What i can't understand about evolution....

A while back in this thread I got the impression that Peg's picture of evolution is influenced by the basic misinterpretation of two iconic ideas. These are "survival of the fittest" and the general tendency toward more complexity we see in evolution. So, to get an idea if I'm right. I'd like to ask Peg two questions to which I hope she'll give an honest answer. Others, please refrain from answering the questions until we have a reply from Peg. The questions are:1. In the phrase "survival of the fittest", who or what are being compared? In other words, with regard to who or what is the fittest deemed to be the fittest? Could you give an example of a pair of whatever it is you think is being compared, of which one is the winner (the fittest) and the other the loser (the less fit)?2. Are "more complex" and "more advanced" the same to you?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Hey Peg, back again,' Now is your chance to list all the ones you can find, and we will see who is hoaxing who eh? Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes So bring out the Haeckel, sound the alarm on Icons of Evolution, expose the sham of archeopteryx, and whatever else you feel qualifies as fraudulent behavior or hoaxes perpetuated on the public.Be sure to list your sources.Enjoy.

---

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

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Gday, Ah, creationist dodge #53 :
"if we don't know it all exactly 100% perfectly, then it's worthless."What nonsense.Tell me Peg -
What year was Jesus born?
Oh, you can't tell exactly?
Then Jesus can't be real unless we know ALL the details.Tell me Peg -
What day did you turn into an adult?
Oh, you can't tell exactly?
Then you must still be a child.Faithful believers with 100% faithful belief in their faithful beliefs always fall for this basic error.K.Edited by Kapyong, : Minor fix.

Gday, That's all you've got?
A vague insinuation that ALL evolutionary scientists MAY be in fraudulent?
The short answer is: No.
The scientific process is specifically designed to stop this, by always questioning and improving. The opposite of creationism - which is stuck with a volume of ancient myths and never moves on.Here are the facts Peg -Over the last century or more, thousands of scientists in dozens of countries have performed a huge number of experiments, observations and tests
which could either:
* confirm, or
* disprove evolution.Probably 100s of thousands of such tests, experiments and observations in total (could even be millions.)Of that vast number of tests etc. there have been ZERO that disproved evolution.Got that Peg?
After a vast huge number of tests - maybe even millions - there has NOT BEEN ONE SINGLE test that disproved evolution.But 100s of thousands, (maybe millions), of tests have CONFIRMED evolution.ZERO have disproved it.If there had been ONE single test, experiment or observation that disproved evolution then we would see creationists cite it in every post.Scientists have 100s of thousands, maybe millions, of FACTS to support evolution. Facts based on direct observation of nature.Creationists have a few books of ancient legends, but NO facts.K.Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.Edited by Kapyong, : Minor additions

Hi, Peg. This is not altogether an unreasonable thing for you to want.It would be ideal if we could start from the root and build the Tree from there. It makes perfect sense.Except it's rather unfair to us. We simply are not living in a time from whence the root of the Tree of Life is easily studied. There's no getting around the fact that the origin of life was an inconveniently long time ago, and simply isn't around for us to study. What is around for us to study is a myriad of the tippy-top branches and a smattering of older ones.Since that's all we've got, what choice do we have but to start there?Why would you propose that we start with evidence that we don't have in order to explain the evidence that we do have? I have a hard time believing that that actually makes sense to you.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

May be you meant perpetrated?

Kapyong,Although I am not a moderator, I would like to ask you to tone it down a bit in your replies to Peg. I think Peg is discussing things in a critical but positive spirit. You may not agree with Peg's arguments - nor do I - but please try to disagree in an agreeable manner. Just the facts and some sound logic, conveyed in pretty prose, is all that's needed to conduct a civil debate. And it'll keep your blood pressure down.But anyway, welcome to EvC.

yes. but perpetuated by creationist sites.

---

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

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Okie dokie :-)

Wow, I just looked through some of these final pages, and I no longer have any idea where this thread is going. I think the best guess I've seen is June of 2 BC. The estimate comes from observation of the planets and stars in conjunction with the Biblical account of Christ's birth.http://www.bethlehemstar.net/

Trust me, this thread is not about Jesus. Kapyong has barely posted to this thread, and only very recently. Respond to members who have been consistent on-topic participants.--Percy

quote:

---

I think the best guess I've seen is June of 2 BC. The estimate comes from observation of the planets and stars in conjunction with the Biblical account of Christ's birth.

---

Wow way to entirely miss the point...Edited by killinghurts, : added quoteEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed quote box (nice try though). You want the "/" part only at the end.

You don't think it's possible that Daltonian scientists, who are trying to prove their theory, could be interpreting their data to fit in with their preconceived idea that solids are made of atoms rather than being infinitely divisible? No there haven't.

now now, dont be like that! I actually did look at the web project...although i must admit, it wasnt as informative as i would have liked. It has lots of names and pictures but little explanation. Pasteur’s experiments of nearly a hundred years ago demolished that theory. If it is argued that abiogenesis does not occur now but did occur in bygone ages, that is merely speculation. We should still see spontaneous generation of life from non living matter but it just doesnt happen.

hi helper, its been mentioned by another poster (bluescat48) that evolution IS randomhence why the crocodile is a remarkable example because how is it that in a world where all things evolve, this one species has not? That indicates that evolution is NOT random...it also implies that either its purposeful in that it occurs under some circumstances but not others, or its being directed somehow,orthe current explanation is flawed and the reading of the fossil record is inaccurate