|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,822 Year: 4,079/9,624 Month: 950/974 Week: 277/286 Day: 38/46 Hour: 3/7 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discovery or Ignorance: The Choice Is yours? | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 responds to bluejay:
quote:quote: And wh do you think this hasn't been accomplished? What is it about the fossil record that you claim is insufficient? What is it about the molecular phylogenetic tree that you claim is insufficient? What is it about our direct observation of evolutionary events such as speciation right in front of our eyes that you claim is insufficient? Be specific.
quote: Incorrect. It's extremely difficult. That's why we have literally warehouses full of fossils to show us. That's why people spend their lives studying the genetics of organisms in order to determine their relationship with each other...and then compare them to the fossil phylogenetic tree and finding that they match up pretty much exactly, showing that there is an independent check.
quote: I gave you proof. Your only complaint was that a human being didn't come out at the end. But since evolution doesn't say that a human being would come out at the end, I'm a bit confused as to why you are finding that to be a problem. You seem to think that evolution says you can convert a bacterium into a human in a week. Part of the problem is that you haven't established your terms. It would help if you would be specific: What do you need to see?
quote: But you were given start-to-finish evolution. Are you saying it wasn't science? Why not? Be specific. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 responds to me:
quote: So you're saying the only evidence you'll accept is a videotape of every single creature that has ever lived so that you can have a grade-school version of a family tree? If this isn't what you mean, then what part of the fossil record is not up to snuff? What part of the experiment I gave you is insufficient? What part of the numerous speciation events we have directly witnessed is insufficient? Be specific. You seem to be saying that 1 exists, 2 exists, addition exists and works, equality exists and works, but none of that allows us to say that 1 + 1 = 2. You have already been shown the money. It is now your job to provide specific details as to why it isn't good enough. You simply asserting that it isn't doesn't cut it. For example, your only complaint against the E. coli experiment was that a human being didn't come out at the end. But evolution doesn't claim that a human being comes out at the end. Therefore, why are you complaining about it? All you asked was for an example of the evolutionary model from start to finish. You were given precisely that. You then moved the goalposts and now are asking about where humans came from. You've been given that evidence. So where are you going to move the goalposts now? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 writes:
quote: Humans use evolution. The Boeing 777, for example, wasn't designed. It was literally evolved. So if human beings can use evolution, why can't god? If we use it, why doesn't god?
quote: Seasons are not created by the elliptical path of the earth. What does that say for your god that the very thing that you claim god did to create the seasons doesn't actually create them?
quote: We have seen speciation occur right in front of our eyes. Therefore, your "kind" is no barrier.
quote: Evolution has nothing to say about this, so why bring it up?
quote: Science doesn't ask why. That's a question for philosophy. Science can tell you a lot about an acoustic wave form: The amplitude, the frequency, the beat pattern, the energy contained, how far it will propagate within various media, etc. What it cannot tell you is if it is music. And it doesn't even try. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 writes:
quote: Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Indeed it does. It is by studying the world we live in that we have come to the conclusion that the diversity of life we see on this planet is the result of evolution, not "intelligent design." "The rocks and stones themselves will start to sing." Why do you refuse to listen? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 writes:
quote: Why? What part of the fossil record are you having trouble with? What part of the molecular phylogenetic tree are you having trouble with? Be specific. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
LucyTheApe writes:
quote: Indeed. But surely you aren't saying that there is only one place it could attach, are you? Since it could attach equally likely at a multitude of sites, why is it that so many species all share the exact same location? If there were no common descent, then we should not see identical locations. Instead, we should see very different locations. It's the same thing with the GLO pseudo-gene. Humans and other great apes are incapable of synthesizing our own vitamin C due to the identical genetic error in our GLO gene that stops the process of conversion of glucose into ascorbic acid. It's a multi-step process and ours is broken in the middle. Most other mammals, on the other hand, don't have a broken GLO and can synthesize vitamin C on their own. Except hamsters. But the place in the hamster genome where the vitamin C synthesis process is broken is different than where it is in humans. Why would god do this? Evolution, through common descent, explains this situation quite easily. The common ancestor of humans and hamsters was an organism that was neither human nor hamster and had a functional ascorbic acid sythnesis process. After it split into the paths that would lead to humans and hamsters, that genetic process broke independently of each other and that is why they are broken in different ways. The common ancestor of humans and other great apes was an organism that was neither human nor any other type of great ape and yet it did not have a functional ascorbic acid synthesis process. Thus, when it split into the paths that would lead to humans and the other great apes, that broken genetic process was inherited by all the child species and that is why they are broken identically. What motivation could god possibly have for breaking the ascorbic acid synthesis process identically for one group of organisms but in a completely different way for others? Why have the difference be between organisms that are genetically distant rather than between organisms that are genetically close?
