|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5059 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
"One mechanism" of evolution? Mutation selected by natural selection is the only story out there is it not?
How many generations does it take for a cow to change into something else? How many generations did it take dinos to change into birds? Natural selection can only select for an existing trait, correct? How do you falsify the evo dogma?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
No, there is also genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer. But for creating "new" information mutation is the only choice, correct? .
How do you falsify the evo dogma?
By gathering evidence that it cannot explain. And it's not dogma. I cant think of any conceivable evidence that darwinists would not just simply say "well now we know that evolution can do this". Dogma: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. How does this not fit with the popular darwinian evolution belief? Edited by havoc, : still learning the ropes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
What is "something else?" - what do you mean here, Do you mean another variety (among the already evolved vast number of existing varieties) of cow, where one variety is visibly different from another? Do you mean another species of bovine? I mean something other than a cow. Like a dino then a bird. There are limits on selection. A cow will always produce a cow, a dion a dino a bird a bird an ape an ape and a human a human. you can get tall ones short ones hary ones bald ones fast and slow ones but they will allways remain what they came from.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Birds seem to still be dinos, just one of the species of dinos. Humans seem to still be primates, just one of the species of primates. Then everything that exists is still some rna replicating bacteria. U all refuse to have the dscussion. Biology text books will say that Dinos evolved into birds, flat out and unequivocally. Seems like the question as to what mech and how long should be easy to answer. Instead we get semantics. You all propose a nice neat package that has the answers. How about answering some basic foundational questions..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
It's not evolution's fault that you can't think of such a piece of evidence. I'll give you a hint: A pegasus horse would falsify evolution as we know it. It wuold of course not prove creationism, but something about the theory would have to be changed. So I need to find a mythical creator and that will falsify evolution "as we know it". Interesting choice of words. Edited by havoc, : quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
No, science does not just say things and expect you to believe them -- that would be dogma -- instead science relies on objective empirical evidence to show that it happens. That is why you need evidence that {X} cannot be explained by evolutionary processes. Note that science does not prove theories, rather it tests them to see if they can be falsified. People - including scientists - have tried to falsify evolution for over 150 years with no success yet. In science theories are the best explanations for the known evidence, and every new test either adds to the evidence that is explained, or it invalidates the theory, which then needs to be revised to include the new evidence. This is how science works to increase knowledge of how things work. I think that darwin and others tried to lay out ways in which the theory could be invalidated. Darwin said a feature that could not exisit through a series of small changes. Behe coined "ireducible complexity" to falsify under these terms. Sory but the name escapes me but another founder of darwinian evo said anything like motors or magnets found to exist in living things would falsify the theory. We have numerious examples of each and evolutionists simply say "now we know that mutation and natural selection can create bio motors". It is unfalsifiable because it is "DOGMA"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
But true. It was just an example. You could also try to find a crustacean with mamary glands, that would also do it. Would you not say that it is convergant evo. Some newly evolved feature brought about by enviromental pressure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Did you look at the information I supplied for the classification of Homo sapiens sapiens? Classifications are a human creation and they really tell us nothing about facts. What they do however allow is for uncritical evolutionists to draw inference that supports there theory. Very circular. The theory supports the classification the classification proves the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
How fortunate it is that science is not limited by the inability of creationists to think of things getting personal. Sign of a weak argument. Who said I was a creationists? You just proved my dogma point. all I have stated is my personal critical arguments against darwinian evolution. Any such questions must be met with contempt. I have my faith you have yours.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
A majory violation of the nested hierarchy would be obvious to everyone, and it would be allowable for ID/creationism. So why don't we see any? Major being the most important word here. We dont find mermaids or pegasus and this is somehow evidence for evolution. Thats a weak argument. When examples are found it is chalked up to the catch all of convergance. Man made things can also be "nested" Does not prove they evolved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Did you have a point, or are you just whining? My point is that I offerd a couple critical points about your beloved theory and you assume I am such and such. DOGMA Desent must be destroyed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
Behe never demonstrated that IC systems could not evolve. In fact, IC systems were predicted to be a product of evolution in 1918:
That is not the same. Your quote says "asset" each part would therefore have a selectable function. That makes sence. however if you have a muliple part machine inwhich each part is useless without the others this could neve evolve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
It will never happen. You don't evolve out of your ancestry. In the tree of life you are always a part of the branch you came from. You never clip yourself off from a branch and attach somewhere else. What can happen is that the biodiversity of cows can increase, and perhaps even new species of cow will evolve. Think of all the dog breeds that have emerged from their wolf ancestors and how the wolf is still a dog as are all of the dog breed. Your quoting Genesis. Kinds reproduce after there own kinds. The cow thing came up because someone on your side said that you can get darker or lighter cows and this proves evolution. My point is that it variation within the limits of the existing info available.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
It's a fair bet that anyone being grossly and foolishly wrong about evolution is a creationist. However, if you will tell us that you are not a creationist, and what you are instead, then I shall believe you, because you are of course deluded when you pretend that I am dogmatic on this subject. Why not just engage in debate. you can call me what ever you like but the facts dont change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
havoc Member (Idle past 4783 days) Posts: 89 Joined: |
dissent dissent dissent. I meant to say dissent. Sory tat mi bed splang prvs evo is tru.
If you meant dissent, then again you are simply wrong to claim science discourages dissent. Well all I did was make some critical points on this website and with a few exceptions I was attacked. Not my points but me. Sounds like people who are afraid to support their ideas so they seek to impugn the other sides motives.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024