and evidence that support it, it will never be challenged.
Mind you, the studies, along with the scientific facts and evidence, would support not Darwin's universal common ancestor theory if they were disproving it. In that case, they would be also called scientific facts and evidence😵
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYes, but the theory does not claim nor require that all organisms evolved from a single cell. I am sure that the precursors to life as we know it were popping up all over the place as environment and situation permitted. The 'single cell' you think of wasn't a cell and there were trillions of them, most dying but they kept happening again anyway. We're talking about a bubbling stew or a frothy soup. The star trek ideal of a piece of sludge from a particular tide-pool as being the start of all life here is nonsense.
Pre existing organisms yes. Do you think evolution demonstrates how all organisms evolved from a single cell?