Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6353 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 31 of 968 (297461)
03-22-2006 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by RAZD
03-22-2006 9:55 PM


Re: not quite ...
Or a combination of mammal and octopus eye so that you can change the lens focal length and the shape of the eyeball and have telescopic vision.
These last two kind of things are what one should expect if ID were involved in species change btw.
Isn't this just pure speculation?
I don't think you can predict what sort of direction a design is going to go in (and as I regularly point out the IDers aren't even looking at designs, they are looking at implementations - which isn't quite the same thing) unless you know what the requirements or goals of the design are.
Since the IDers want to leave the designer(s) hiding behind the curtains we don't know what the goals of the 'eye project' were (are?). Perhaps the contract with the Magaratheans led to the following sub-section in a Functional Specification:
Requirement: The third most intelligent species on the planet must be forced to speculate on why some of their physical organs are so piss-poor compared to their equivalents on other, less intellectually advanced species.
Humans will be equipped with a relatively poorly designed eye (see Specification Optical Systems In The Human for full details of the human eye).
The eye used for comparison will be that of the octopus which, as described in in the relevant sections of Specification Optical Systems In The Octopus, will be implemented without some of the deliberate design flaws placed in the human eye.
The default neural pathways built into the human brain must be checked to ensure that they will have enough curiosity to make the required comparison between their eye and that of the octopus.
Except of course there would be a lot more bullet items, cross references to other specs and so on

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2006 9:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-24-2006 7:30 AM MangyTiger has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 968 (297751)
03-24-2006 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by MangyTiger
03-22-2006 11:16 PM


Differentiation part of Falsification
Those dad-burned white mice ...
Isn't this just pure speculation?
I don't think you can predict what sort of direction a design is going to go in ...
These are examples of the kinds of things, rather than the specific instances, and IF "intelligent design" were involved THEN it should involve elements common to designed items.
One of these is discontinuity (sudden appearance of whole new species) and one is cross-fertilization (features from one design jumping to another), and a third is combination (where two similar features are combined to provide a significantly enhanced feature, like telescopic vision).
These are also things that should NOT happen IF evolution were the ONLY answer.
This may seem to be trending this discussion off topic (into ID Problems and away from Evo Falsification), but I raise it as an instance of things that could differentiate between ID and Evo -- something that should occur if one were true and should NOT occur if the other were true.
This is a critical part of any good falsification test -- it differentiates between possible concepts.
IDets like to use computers as examples of designed items. Modern cars have both computers and GPS systems in them, neither of which "evolved" in the cars during development and both of which are still evident in individual units and are also found combined into still other designs (GPS phones, blackberries, etc). Rather these items appear fully developed into cars, jumping across design development paths. This is the way intelligent implementation of design operates, so if it (occurs\occurred} then "intelligent design" is a good explanation.
This is NOT the way evolution operates, so if it (occurs\occurred} then evolution is NOT the best explanation.
The failure of "intelligent design" is the {lack\failure\absence} of explanation for the lack of design elements. I consider this to be another falsification of the "intelligent design" concept.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*24*2006 07:33 AM

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by MangyTiger, posted 03-22-2006 11:16 PM MangyTiger has not replied

BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 33 of 968 (313106)
05-18-2006 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-12-2002 11:41 AM


Lots of questions
I was fascinated to see this topic appear and am interested in participating but I have mostly questions. For example:
How long do individuals here think it will be before we understand genetics? It seems that with Chromosome 1 now "in the computer" so to speak that tremendous progress should lie ahead.
How long before we could, for example, electronically create "DNA" for a particular animal?
How long before we will be able to physically create "DNA" for a particular animal?
How long before a computer could "extrude" physical DNA from an electronic model?
I look forward to your feedback.
Bob, Alice, and Eve (BAE)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-12-2002 11:41 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-19-2006 9:42 AM BobAliceEve has not replied
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2006 2:11 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

BobAliceEve
Member (Idle past 5395 days)
Posts: 107
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Joined: 02-03-2004


