|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Genetic evidence of primate evolution | |||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: And people with Down's Syndrome have 47 chromosomes ... theyDO share ancestry with the rest of us don't they ???? quote: I think you'll find there are groups pressuring on ethicalgrounds against such things ... christians perhaps ? I dont' know. quote: Show me how the common creator hypothesis can be tested AT ALLplease. Evolutionary theory came about BECAUSE of observations inthe natural world. It was not put forward, and then evidence sought. It was put forward as an explanation of observations already made. The common creator hypothesis comes from the stated commoncreator in the Bible, and then data has been interpreted to fit (although I'm not sure what data + interpretations there are in relation to this). That is why evolution is scientific and common creatorismisn't. Evolution is a theory created to explain observed facts. Common creatorism is a belief, founded in the judeo-christianreligions, for which evidence is sought. [This message has been edited by Peter, 05-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Some do. But you have stated that differing numbers of chromosomes preclude commonancestry. I have provided OBSERVED evidence that this is NOT the case. I'm not suggesting that Down's syndrome itself is anything to do with theevolution of apes and man. I am citing it as evidence that an organism can produce offspring with a different number of chromosomes to itself. quote: You seem to care very little what anyone else thinks ... and I know you are nota christian (you've said so elsewhere) ... never said you were quote: OK, so show me the evidence, and explain how a common creator is inferred fromit. quote: Explain how we KNOE that ToE does not follow observations (and who are 'we'), please. What observed evidence, 200 years ago, lead to ID ?
quote: Science is not a search for truth ... truth is subjective, science strives for objectivityin the face of man's innate subjective nature ... that's why you need peer review and discussion. BTW -- why do you think I wrote 'data + interpretations' ?
quote: So according to YOU personally it's NOT scientific at all then ?
quote: What facts does ToE fail to explain ? In what way do you need to DEMONSTRATE anything in order to pass a test ? Tests are basedupon you're ability to understand the ideas behind the subject in question .... I know I've set tests for my students. quote: It's not about your worldview ... I was raised in a christian society, and thewoprldview that was impressed upon me (without my knowledge) was rooted in judeo-christain belief systems. Taking a conclusion (there is an IDer), and molding data to fit is NOT scientific. Taking an observation, figuring out why that should be, working out a way to testthe hypothesis (by finding other evidence perhaps) IS scientific. Or am I wrong there ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1479 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Some do. But you have stated that differing numbers of chromosomes preclude commonancestry. I have provided OBSERVED evidence that this is NOT the case. I'm not suggesting that Down's syndrome itself is anything to do with theevolution of apes and man. I am citing it as evidence that an organism can produce offspring with a different number of chromosomes to itself. quote: You seem to care very little what anyone else thinks ... and I know you are nota christian (you've said so elsewhere) ... never said you were quote: OK, so show me the evidence, and explain how a common creator is inferred fromit. quote: Explain how we KNOE that ToE does not follow observations (and who are 'we'), please. What observed evidence, 200 years ago, lead to ID ?
quote: Science is not a search for truth ... truth is subjective, science strives for objectivityin the face of man's innate subjective nature ... that's why you need peer review and discussion. BTW -- why do you think I wrote 'data + interpretations' ?
quote: So according to YOU personally it's NOT scientific at all then ?
quote: What facts does ToE fail to explain ? In what way do you need to DEMONSTRATE anything in order to pass a test ? Tests are basedupon you're ability to understand the ideas behind the subject in question .... I know I've set tests for my students. quote: It's not about your worldview ... I was raised in a christian society, and thewoprldview that was impressed upon me (without my knowledge) was rooted in judeo-christain belief systems. Taking a conclusion (there is an IDer), and molding data to fit is NOT scientific. Taking an observation, figuring out why that should be, working out a way to testthe hypothesis (by finding other evidence perhaps) IS scientific. Or am I wrong there ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024