|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5060 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4734 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
quote: Well, I've heard some people say that because the DNA is incomplete (I don't know what that means) then that means it calls into question the entire theory of evolution, and that it is indeed wrong. But thank you for the link that's the kind of thing I've been looking for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Does DNA disprove evolution? [...] If it can't be mapped all the way back to the time when life first began? But why should it be? The way to test a theory is to see whether our observations match its predictions. Now, the concept of evolution does not in any way predict that we should be able to map the genomes of long-extinct species. This is something that we wouldn't be able to do no matter how true or false neo-Darwinism is. As such it can have no bearing on the correctness of the theory. One might as well argue that the theory of gravity is wrong because we can't describe the orbits of the bodies in the gravitational field of Aldebaran. To be sure, this is a gravity-related question, and one that we can't answer, but the theory does not in any way imply that we should be able to answer it --- so it is not a test of the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4734 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
quote: In the interests of falsification so some creationists can't use this against science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In the interests of falsification so some creationists can't use this against science? It's already plenty falsifiable; and creationists will come up with bad arguments under any conceivable set of circumstances.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Tram law writes:
Since I have also no idea what they mean by that either, I can't help any further.
Well, I've heard some people say that because the DNA is incomplete (I don't know what that means) then that means it calls into question the entire theory of evolution, and that it is indeed wrong. But thank you for the link that's the kind of thing I've been looking for.
You're welcome mate. Keep in mind though that the wiki article, as extensive as it is, is still only a quick glance at all the evidence for common descent. If you are ready to dive into the real scientific works that detail this evidence Google Scholar lists 3,010,000 articles concerning evolution, and 385,000 articles concerning Common Descent specifically.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4734 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
Yeah, the sad thing is though if a person doesn't want to believe they won't change their belief no matter what and will play all kinds of games in order to support their beliefs so they can be both right and correct, which I've come to wonder that they could be two different things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Hello Tram law,
I don't know if you're reply was to me or Dr. Adequate, but yes, the double standard boggles the mind sometimes. Here's a tip, if you want to respond to a specific post, don't use the "general reply" button at the bottom left of the page, use the smaller "reply" button on the bottom right of the post you want to respond to. That makes it easier for everyone to follow, and it will send an e-mail to the writer of the post you are repsonding to that you responded to his post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4734 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
I've been told that tip before, thanks. My post was a general response. However, this seems to be the only site that makes that tip mandatory. Other sites I've been on it's usually considered a direct response to the previous post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
well, we're used to it that way here. And because everybody else does it, it becomes confusing when someone doesn't do it, that's all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
You are claiming the theory of random mutations causing genetic variations in species extensive enough to allow natural selection to form all the variation of life we see on the planet can make a lot of predictions?
If this is the standard by which a theory is given weight, then I guess these predictions must be plentiful. Can you name a few of these predictions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Bolder-dash writes:
Sure.
If this is the standard by which a theory is given weight, then I guess these predictions must be plentiful. Can you name a few of these predictions? For more, see this list. And no, these are not all predictions for evolution, as you can see, Tiktaalik is not in that list, as is the nested hierarchy, yet I would list those as predictions for evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'll start a thread, hold on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Which of these predictions is predicated on there being random mutations and natural selection to cause them?
I can make a theory that says all of human emotions are created by the remnants of the fragrance of apples in the air. And to prove my theory through predictions, I predict some people will get upset tomorrow, and some will be happy, and some will laugh. See, I have made these predictions, so if my theory is correct, this will come true. I love science! Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
That would certainly be a prediction, but it doesn't function as a test of your theory because the prediction will be true regardless of whether your theory is.
Whereas the experiments that verified natural selection would have had different results depending on whether or not natural selection actually occurs (of course, if you think about it it's trivially and obviously true that natural selection occurs, because not all members of a species live as long, or have the same number of offspring.) The experiments that verified mutation would have had different results depending on whether or not mutation happens (of course, it's also trivially and obviously true that mutations must occur, because genetic sequences have to be copied for organisms to grow and reproduce, and it would be impossible for those sequences to be copied without errors every single time.)
I love science! Why not try learning some, sometime? It's pretty useful, you know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bolder-dash Member (Idle past 3660 days) Posts: 983 From: China Joined: |
Whereas the experiments that verified natural selection would have had different results depending on whether or not natural selection actually occurs (of course, if you think about it it's trivially and obviously true that natural selection occurs, because not all members of a species live as long, or have the same number of offspring.) The experiments that verified mutation would have had different results depending on whether or not mutation happens (of course, it's also trivially and obviously true that mutations must occur, because genetic sequences have to be copied for organisms to grow and reproduce, and it would be impossible for those sequences to be copied without errors every single time.) Site your evidence please.
The experiments that verified mutation... Did you mean to say mutations or random mutations? Is there a reason you left out "random"?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024