Message 34 of 968 (313484)
05-19-2006 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by BobAliceEve
05-18-2006 6:08 AM


Re: Lots of questions
I dont' plan to falsify the whole ToE this week but want to explore the DNA aspect for falsification (everyone laughs) so, if you would please, what are the three greatest DNA supports for evolution?
I hear statements like "Common junk DNA proves a common ancestor" and terms like Genetic Affinity. How strong of evidence are they considered to be and what others exist.
And, if I could get some replies to my first post about computerization of DNA, I would appreciate the informaiton.
Thank you in advance,
BAE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-18-2006 6:08 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2006 2:02 PM BobAliceEve has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 35 of 968 (313565)
05-19-2006 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by BobAliceEve
05-19-2006 9:42 AM


Re: Lots of questions
I dont' plan to falsify the whole ToE this week but want to explore the DNA aspect for falsification (everyone laughs) so, if you would please, what are the three greatest DNA supports for evolution?
There's kind of a disjunction, here. If it's your goal to falsify evolution, then you should be telling us what your three greatest supports for falsification are.
Attacking our evidence doesn't falsify anything. Rather, you must show observations that could not be made if evolution was an accurate model.
The greatest support for evolution is that the evidence all converges towards roughly the same thing - a pattern of common ancestry in living things - from multiple, independant directions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-19-2006 9:42 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 36 of 968 (313571)
05-19-2006 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by BobAliceEve
05-18-2006 6:08 AM


Re: Lots of questions
How long do individuals here think it will be before we understand genetics?
We can take any DNA molecule and read its sequence of base pairs. We can take any sequence of base pairs and determine what polypeptide sequence will result. After that, it gets tricky... Research into protein folding models continues apace, however. I suspect the mysteries of proteinomics will be surrendered within the next decade or so. It's really just a modelling problem.
How long before we could, for example, electronically create "DNA" for a particular animal?
How long before we will be able to physically create "DNA" for a particular animal?
How long before a computer could "extrude" physical DNA from an electronic model?
All things we can currently do. Generating arbitrary sequences of DNA is not difficult; you don't even need to do it yourself. If you email the sequence to one of about a hundred labs, they'll do it for you at some price based on length.
There's a physical limit on how long a sequence you can generate at any one time, though. Raw, unclad DNA isn't very strong so sequences longer than 10kbp (10 thousand base pairs) tend to break. It would be possible to generate the 5gbp (5 billion base pairs) of a human genome, for instance, piecemeal, and then rely on the pre-existing mechanisms of the cell to re-assemble it. Hard, but not impossible.
Here's where the limit of our understanding is reached, though - we don't know how to generate functional proteins from whole cloth, at this point. We can specify arbitrary sequences of DNA but specifying DNA that results in a protein that has a specific desired function is currently beyond our knowledge. The best we can do right now is search the natural world for proteins that do what we want, already, and then identify their genetic sequence and then insert that into the target transgenic organism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-18-2006 6:08 AM BobAliceEve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2006 1:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

EZscience
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 961
From: A wheatfield in Kansas
Joined: 04-14-2005


Message 37 of 968 (313594)
05-19-2006 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-12-2002 11:41 AM


ToE *inferences* are falsified all the time
I think it is useful to ask ourselves how we might be able to falsify specific aspects of ToE, but we have to consider ”falsifiability’ on a manageable scale. There is no reasonable experiment or data collection exercise we might conceive of to falisfy the entire synthesis because it is not a single theory, but a comprehensive amalgamation of many. What is feasible are attempts to falsifiy specific component parts that comprise important support pillars for the overall framework, but even that could prove difficult.
There are certainly specific, fine-scale inferences taken from ToE that warrant serious efforts to falsify them, but you are probably going to have a hard time falsifying any of the large-scale ”big branches’ of the theory. mark24’s suggestion for demonstrating lack of congruency of genetic evidence with phylogenies derived from conventional taxonomy would be such an example, were it possible. It is not likely to happen, given the remarkably consistent trees that have already been constructed for most higher level taxa, and I don’t think you could convince a serious scientist to expend any time and effort to that end.
It is more the specific *applications* of ToE that are worthy of trying to falsify, and they are being tested and falsified all the time, at least within highly specific contexts. As I see it, the biggest problem with ToE in the context of ecology is that very often we are left with multiple alternative hypotheses that are difficult to pare down to a ”single explanation’ by process of elimination, either because they are not mutually exclusive, or if they are, it is very difficult to collect the data necessary to eliminate any of them. So for example, in a recent paper I was forced to put forward 4 alternative hypotheses for an ecological phenomenon which I was seeking to ”explain’. Granted the evidence did not result in the all hypotheses being weighted equally, but neither could any be ruled out entirely.
So there is plenty of ambiguity left in the application of ToE that still cries out for falsification, but it’s all fine-scale stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-12-2002 11:41 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Ephraim7
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 968 (341378)
08-19-2006 12:10 PM


Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses
The dictionary gives the following definitions for biological evolution:
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive
generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic
variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of
new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
The definition for phylogeny is as follows:
The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a
species or taxonomic group of organisms
Evolution is a fundamental concept in modern biology. Biology is defined
as being:
The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure,
function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany
and zoology. The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a
group or category of living organisms.
Now, we reach the point of discussing the history of living organisms. When
biology is taught to our students in public schools, what are they required to
learn? It is the theory of evolution, and any and all other explanations are
excluded. Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution
as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other
possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be.
Lets look deeper into evolution. The theory does not take the responsibility
of stating how life originated. It delegates that to the theory of the “Big
Bang”, which states that all matter in the universe was somehow contained
In a very small dense hot atom, molecule, or singularity, which exploded
into all the elements and celestial bodies of the universe, about 16 billion
years ago. Never mind what caused that to happen, the origin of the
dense entity, or what was in existence thirty trillion Earth years ago.
Somehow, that explosion of inorganic matter is to have produced organic
attributes somewhere in outer space that would later find its way to
planet Earth and begin to grow.
But before we talk about the growth of life forms, we have to accept the
theory that our solar system was formed from a previous exploded star,
which condensed and re-exploded, much like the Big Bang theory.
However, this was on a relatively small scale. This is called the Nebular
Hypothesis, which has the cloud of gas and dust to start spinning and
flattening out to form the shape of a rotating pancake, with a bulge in
the middle. As the nebula collapses further, instabilities in the collapsing,
rotating cloud cause local regions to begin to contract gravitationally.
These local regions of condensation become the Sun (which was the
bulge in the center) and the planets, as well as their moons and other
debris in the Solar System. Never mind that the nebula was not uniform
and that the local regions had their own unique composition, and that
dust and gas somehow hardens to become gold, silver, copper, and
other metals. Also, never mind about the elliptical orbits.
Now, with supposition upon supposition, we have the Earth formed,
and many years passing by as it cools and becomes suitable for life.
I guess that the molecules of life had to remain in a holding pattern
around Earth until the conditions were “just right” to sustain life
and get the “primordial soup” ready. The Primordial Soup theory
suggests that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the
combination of chemicals from Earth’s atmosphere and some form
of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins,
which would then supposedly evolve into all the species. It seems
that secular science is only interested in theories that are the best
sounding fantasies, as long as it does not address the reality of
the supernatural.
For decades, evolutionists have been claiming, that the first life
on Earth appeared in that "primordial soup" consisting of some
body of water loaded with chemicals necessary for the start of life.
This "warm little pond" was believed to have been struck by an
electrical discharge (the energy source) which caused the chemicals
to form complex protein molecules, which eventually brought forth
life. From this first life, evolutionists hypothesize, all other life on
Earth evolved. Never mind how water formed on Earth, we will
only unravel just so much in this article.
Now, we have finally reached solid evidence to examine, which is
the fossil record of past life forms, and the evidence of past geologic