quote: But if one can, they all can. That was the point behind growing the lawn from a single ancestor. If there is no evolution, then they all have identical "adaptation" capabilities so the lawn lives or dies as a single unit. If there is no evolution, then it is impossible for some of them to behave one way and others to behave another way. Since they do behave differently, the assumption that there is no evolution is necessarily shown to be false. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 writes:
quote: What part of the fossil record, the molecular phylogenetic tree, and the direct observation of speciation events is insufficient? Be specific.
quote: Since we do, since it has been shown to you, and since you haven't given a single specific reason as to why it isn't good enough, what does that say about your knowledge of what science is? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 responds to me:
quote: Yes. It's called "speciation" and we've seen it time and time again. Go to PubMed and look up the papers for yourself. Remember the experiment I described for you? It gave you a piece of homework to do: Look up the studies on the bacteria that developed the ability to digest nylon oligimers. New species. It's the result of a single frame-shift mutation. Oh, by the way: We can even create what you demand from scratch: Self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve. Why would you have us deny what we can see directly with our own eyes.
quote: I'm confused. Where did you think the National Geographic got their evidence? They got it from a lab, of course. So if you saw it on NGTV, then there's a whole lot you didn't see. Which begs the question: When was the last time you were in a biology lab? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 writes:
quote: Incorrect. Most scientists these days consider it to be both proven face AND a theory. You do understand why, yes? I've explained it over and over again: You don't have a theory unless you have a fact to base it upon. That's why it's called the theory OF evolution: You start with the observed fact of evolution (populations of organisms change over time) and then develop a theory to explain how it happens (mutation and selection).
quote: Dobzhansky put it best: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." Evolution is the fundamental theorem of biology. You can't really do biology without eventually coming back to it. So since they all agree that evolution is where it's at, then you're going to have to explain why they're all wrong. Do it and they'll give you the Nobel Prize. We eagerly await your journal article showing it. And for the umpteenth time: Theories don't generate facts. It's the other way around: Facts generate theories. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote: Hie thee to the science library and look them up. It is not something you can do in less than an hour. But, you already know of another one: The Horse fossil record is also complete and runs about 54MY. In the process, the creature grew huge in size, went through various changes to the number of ribs it had (both increasing and decreasing), changing the toes, the teeth, etc. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT writes:
quote: Because "Foraminifera" is a phylum. It seems you do not know what that means. A phylum is extremely high up the taxonomic tree. It only describes extremely general characteristics. For example, humans are an example of the phylum "Chordata." Every animal that has a backbone is a member of "Chordata." Are you about to say that a human is the same as a fish? Well, as far as "Chordata" is concerned, yes. They both have backbones. Therefore, they're "just Chordata." The point is that evolution doesn't happen that far up the taxonomic ladder, per se. In the classic example of the "tree of evolution," it happens at the tips, not the trunk. Now, this isn't to say that you can't develop new phyla, but it is extremely difficult to do so and you don't do it at the phylum level but rather at the species level. A single species will split off a daughter species which will split off a daughter species and so on so that eventually, if Species A is considered "Genus A," then Species X will be considered "Genus B" because it is different enough from Species A that it really doesn't share the traits that define "Genus A." Thus, even though what happened was a "speciation event," it was significant enough to create a new Genus. This process can keep happening such that eventually, the new species is so different from what we started with that even a new Genus isn't sufficient to describe just how different it is. In that case, we need a new Family. Phylum is just under Kingdom. If you're going to create a new phylum, you're going to have to have a hugely radical change in body plan. Given the explosion of life on this planet, body plans are highly adapted to their niches and it would require a huge environmental change to come up with a new one since we would have to crawl quite far up the taxonomic tree in order to create a new phylum.
quote: And so did all the other phyla. The question is: What were you expecting? Evolution actually says that the creation of a new phylum should be very rare. That's exactly what you saw. So what's the problem? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ICANT responds to me:
quote: Why is this a problem? You're not about to say that the only way you can possibly accept the fossil record is to find every single individual from Hyracotherium to Equus, are you? Do you not understand what a transitional fossil record is? You seem to be about ready to fall for the typical creationist lunacy of insisting that the record is "incomplete" because of a certain "gap" between two transitions...and then when we find a fossil that fits in that "gap," you will then crow that there are now two more "gaps" on either side. That isn't the way it works.
