3 edits
What we call "evolution" is an integrated theory that describes what science has discovered about how species adapt and change in nature over time. Whenever credible scientific information is discovered which informs that topic, it gets incorporated into the theory. That's how science works.
So there isn't any credible scientific alternative to evolution, since any new data found to be credible just gets integrated into evolutionary theory. There may be all sorts of divergent ideas about where life came from, and whether you find them credible is ultimately up to you, but they're not scientific.
Originally posted by EcstremeVenomEvolution can only occur through the germ line. In sexual organisms this is through sperm and eggs, at fertilisation. Mutations which happen to somatic (body) cells will be lost to the gene pool, no matter what transitory effect they have in any given organism. (i.e. you could have a somatic cell mutation which turns you into superman, and that in turn may help improve your fecundity significantly, but if the genes cannot be transmitted they'll be lost to time)
i have once heard an argument from a theist that sounded like this:
when a baby is made, it gets half characteristics from its mom and half from its dad. no new information is added; just old information combined, unless there is an error which is a mutation and is not beneficial. a snake having two heads is gonna die, it is not gonna evolve into s ...[text shortened]... ming that each slow change is during birth? if they are claiming birth, i would say it is wrong.
Not all mutations are deleterious. Many grasses, thorough the process of random mutation, coupled with a selective pressure, have evolved new genes to cope with heavy metals in their environment. Hardly deleterious.
And yes, it tends to be creationists which lie about evolution. What requirement would anyone have to lie about evolution. The pro-evolution establishment would be quick to cut someone down whether they are lying about evolution in either a positive or negative way.
Originally posted by KellyJayYes. I agree the two are different.
Baseless, to indentify a fossil is purely subjective you disagree?
That is quite different than working out a math problem, again do you
agree or disagree?
Kelly
However, making an inference and testing it, as we do with fossil evidence does not make it not science. In fact, if anything, mathematics is not science as it does not rely on hypothesis testing, rather it is pure logic.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou can test fossil identification to see if one fossil is related to a
Yes. I agree the two are different.
However, making an inference and testing it, as we do with fossil evidence does not make it not science. In fact, if anything, mathematics is not science as it does not rely on hypothesis testing, rather it is pure logic.
contemporary creature living today to know it is an ancestor, and
not just some similar looking creature that didn't have any
connection beyond looks to the contemporary creature?
I didn't deny it was science I said it wasn't on par with Physics
in my opinion, meaning I hold physics in a much higher place than
I do people’s opinions on what where they think fossils fall out in
the grand scheme of things.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI can infer that something in between physiologically should come between two organisms separated in time within the geological column. That hypothesis has been shown to be correct time after time.
You can test fossil identification to see if one fossil is related to a
contemporary creature living today to know it is an ancestor, and
not just some similar looking creature that didn't have any
connection beyond looks to the contemporary creature?
I didn't deny it was science I said it wasn't on par with Physics
in my opinion, meaning I hold phys ...[text shortened]... e’s opinions on what where they think fossils fall out in
the grand scheme of things.
Kelly
Physics is certainly more precise about most things. Mainly, because physics is simpler. It works with typically well defined entities. Biological entities change over time, but a brick is always a brick.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat is wonderful, it really is; however, even if they were from
I can infer that something in between physiologically should come between two organisms separated in time within the geological column. That hypothesis has been shown to be correct time after time.
Physics is certainly more precise about most things. Mainly, because physics is simpler. It works with typically well defined entities. Biological entities change over time, but a brick is always a brick.
different time frames as assumed that does not change the complaint,
it is still nothing but a pure guess work! Claims about predecessors
even if you are 100% about their age does not address the nature of
the complaint against pure speculation.
Kelly
How can you call one branch of science speculation and the other fact, they're both based on Identical principals.
They principal is that the simplest theory based on the available data is the most likley, as more data becomes available the theory gains complexity as our understand increases to fit it or gets debunked if it can't be explain the data and a new theory is put forward .
Thus evoloution fits the data, nothing else has ever been put forward that fits the data as easily AND there is always more data becoming available, none of which has ever not fitted to the theory.
If you want to belive the whole creator idea thats fine, but there is no evidence at all to support this claim so stop pushing it as science, its not. Its a belief. Which is fine but you can't use the bits of scientific reasoning that you like and not the bits that don't fit.
Originally posted by MexicoYou believe identical principals will yield the same solid results when
How can you call one branch of science speculation and the other fact, they're both based on Identical principals.
They principal is that the simplest theory based on the available data is the most likley, as more data becomes available the theory gains complexity as our understand increases to fit it or gets debunked if it can't be explain the data and a ...[text shortened]... ou can't use the bits of scientific reasoning that you like and not the bits that don't fit.
applied to all things? Besides, the universe itself isn't exactly simple
in its make up and function, without a doubt the simple as a starting
point may not always the soundest or most accurate place to begin. It
may lead us to a result, but that doesn’t mean the result we get is a
true reflection of reality.
Wtih respect to a creator and evidence your starting assumptions
basically rule Him out not the universe itself.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayOK. I will part with one last twist. What you really wanted to say is: "I was talking nonsense, I know it, but wont admit it."
I'm of the opinion right or wrong that no matter what I say you are
going to twist it. Why don't you and I just part knowing we disagree
before we get disagreeable.
Kelly[/b]
You claimed physics was at a higher level than biology then on questioning essentially withdrew the statement, replacing 'physics' with 'mathematics and then later in the thread you repeated the claim about physics. You just don't like me because I highlight your lies too well.
Originally posted by twhiteheadPut your mind reading cap on and follow someone else around will
OK. I will part with one last twist. What you really wanted to say is: "I was talking nonsense, I know it, but wont admit it."
You claimed physics was at a higher level than biology then on questioning essentially withdrew the statement, replacing 'physics' with 'mathematics and then later in the thread you repeated the claim about physics. You just don't like me because I highlight your lies too well.
you?
Kelly
Originally posted by amannionThat doesn't reflect reality; most things in life either change not!
Like most things in life - other than religious thought of course - yes, it changes as new information comes to light ....
New information coming to light does not mean life has changed at
all, new information changes the way we view something. Our
understanding improving with new data is a natural good thing, but
only required when we find we were wrong about something we
thought was or is true. Religious thought not changing isn’t a draw
back if it is speaking the truth about whatever topic it is covering
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, but what if it isn't?
That doesn't reflect reality; most things in life either change not!
New information coming to light does not mean life has changed at
all, new information changes the way we view something. Our
understanding improving with new data is a natural good thing, but
only required when we find we were wrong about something we
thought was or is true. Religiou ...[text shortened]... nging isn’t a draw
back if it is speaking the truth about whatever topic it is covering
Kelly
What if the religious 'truth' isn't truth at all?
And please, please, please, read your goddamn sentences before you post. What the hell does your first sentence mean?