ages on Earth. We have tangible data, but secular science has its
own conclusions concerning that data. Science concludes that since
the simplest organisms of life appear at what is considered to be the
earliest periods of time that Earth was inhabitable (maybe about 1
Billion BC), and the life forms found seems to become more complex
and abundant as time progresses, that this constitutes the “fact” of
evolution. Never mind that the theory allows for the fully formed
species to be much more abundant, and the expected transitional
forms are extremely hard to find, or are actually non-existent. If
there were transitional forms, they should be just as easy to find,
and abundant, as the other fossils.
Enough about evolution. What about the “Observations of Moses”?
Well, we have to clarify some things first. Those that try to compare
creationism with evolution do not understand the facts. Creationism
is the undisciplined doctrine that the Holy Bible (Genesis) teaches
how God created the Earth. That is false. There are no “creation
accounts” in Genesis, as stated by the “foremost terrestrial
authority” on the book. Genesis states that God created our universe,
but it does not give us details on the process. The Bible only gives
us the amount of time (144 hours) it took to complete. What we can
gather is that the supernatural realm, gave birth to our natural
existence, about 4.6 billion years ago.
What Genesis does give us is what we will call the Observations
of Moses (OM). God showed Moses, on Mt. Sinai in 1598 BC, six
days from the ancient past which Moses would later write down (or
have written) in the book of Genesis. Theology mistakenly calls them
the “Six Days of Creation”, but that too is false, because bible
scholars, other creationists, and theologians do not understand the
text, and have misled mankind into thinking that early Genesis is
just “folklore”.
What mankind in general does not know is that God was defining
geologic time to Moses, but Moses did not understand. Centuries
before mankind discovered the fossil record (of death), and the
notion of the Geologic Time Scale, the only account of prehistoric
history was given to the chosen nation of Israel. God did not show
Moses how the sphere of outer space and our Earth were created,
but showed him one day from each of the different past geologic
ages of time, as defined by God, in biblical order . , not
chronological order.
Science teachers are required to learn and teach their students the
suppositions of biological and stellar evolution, and exclude what
is taught in Genesis. Why? Is it because there is no evidence?
They can’t say that, because Genesis reveals the previous living
existence of fossils of the life forms that mankind would later find
in the geologic strata, and also declares the existence of life forms
that have not yet been discovered, such as prehistoric mankind of
20+ million years ago.
The Observations of Moses tell us that God created different life
forms on Earth in each of seven different geologic ages in which He
defines. The Eternal Spirit allowed Moses to be the only modern
human to see those prehistoric animals, living as they were in the
geologic age in which they lived on Earth. This is why there are no
“transitional forms”, because when a total extinction occurred to
all surface life, God would created new life forms out of the ground
to replace them, after an interval of time.
Every state governor and their educational supervising
administrators were contacted in the fall of 2005 about this. Yet
none of them have taken any step to secure training for their
teachers. They continue to allow indoctrination of their students
in the prejudice of secular science, which refuses to investigate the
reality of our origins. A twelve hour course is available for science
teachers in order to help them to give a more balanced education to
their students.
If we learn nothing else, please be advised that there is no such
controversy between evolution and creationism. The correct
“match ups” are the combined theories of both the Big Bang and
Nebular Breakdown against Biblical Creation, and also evolution
against the Observations of Moses. With the discovery of extra-solar
planets, the Nebular theory has fallen out of favor. Perhaps with
future discoveries, other current unrealistic theories will be discarded
as well.
Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com
(706) 662-2893