quote: Indeed. It's more solid now than it ever was before. And you can add Whales to that, too. We keep finding new fossils.
quote: What about it? Surely you aren't about to say that a species cannot have variations, are you? Now, I would certainly agree that were it not for human breeding programs that keep the gene flow going between the two breeds, the Clydesdale and the Shetland would achieve reproductive isolation and thus experience a speciation event quite rapidly. Similarly in dogs: Chihuahuas and Great Danes aren't going to be members of the same gene pool for long if left to their own devices. But so what? Your picture is actually a perfect example of evolution in action: Artificial selection is just as much a selection pressure as natural selection. And then there's sexual selection on top of that. As is common among creationists: Selection is always forgotten as the driver of evolution. It is not random. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 responds to me:
quote:quote: Indeed. "Things as they are" are facts, not theories. Facts are observations that we have made such as "When I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground" and "When populations of organisms are observed over time, they change." Because we use lanaguage to describe things, we call the first thing "gravity" and the second thing "evolution." Those are facts. Those are the way things are.
quote: Those are theories. And notice what you did: You started with the fact and then developed the theory. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. Theories are not facts. Theories do not become facts. Theories change as new facts arise. Facts never change. Even if today we were to observe the ball not falling from my hand when I dropped it, that would not change any of the other times that it did.
quote: Not quite. It isn't proof, it's finding consistency. There's a difference. "Proof" implies that there is no other option but that isn't how science works. New theories need to account for all previously made observations, even those observations that were predicted by the previous theory. Again, take the transition of kinematics. Aristotelian theory predicts that objects in motion come to rest. If I push a book along a table, Aristotelian kinematics predicts that it will come to rest. It makes this prediction because it claims that the "natural state" of all objects is to be at rest. Newtonian kinematics, on the other hand, directly contradicts that claim. Objects in motion remain in motion until acted on by an outside force. The reason why the book comes to rest isn't because it is the "natural state" of the book to be at rest but rather because the friction between the book and the table bleeds off the kinetic energy until there is none left. Thus, the new theory needs to account for the predictions of the old.
quote: Incorrect. You always fold them back into the theory and start over again. It's the only way to ensure that what you predicted and what you observed are in agreement. It's a feedback loop that never ends.
quote: Incorrect. Theories never become facts. They cannot be. Theories are explanations of facts. You start with a fact and develop a theory. Your theory will predict a certain outcome of an experiment, but it does not force the experiment to have a certain outcome. Instead, reality does that all on its own. The result of the experiment is a fact. You must then fold that new fact back into the theory so that it gets more and more refined. Now, it may be that your theory is perfect. In folding your new observation back into the theory, you may find that nothing needs to be changed. But you never know until you actually fold it back in. There is always the possibility that your new observation will contradict what the theory predicted. Since it is impossible to observe every possible experiment, we can never know for sure if our theory is complete. It may very well be, but we cannot know it for certain. That's because theories are not facts. Theories explain facts. Theories change. Facts never change.
