Originally posted by Conrau KIf you had read the link I posted in its entirety, you'd have noticed the distinction "evolution that occurs above the level of species" in the wikipedia section.
Thats great but we need to know what you mean by taxnomical classes and so on to know what macroevolution is. And i doubt mannion has a proof (its not even what he had said), he said macroevolution had been observed and if we define macroevolution by taxanomic groups (the way I would define them)- he's right.
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionScience is what people make it, just as religion is; there is nothing
No I'm not meaning to imply a slam against religion - just stating how it is. Religion is what it is. It's not science. Nor is science religion.
You're right, some people view science in the way some religious people view religion - as an article of faith. It isn't.
THEORY in science doesn't mean what I think you think it means - which is to say, I th evolution has - yes I'll repeat that HAS - been observed in both the wild and in the lab.
special about either, if they are founded in truth they are founded
in truth, if they are founded in error or lies, they are founded in
error or lies. The truth will win out in the end, people can be in error
within science or within religion. You seem to want to make out
science to be something special apart from the people who deal
with it, it isn't, just as religion isn't either.
Let us see your proof that macro evolution has been shown in both
the lab and the wild to where we can see it.
Kelly
Originally posted by Conrau KLet me introduce you to, amannion!
Again, we do not need to observe evolution to be assured of its correctness. We can deduce it.
It is not faith. If there is only ONE scientific explanation then there is only ONE explanation. Evolution is the only theory available to explain life diversity (there are of course problems with applying evolution to periods of time that extend so far into the ...[text shortened]... l do you expect scientists to do?
Oh, and who wants to call evolution a fact? Scientists? No?
Cornrau, amannion, and amannion let me introduce you to Cornrau.
I believe you two desire to talk to one another on what is a fact and
what isn't when it comes to evolution.
Kelly 🙂
Originally posted by Conrau KIf you want to define macroevolution to where you can say you have
Thats great but we need to know what you mean by taxnomical classes and so on to know what macroevolution is. And i doubt mannion has a proof (its not even what he had said), he said macroevolution had been observed and if we define macroevolution by taxanomic groups (the way I would define them)- he's right.
it seen it, by all means...
My point is that from a simple cell to the vast arrary of life we see
today, that type of evolution has not been seen, it is stated as as
a fact by some, but proof for it no. We have not seen changes in
any life from go from simple into something much more complex
in ways it wasn't before, such as a single cell into a blade of grass.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayFunny that because we actually already know each other. However, I would be interested to see what evidence he's talking about.
Let me introduce you to, amannion!
Cornrau, amannion, and amannion let me introduce you to Cornrau.
I believe you two desire to talk to one another on what is a fact and
what isn't when it comes to evolution.
Kelly 🙂
Originally posted by KellyJayI see no logical reason or biological reason why this cannot occur (or have occured). We also dont need to see it [macroevolution], we can deduce it. There is an abundance of fossil evidence which indicates that evolution has been happening for some time. There is also the fact that there is no other scientific explanation available- so where stuck with it.
If you want to define macroevolution to where you can say you have
it seen it, by all means...
My point is that from a simple cell to the vast arrary of life we see
today, that type of evolution has not been seen, it is stated as as
a fact by some, but proof for it no. We have not seen changes in
any life from go from simple into something much more complex
in ways it wasn't before, such as a single cell into a blade of grass.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are a number of recorded and reliable cases of planet speciation events in the wild - that is, macroevolution in the wild.
Science is what people make it, just as religion is; there is nothing
special about either, if they are founded in truth they are founded
in truth, if they are founded in error or lies, they are founded in
error or lies. The truth will win out in the end, people can be in error
within science or within religion. You seem to want to make out
science to ...[text shortened]... at macro evolution has been shown in both
the lab and the wild to where we can see it.
Kelly
Quite a number of experiments have demonstrated macroevolution in the lab - particularly with fly species.
Here's a nice summary of the story so far:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Science isn't special in any sense in comparison to religion and to suggest that I've said otherwise is inaccurate. But the two ARE very different. While you may be right that both are founded in truth, the way they access this truth and respond to it is entirely different. Science responds to truth (or otherwise) by questioning - in the end that's the key to science: ask questions, never be happy with the answers you've got and keep asking more questions. Religion can do this - in the hands of the right person, but mostly it limits itself to not asking questions but just accepting truth as a given.