Herman Cummings
Ephraim7@aol.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ringo, posted 08-19-2006 12:24 PM Ephraim7 has not replied
 Message 40 by Chiroptera, posted 08-19-2006 1:21 PM Ephraim7 has not replied
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 08-19-2006 1:51 PM Ephraim7 has not replied
 Message 43 by jimfgerard, posted 08-19-2006 6:20 PM Ephraim7 has not replied
 Message 44 by jimfgerard, posted 08-19-2006 7:16 PM Ephraim7 has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 39 of 968 (341382)
08-19-2006 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ephraim7
08-19-2006 12:10 PM


Re: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses
Ephraim7 writes:
What Genesis does give us is what we will call the Observations of Moses (OM).
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the Observations of Long John Silver?
And what do you suppose they have to do with evolution?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ephraim7, posted 08-19-2006 12:10 PM Ephraim7 has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 968 (341388)
08-19-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ephraim7
08-19-2006 12:10 PM


Re: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses
Hi, Herman, and welcome to EvC.
Ai-ya. Where to begin?
-
quote:
Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution
as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be.
Actually, this is not quite true. Secular science will consider all possible explanations. By "possible", though, we mean that the explanation accords with observed evidence. So far, the theory of evolution is supported by virtually all of the known evidence in biology and geology. No other explanation is known to be supported by the evidence. By "possible", science does not consider the dogmatic convictions of a particular religious sect, no matter how vocal or politically connected they are. The fact is that the evidence supports the theory of evolution, not the literal Genesis account of creation.
-
quote:
The theory does not take the responsibility of stating how life originated.
That is true. The theory of evolution is concerned with how life has changed after it originated. That is not to say that origins in not an interesting and important topic, and that biology in general is complete without knowing the origins of its subject matter, just that origins in not entirely within the purview of the theory of evolution.
-
quote:
It delegates that to the theory of the “Big Bang”, which states that all matter in the universe was somehow contained In a very small dense hot atom, molecule, or singularity, which exploded into all the elements and celestial bodies of the universe, about 16 billion years ago.
Not quite. The Big Bang merely states that the universe was initially in a very hot, very dense state, and expanded. This is what the evidence shows us happened.
-
quote:
Never mind what caused that to happen
At this time, the "cause", if there is one, is unknown, and may be unknowable. But this does not negate the evidence that informs us as to the subsequent history.
-
quote:
Somehow, that explosion of inorganic matter is to have produced organic attributes somewhere in outer space that would later find its way to planet Earth and begin to grow.
Actually, this isn't part of the scenario at all. It is pretty much known how organic molecules can form from inorganic precursors in interstellar space and on the primordial earth. In fact, the current theories are that the organic material that was used in the formation of the first life formed on the earth. We actually have experimental evidence to show that this is plausible.
-
quote:
But before we talk about the growth of life forms, we have to accept the theory that our solar system was formed from a previous exploded star, which condensed and re-exploded, much like the Big Bang theory.
Actually, stellar formation and evolution has very little to do with the cosmological Big Bang. At any rate, again, we have plenty of evidence to support our notions of stellar evolution.
-
quote:
This is called the Nebular Hypothesis, which has the cloud of gas and dust to start spinning and flattening out to form the shape of a rotating pancake, with a bulge in the middle.
Again, a hypothesis that is well supported by the available evidence.
-
quote:
I guess that the molecules of life had to remain in a holding pattern around Earth until the conditions were “just right” to sustain life and get the “primordial soup” ready.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Of course, life could not have formed before it was possible. Then, when the conditions allowed it to happened, it did. In the meantime, where do you think the material was going to go?
-
quote:
For decades, evolutionists have been claiming, that the first life on Earth appeared in that "primordial soup" consisting of some
body of water loaded with chemicals necessary for the start of life.
Again, scenarios about the origin of life are supported by the available evidence.
-
quote:
Now, we have finally reached solid evidence to examine, which is the fossil record of past life forms, and the evidence of past geologic ages on Earth.
Except that the evidence exists in many different fields of biology and geology, including taxonomy, biogeography, genetics, molecular biology, and so forth. And pretty solid evidence it is, too. The fossil record, too, provides excellent evidence of the evolutionary history of life on earth (tranistional forms are quite abundant, in fact), but it is only a small part of the total evidence.
-
quote:
What about the “Observations of Moses”?
Well, since it is not clear that Moses even existed, I don't see how any of this compares to the actual physical evidence that overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution.
-
Your post sure covers a lot of ground. There are many, many threads that talk about the particular evidence for the theory of evolution. If you wish to discuss any of the points that you have brought up, you are more than welcome to join the discussion of any of these points in the appropriate thread. If you don't feel any of the existing threads are appropriate for the point you wish to discuss, you may start a new thread.
However, this thread is about falsification of the theory of evolution. Would you like to discuss how the theory of evolution can be falsified, what sorts of evidence would suggest that the theory of evolution is incomplete or even incorrect?