quote: Indeed. I get that you have a truly bizarre idea of how science works that is completely backwards from how it actually is carried out. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 responds to me:
quote:quote: Non sequitur. Please try again. What does your misstatement of what evolution is have to do with the experiment that you were shown? At any rate, you are incorrect: Most of those who work in evolutionary biology consider the theory of evolution to be a theory. It explains the fact of evolution. You cannot have a theory without a fact to base it upon. That's why it is called the theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution. We established the fact of evolution first. Then we developed the theory to explain the fact of evolution. That's why there were multiple theories for a while, the most classic examples being Lamarckian and Darwinian. We already knew that organisms evolved. The question was finding out how they evolved. Lamarckian evolution claims that traits that are acquired by an organism during its lifetime are passed on to the next generation. The classic example of this is in regard to the giraffe's long neck. As we look at the giraffe fossils, we see that their necks started short and grew longer over time. How did this happen? Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution are two theories to explain this fact: Lamarckian evolution claims that if a giraffe spends its life actively reaching up into trees for foliage, it's neck will get longer (and such a thing is true...if you actively work a bone during its growth phase, it will be bigger than if it was left alone.) This longer neck of the parent is then passed down to the offspring who repeats the process, generating an even longer neck, and eventually you find giraffes as we currently see them. Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, says that no, adaptations acquired during the life of an individual organism are not passed on. By this logic, if my hand were to be cut off, then my children would be more likely to be born without a hand than if I had managed to keep it. This clearly isn't true, so something else is going on. Instead, there is a variation of lengths of a giraffe's neck. The current generation gives rise to the next one and the lengths of neck are not uniform across all individuals within the new generation. No matter how much you work it, it will only grow so long and no more. There is an internal blueprint of morphology for an organism. This blueprint varies from individual to individual. Those blueprints that are more well-adapted to the environment in which they find themselves will be better able to survive to reproduce the next generation. If the better leaves are higher up in the trees, then a giraffe with a longer neck will have an easier time getting at them, which will lead to a healthier giraffe compared to the shorter-necked individuals and thus, the longer-necked giraffes will be more likely to reproduce. But this is iterative: The longer-necked giraffes produce variations in neck length, some even longer than before. So long as the selective pressure is for longer necks, they'll keep getting longer. So how do we choose between them? Well, I pretty much gave the answer away: Me losing my hand doesn't make my children more likely to be born without a hand. Since this observation goes against the heart of the explanation that is Lamarckian evolution, it is discarded as inaccurate. See what happened? We start with a fact (giraffe necks get longer over time), developed theories to explain those facts, performed an experiment that tested a prediction of those theories (Lamarckian and Darwinian), found a new fact (children of parents with severed hands are not more likely to be hand-less), and then folded that new fact back into the theory (Lamarckian evolution is discarded while Darwinian evolution is consistent). That's how science works.
quote: Of course not. Theories are never proven. Instead, because we have warehouses full of fossils, that necessarily means that the theory of evolution is the most accurate description we have for why those fossils are the way they are. The theory of evolution makes predictions that we can test that are then verified as being consistent with the theory. That's how science works.
quote: Incorrect. That's exactly what it does. It is because of the fossils that we conclude evolution. It's the only explanation that makes sense. That explanation predicts what new kinds of fossils we will find...and then we actually do find them as predicted. This doesn't "prove" the theory of evolution, but it does make it the most accurate theory we have. Remember: Theories are not facts. Theories never become facts. Instead, theories are based upon facts. We started with the fact of evolution (populations of organisms change over time) and then developed a theory to explain it (the change is driven by mutation and selection.)
quote: Incorrect. The known fact is that the first plant did, indeed, mutate into millions of different plants. The fossil record shows that the plants evolved, no ifs, ands, or buts. That's the fact of evolution. The theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] evolution, however, is what explains how. That's what theories do: They explain facts. We know that evolution happened. We've seen it happen right before our eyes and the fossil record clearly shows it. That's the fact. But how did that fact happen? Did the organisms modify their own individual morphology and then pass that trait on to their offspring (Lamarckian evolution)? No, as we've seen, Lamarckain evolution doesn't work. Some other method of evolution must be taking place. Darwinian (or, more accurately, the modern synthesis) is the more accurate description of what happens. But, we cannot say that it has been "proven" since, like Lamarckian evolution, we might come across an observation that is inconsistent with it. We won't know until we actually make that observation, so we never say that it has been "proven." Instead, all we can say is that it has yet to be shown inconsistent. That might be because it is absolutely true, but it may be because we haven't figured out the right experiment to test it. That's how Newtonian mechanics fell to Einsteinian. For all of the 18th and 19th centuries, all observations of kinematics were consistent with Newtonian physics which described a linear world. It was only with the advent of modern technology that our instruments finally became sensitive enough to be able to detect the discrepancy between what a linear model predicts and what we actually see. F'rinstance, if I'm standing on a train which is moving at 100 mph and throw a fastball off the front end that were I standing on the ground would be at 100 mph, then most every observation made of the speed of the ball with respect to the ground would be 200 mph. That's a linear universe. But it isn't that way. There's a transformation that must be made. Because I am moving with respect to the ground when I throw the ball, it isn't a simple 100 + 100 = 200 result. The Lorentz transformations take place (if u is the speed of the train and v is the speed of the ball with respect to the train): u = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c2) So if u is 100 and v is 100, we have a ball moving with respect to the ground not at 200 mph but rather at 199.999999999996 mph. Notice that the difference between the linear answer and the relativistic answer differ only in one part in less than one-hundred-millionth. You'd never notice such a discrepancy under any normal circumstance. But change the circumstances such that you're dealing with, say, a GPS satellite. Suddenly we've got huge distance and actual light waves and that discrepancy starts becoming quite noticeable. The only way to get it to work right is to apply a relativistic kinematics. But notice what had to be done: The age of space travel had to come upon us in order for us to be able to see it. Newtonian physics was accurate. In fact, for everyday purposes it is so accurate that we still teach it in physics classes because it is much simpler to calculate and the error term is so tiny that you can't detect it. But Einsteinian kinematics is more accurate and that's what is considered the actual theory of motion in physics.
