Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Darwinism Cannot Explain The Peacock
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 75 of 165 (689259)
01-29-2013 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Bolder-dash
01-27-2013 12:07 PM


Hello BD,
Then some females got a mutation that lead to much less facial hair-which looks like a child (purely un-evidenced conjecture, but ok, let's go with your story). This can't be some kind of chimpanzee creature because basically none of them have facial hair
You believe that humans originated from 'chipanzee creatures'? Surely you can't be this un-informed? No wonder your arguments make little sense!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-27-2013 12:07 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-29-2013 9:24 AM Drosophilla has replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(1)
Message 90 of 165 (689321)
01-29-2013 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Bolder-dash
01-29-2013 9:24 AM


Hmmm
Ha, yea right, some people here believe that we are descended from a chimpanzee like creature, but I sure ain't one of them! I guess you meant the other 99.86 posters here.
Interesting! I hadn't realised that 99.86% of the participants on this board are creationists....for they are the only ones who believe that the Theory of Evolution involves "humans being descended from a chimpanzee-like creature". You, yourself, have nailed your colours to the mast by saying that very statement.
Unfortunately for you, it is a classic creationist strawman. Do you know why it's a strawman though? There is the tester.....when you can honestly answer that you can (begin) to appreciate what the ToE really says.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Bolder-dash, posted 01-29-2013 9:24 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3640 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


(4)
Message 149 of 165 (690631)
02-14-2013 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Arriba
02-14-2013 3:02 PM


Re: Unprovable Postulates
First of all, there is no such thing as the scientific method.
Have you lived in a cave since your formative years?
The scientific method is very well described and followed. It follows this precise set of steps:
1. Make REAL world observations of particular events or of particular data sets.
2. Postulated hypotheses that may account for the data
3. Make predications with your hypothesis for what should be supported in the data set
4. Make predications about how the hypothesis can be falsified - hint: It's even more important to predict what your hypothesis can't do than what it can - i.e. scientific hypotheses MUST be falsifiable or they are NFG!
5. Look for multi-buttressing REAL WORLD data that supports the hypothesis and check that nothing falsifies it - with point no. 3 in the affirmative and point no. 4 in the negative, move ever more confidently to the more powerful 'theory' instead of 'hypothesis' whilst all the time being prepared to either modify or totally ditch the hypothesis in the light of new evidence.
The 5 point sequence above is THE scientific method and has been for over the past two hundred years plus of science investigation. To say that (quote) "There is no such thing as the scientific method" is to demonstrate that you (somehow) avoided quality science investigative work at school and college level - presumably you did live in a cave of some sort!!
To put a practical example of the scientific method lets apply it to the Theory of Evolution (ToE):
1. The observation is made in the natural world that all the species of plants, animals, fungi etc are arranged in a Linnaean 'family tree'. How does this come about?
2. The hypothesis is that organisms derive from earlier common ancestors by the process of random mutation plus natural selection.
3. Positive predications will be that organisms will share inherited traits, and this will be evident in the fossil record, DNA profiles, population demography - to name a few relevant fields.
4. The clincher - falsifiability - the hypothesis predicts that if organisms evolve from earlier forms then there will be no sudden jumping backwards of later-developed animals into earlier eras - to quote JBS Haldane "No fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian.
Also, there will be no 'jumping' of adapted features from lines into other lines that didn't evolve them independently - i.e. the correctly wired cephalopods eyes (with optic connections coming into the back of the retina and not obscuring the photoreceptors) won't suddenly ‘jump’ into late-vertebrate developed eyes which are 'incorrectly' wired and have the optic nerve filaments entering the photoreceptors from the front which obscures and reduces photosensitivity. If either of the two examples above were shown to happen this would immediately blow the hypothesis out of the water!
5. Over the past 150 years and over millions of observations and experiments point no. 3 remains in the affirmative and point no. 4 (falsifiablitlity) has NEVER been demonstrated. Therefore the hypothesis of the ToE moves confidently to the stronger Theory of the ToE.
THIS is the scientific method in action. To say it doesn’t exist is to be utterly ignorant of the way in which science is conducted. You should hang your head in shame - or at least get some basic science books and start reading....
Edited by Drosophilla, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Arriba, posted 02-14-2013 3:02 PM Arriba has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024