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ephraim7, posted 08-19-2006 12:10 PM Ephraim7 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 41 of 968 (341389)
08-19-2006 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by crashfrog
05-19-2006 2:11 PM


Proteome Project
I suspect the mysteries of proteinomics will be surrendered within the next decade or so. It's really just a modelling problem.
If one is interested in this problem, one of the projects that is currently being addressed by the worldcommuniotygrid.org dispersed computations (like seti-at-home) is protene folding. If you use the UD agent you can see this folding process with a graphic representation that is kind of cool to watch. The BOINC agent doesn't have this graphic ability ()
See
World Community Grid - Research - Human Proteome Folding - Phase 2
(but also look at the other projects as well -- it's not just HIV and protene folding anymore, there is also a cancer project)
You can sign up for just the protene folding (phase 2) project once you join, particulars at HIV Cancer Diabetes MDA and more - Solve on your computer
Enjoy helping research while watching some of it in action.
Edited by RAZD, : update sig

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2006 2:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 42 of 968 (341398)
08-19-2006 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ephraim7
08-19-2006 12:10 PM


Re: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses
welcome to the fray Herman\Ephraim7
The formating of your post suggests a large cut\copy and paste, although it is possibly from material of your own writing (as I suspect, if not it should be referenced and then discussed), or that you just composed it on notepad or the like (the line breaks are the problem).
Now, we reach the point of discussing the history of living organisms. When biology is taught to our students in public schools, what are they required to learn? It is the theory of evolution, and any and all other explanations are excluded. Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be.
Schools are not teaching the "history of living organisms" they are teaching the science of {evolution\biology} which is based on observation, theory, testing and refinement as is any science.
All scientific possibilities are included -- it not just a matter of possibly maybe being possible, but of being testable -- that is the fine line between science and rampant speculations.
Lets look deeper into evolution. The theory does not take the responsibility of stating how life originated.
Absolutely correct. Nor does it discuss {why} life originated or {what the purpose} of life is -- those are the philosophical\religious type questions that are not attempted in any science. Thus original life could have been created, could have been caused, or could have just happened, but it doesn't matter to the science of how species change over time (evolution).
It delegates that to the theory of the “Big Bang”, which states that all matter in the universe was somehow contained In a very small dense hot atom, molecule, or singularity, which exploded into all the elements and celestial bodies of the universe, about 16 billion years ago. Never mind what caused that to happen,
Absolutely false.
First off, the origin of life is delegated to the science of abiogenesis, which cares not an iota whether the "big bang" theory is correct or not.
Second, as noted above, science does not ask {why} something happened, and this is as true of abiogenesis as it is of physics in general and cosmic astrophysical theory in particular. What science is interested in is how it {happens\works} and then testing that {how} to see if it can be duplicated: if it can we move on to the next "how it {happens\works}" question, if it can't we drop back and try a different approach.
Repeatability and testability are the points that make science such a valuable tool in uncovering the {how} of things.
God showed Moses, on Mt. Sinai in 1598 BC, six
days from the ancient past which Moses would later write down (or
have written) in the book of Genesis.
Do you have a {testable\repeatable} way of verifying this assertion? Can you differentiate it from, say {Hindu Creation Documentation}?
Until you can there is no point in discussing the rest of your post, unless we agree that it is not science but philosophy and religion.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ephraim7, posted 08-19-2006 12:10 PM Ephraim7 has not replied

jimfgerard
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 968 (341466)
08-19-2006 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ephraim7
08-19-2006 12:10 PM


