How long does it take to evolve?

As has already been pointed out, science is not about proving anything, it is about a coherent explanation of all the evidence.So far, all the evidence and observations from multiple branches of science support the theory of evolution. No evidence refutes it. Life evolves and all the evidence shows it. Sorry, but this is not true. Whether or not evolution is true says nothing about the validity of creation. Well, 3.8 billion years is a long time, and complex multicellular life has been around for about 0.6 billion years. In that time, millions of species have evolved and gone extinct. a) What is a relevant mutation? b) What is a regeneration cycle? c) You are asking the same question as a. d) What do you mean by beneficial stage? And why does it need to dominate the population? e) I have no idea what you are asking here, but all fatal mutations cause death. You are correct. The numbers you want will only be guesses, there is no calculation involved. What would be the point in trying to figure out these numbers? What could that possibly tell you?We have seen numerous calculations of supposed odds against various aspects of evolution happening. They are all based on a total lack in understanding the concept of probability and an even larger misunderstanding of genetics and evolution. The likelihood of evolution happening calculates to exactly 1, so fatal blow averted.

I have a feeling we won't hear from you again. Well, maybe the understanding was not what you think. We have seen similar patterns in your posts before.Care to respond to Message 12?

I think it will be a long time. Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

dwise, I just wanted to say thanks for all your efforts over the years to compile, preserve, and make available all of the information about creationism and scientific creationism. Yours must be one of the most, if not, THE most, complete history of this movement.I first got interested in the early '70s, when my sister's fundamentalist roommate gave me a tabloid sized newsletter from a creationist outfit (probably ICR). I wish I had had the foresight to keep it. Anyway, I knew it was BS and started picking up creationist books at a used bookstore and also researching direct refutations of their claims.Most of the creationists I know of do not have the attention span to read all of your material and seeing their own reflection (as dupes) would be too embarrassing for most of them.Those of us who remember when the ridiculous con game of creationism started really appreciate your efforts.

I am in ratings freefall.....it seems like it was just last month that I had a 1000 rating and now look at me!

Wouldn't you say that beyond just the recipe, parts of it (DNA) are also replicator/fabricator of raw materials and building blocks?

You don't seem to understand much about science. Scientists (in this case biologists) are not just data gatherers. They actually do the whole enchilada; hypothesize, experiment, observe, conclude, repeat. Are you kidding me? Part of the training of every scientist is how to think in a scientific way. This includes understanding the evidence and making conclusions about it. But you didn't actually quote him. You said, "Over the weekend, I have discovered a blurb from none other than Thomas Nagel himself decrying the portrayal of Darwinism as gospel." What did he actually say, and in what context, and where did he say it? And what does it mean and who is portraying Darwinism as gospel? The only people I ever hear portraying Darwin as gospel are creationists. He may be well known, but I had never heard of him. He is a respected thinker, by whom? Anyone can think about biology, why are his thoughts about biology of any importance?As a scientist and a biologist, I have run across very few people who characterize themselves as philosophers whose thoughts or opinions about science I respect, or about any subject for that matter. Most of the ones I have had experience with think they know about science but are actually failures at science and understanding science.

And it never fails to amuse me that some people revere other people who tell them how to think.I cannot speak for other scientists as to their reasons for not caring what philosophers think. I am not a prominent scientist so no self-proclaimed big thinker has bothered to question my beliefs or undermined my sense of certainty.I have had some of these types tell me how I should photograph dragonflies, how I should follow some rules of composition, or tonality, or color. I have had them tell me I don't use bokeh they way they think I should. They tell me I should follow their rules for post-processing my images. That's the key right there, my images.My work is mine, whether it is science, photography, or art. I didn't ask them for their opinions so they can blow them out their ass.

Oh, good grief. I haven't dismissed anything. When I was young I read lots of that stuff. I found that I disagreed with most of it and found a lot of it to be silly.It isn't anti-intellectualism. There is only so much time available in my life and it is getting shorter all the time. I choose to spend it pursuing knowledge that makes me feel alive and ignoring things that don't.So get off your intellectual high horse and quit trying to fit me into your anti-intellectual box.

Pretty much. It wasn't really even a quote, just a vague hint at what he supposedly said. The Hawking reference also. Lamden doesn't seem to have mastered quote-mining yet.

OK, I went back and reread what you wrote in Message 160 and I don't think it could be considered a Hawkings quote, but rather a hazy mention of something he may have said, somewhere.I don't know what he meant either.

quote:

---

( I actually read somewhere that Hawkings predicted that "science would surpass philosophy- I am thinking about starting a thread for an explanation of what he meant)

---

Most of us would expect an exact quote of what Hawking said, where he said it, and in what context.What could it even mean? In what way is science even in competition with philosophy? And what makes Hawking an authority?ABE: I see you added some Nagel quotes while I was writing the above.Thanks, food for thought......I see he doesn't have a good grasp of science or the scientific method.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

I had planned to not comment further, but then you said this: So far, you have not pointed out any valid problems with scientific enquiry raised by philosophers, that I can see. Could you point some out? I see skepticism more than defensiveness. If you are talking about here at EvC, well this is a debate forum so you should expect disagreement if someone thinks you are wrong. If someone describes problems in bad faith I would expect that pretty much anything they had to say after that can be disregarded. One lie can sink a career. I chewed on it for a bit and then spat it out when I realized it tasted like crap.I noticed when reading what you have written over that last few months that you seem quite enamored with some philosophers and several times I thought to myself that you were putting a different spin on their positions than I did. That is ok, we all see things our own way when it comes to opinions.Personally I love pretty much everything Richard Feynman had to say, go figure.

Bingo!! As I read this, something just clicked into place. Thinking back over the MrHambre posts that I have read there is a strong undercurrent of disapproval or dislike of science. He likes philosophers who criticise science whether they know what they are talking about or not. I may be wrong, but that's how it seems to me.The Human Genome Project yielded so much more than just detailed knowledge about DNA. There were incredible improvements in the technology and a huge new branch of science, molecular biology has grown up and is starting to have positive impacts in medicine, agriculture, and many branches of science.I guess I am a bit of a cheerleader, but one of my very close friends and co-researcher on several projects has become a major player in molecular biology and she just received an $800K grant for her research.