Originally posted by Conrau KYou can deduce it, why sure, and I deduce that God is real, and
I see no logical reason or biological reason why this cannot occur (or have occured). We also dont need to see it [macroevolution], we can deduce it. There is an abundance of fossil evidence which indicates that evolution has been happening for some time. There is also the fact that there is no other scientific explanation available- so where stuck with it.
the difference is...you claim what you believe isn't faith, and what
I believe is, that the bottom line for you? I mean because I can
look at the universe and say, it is too functionally complex to be
all random it must be God, as you can look at small changes within
DNA, and say it must be evolution, for you it does not matter that
neither has been witnessed, just 'deduced.'
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo you're trying to make religion as falsifiable as science.
You can deduce it, why sure, and I deduce that God is real, and
the difference is...you claim what you believe isn't faith, and what
I believe is, that the bottom line for you? I mean because I can
look at the universe and say, it is too functionally complex to be
all random it must be God, as you can look at small changes within
DNA, and say it must ...[text shortened]... volution, for you it does not matter that
neither has been witnessed, just 'deduced.'
Kelly
God isn't deduced - he/she/it is believed in. You haven't come to your faith in any rational way - and if you claim you have you're deluding yourself. I'm not judging you for that - it is waht it is, belief pure and simple.
My atheist belief is exactly the same. I can't prove that God doesn't exist. I just believe it to be true.
But for science? That's a different story. We're not talking about competing theories here - evolution on the one hand, God on the other. That's to fatally confuse the two. Evolution is scientific - it's a theory that can be falsified (that is, it can be proved wrong if the right evidence is found). Your belief in God (and my belief in no God) can't be falsified.
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are two aspects of sciense: 1) induction (observing) and 2) deduction (reasoning and the use of logic).
You can deduce it, why sure, and I deduce that God is real, and
the difference is...you claim what you believe isn't faith, and what
I believe is, that the bottom line for you? I mean because I can
look at the universe and say, it is too functionally complex to be
all random it must be God, as you can look at small changes within
DNA, and say it must ...[text shortened]... volution, for you it does not matter that
neither has been witnessed, just 'deduced.'
Kelly
From the available data (fossil evidence etc) scientists make a deduction. The deduction is in accordance with the laws of logic. These are infallible. What makes or breaks the theory is the new data that emerges (i.e. as deej puts it: if we discovered a bunny from the pre-cambrarian period). This is logic not faith. The theory is only open to refinement if new and contrary data is accummulated and then new deeductions can be made. All the deductions on evolution are valid.
As ammannion said, 'faith is belief.' Science is not about belief, it is just the deductions that can be made from the inductions. Translation: the theory we get from the experiments and data.
Originally posted by Conrau KYou are filling your truth with assumptions, science is about belief
There are two aspects of sciense: 1) induction (observing) and 2) deduction (reasoning and the use of logic).
From the available data (fossil evidence etc) scientists make a deduction. The deduction is in accordance with the laws of logic. These are infallible. What makes or breaks the theory is the new data that emerges (i.e. as deej puts it: if we dis ...[text shortened]... an be made from the inductions. Translation: the theory we get from the experiments and data.
you have to believe your reading the fossiles right, you really do
not know, you believe you are, you believe that the logic used is
'infallible' which would lead me to say someone is full of themself.
You believe in the prehistoric periods, which is faith, because no one
has records hence (prehistoric, if that is real) going back that far in
time is really only assumptions. On the reading of fossils and dating
methods, science is about beliefs and your statement of faith is
proving it. You want to call your connecting the dots about the past
something other than faith, it isn't you are not much different than
someone reading tea leaves when you talking about billions of years
you cannot be proven wrong, it is faith.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySorry KJ, but we do have records dating back that far in time: they're called fossils.
You are filling your truth with assumptions, science is about belief
you have to believe your reading the fossiles right, you really do
not know, you believe you are, you believe that the logic used is
'infallible' which would lead me to say someone is full of themself.
You believe in the prehistoric periods, which is faith, because no one
has records ...[text shortened]... ves when you talking about billions of years
you cannot be proven wrong, it is faith.
Kelly