Re: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses
Ephraim7 states: When biology is taught to our students in public schools, what are they required to learn? It is the theory of evolution, and any and all other explanations are excluded. Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be.
ME: Evolution IS an undeniable fact, just as gravity and atoms are, and the Theory of Evolution, just as the Theory of Gravity and the Atomic Theory, explains the observational facts.
Ephraim7 states: Lets look deeper into evolution. The theory does not take the responsibility of stating how life originated. It delegates that to the theory of the “Big Bang”
ME: The Big Bang doesn't address how life originated in the slightest. The Big Bang occurred some 10 billion + years before the first signs of living metabolisms appeared on Earth.
I won't bother quoting your gross misunderstandings of how the heavier elements formed nor how planets form around stars. But basically modern science has a pretty good understanding of how our Sun is a 3rd generation star and how heavier elements formed in 1st and 2nd generation stars (heck we can even SEE first generation stars through Hubble at the edge of our range about 13 light years away).
What I have always wondered is why the Bible states the Sun and other stars (though it doesn't say the Sun is just another star which it is) were made a day after the Earth and even plants on it and why the Bible, allegedly containing anachronistic knowledge, fails to mention the other galaxies. Why do you suppose God made all these planets which are completely incapable of supporting life as we know it, or why did 'He' not design life to live on those planets?
Ephraim7 states: Science concludes that since the simplest organisms of life appear at what is considered to be the earliest periods of time that Earth was inhabitable (maybe about 1 Billion BC), and the life forms found seems to become more complex and abundant as time progresses, that this constitutes the “fact” of evolution. Never mind that the theory allows for the fully formed species to be much more abundant, and the expected transitional forms are extremely hard to find, or are actually non-existent. If there were transitional forms, they should be just as easy to find, and abundant, as the other fossils.
ME: Actually according to the fossil record prokaryotic life was already abundant by a billion years ago and was beginning to evolve into eukaryotic protozoans through processes of symbiosis coupled with natural selection. I have no idea what you mean by "the theory allows for the fully formed species to be much more abundant" but you are simply dead wrong about transitional forms being "non-existent" or even hard to find.
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

democrats are sometimes inept and presently lost but republicans are mean scientifically ignorant hypocrites, I know what lesser of two evils is the most rational choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ephraim7, posted 08-19-2006 12:10 PM Ephraim7 has not replied

jimfgerard
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 968 (341489)
08-19-2006 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Ephraim7
08-19-2006 12:10 PM


Re: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses
addendum reply to off-forum correspondence between myself and Ephraim7
Ephraim7 wrote: How do you know that all three types didn't exist at the same time? Evolutionists blindly forget the factor of escalating death. Suppose something caused the lower forms of life to die off, before the higher forms. How can you tell the difference?
How can I tell the difference between what? I don't understand what you are asking, sorry. We infer, for example, that dinosaurs didn't exist at the same time as humans because there's a huge gab in the fossil record between the last known dinosaur fossil and the first signs of humans being around. Each layer of the geologic record took a great deal of time to solidify into rock containing its embedded fossils (we know this from many observational facts including how sometimes solid stone gets 'folded' and contained fossils can warp also by the way whole ecologies like deserts and swamps can be on top of one another in successive layers). If we have lower layers with a variety of lifeforms which then aren't in a group of midlayers and then we find different lifeforms in layers above these it is only logical to conclude the lower and upper forms didn't co-exist. What other conclusion would there be?
Ephraim7 wrote: How does gas and dust breakdown into gold and
silver?
All the elements were forged through the fusion which powers the stars, the heavier elements in second generation stars. When these stars go nova they spew the elements across the universe. This is basic cosmology.
Cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Ephraim7, posted 08-19-2006 12:10 PM Ephraim7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AdminJar, posted 08-19-2006 8:23 PM jimfgerard has not replied
 Message 46 by Ephraim7, posted 08-19-2006 8:38 PM jimfgerard has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 968 (341502)
08-19-2006 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jimfgerard
08-19-2006 7:16 PM


Let's stick to the discussions here
I'm sure you guys have email discussions. That is fine, but let's not bring them here. At EvC we prefer folk discuss what is posted here, not what is on some other board or what has transpired personally between them whether email, IM or snailmail.
Thank you

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 44 by jimfgerard, posted 08-19-2006 7:16 PM jimfgerard 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