quote: Well, in the sense that I certainly cannot make you give specifics, that's true. But if we are going to be intellectually honest and have integrity, that isn't good enough. Bald assertion that you haven't been shown "start-to-finish evolution" doesn't cut it. You have to explain why. That means you need to provide details. It is time for you to get specific. The E. coli experiment is the theory of evolution from start to finish: A population of organisms descended from an ancestor and resulted in a morphology that was different from what came before. If there were no evolution, then the lawn would behave as a single unit: They all die or they all live. Instead, the lawn does not behave as a single unit. Some bacteria in the lawn die while others live. Mutation. Selection. Right in front of your eyes. Why is that insufficient? What more do you need?
quote: Nothing in science is ever proven. Are you going to jump off the Empire State Building because gravitation theory hasn't been proven? Of course not. While the theory of gravitation may not be proven, gravity itself has. That's why we have a theory [I][B]OF[/i][/b] gravitation. We start with the fact of gravity (when I drop a ball from my hand, it falls to the ground) and then develop a theory to explain it (F = Gm1m2/r2.) And similarly with biology: We start with the fact of evolution (populations of organisms change over time) and then develop a theory to explain (they change due to mutation and selection.)
quote: Huh? The "time factor" is part and parcel of evolution. It's why at the end of the E. coli experiment you don't get a human being. Evolution doesn't happen that fast. If you were to get a human being at the end of the E. coli experiment, then pretty much everything that we think we know about how evolution works is going to have to be thrown out the window. The fossil record is the very "time factor" you claim doesn't exist. We don't need to have been alive 4 billion years ago. The organisms that left the fossils were alive then and they left their fossils for us to examine. Therefore, we can essentially see back in time to observe the evolution of life on this planet right in front of our eyes. Just what is this "time factor" that you consider to be so problematic? Be specific. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John 10:10 responds to me:
quote:quote: Congratulations. You just did away with all of forensics. Most crimes don't have eye-witnesses. They can only be examined after the fact by the evidence that was left behind. By your logic, it is impossible to examine a crime scene and determine what happened. The only way to do it is to direcly observe it. Is that what you're saying? The jails and prisons need to be opened up and most everybody let out? If you disagree, if you instead claim that you can determine what happened by examining what was left behind, then one has to wonder why you are picking on paleobiology since it is the exact same technique. Congratulations. You just did away with all of paternity testing. Paternity testing looks at the genomes of two organisms, looks for commonalities between them, and determines if one organism can be descended from the other given the way genes are passed on from one generation to the next. By your logic, that's impossible. The only way to determine if one organism is the parent of the other is to directly watch them reproduce across the entire reproductive cycle. Is that what you're saying? All the support and custody arrangements that are based upon paternity testing need to be discarded? If you disagree, if you instead claim that you can determine if one organism is the parent of another, then one has to wonder why you are picking on molecular genetics since it is the exact same technique. You don't get to have it both ways. If a technique works, then it works even if you don't like the results.
quote: Only direct observation counts? Congratulations. You just did away with Kepler. You know him. He's the one that figured out planetary motion (not circles but ellipses, equal areas in equal times, the period and radius of two planets are related by the squares of the former and the cubes of the latter). But, he didn't make the observations himself. Tycho Brahe did. Kepler didn't get any of the information until after Brahe died. Is that what you're saying? All the information we have regarding planetary motion should be tossed away because none of us have made the direct observations but instead are relying on the reportings of someone else? If you disagree, if you instead claim that you can take observations of other people and continue their work, then one has to wonder why you are picking on science since it is the exact same technique. As Newton said regarding his own work: "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants." Newton built on the work of others.
quote: Indeed. That's why the theory of evolution is the fundamental theorem of all biology. Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. If it were so inaccurate, why would the entire biological community depend upon it? Are you saying they are frauds engaged in a conspiracy? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024