|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2934 days) Posts: 706 From: Joliet, il, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the Darwinian theory require modification or replacement? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I really don't see much if any point to the topic.
Looking at science, when sufficient evidence is found to require a modification to a theory and when a mechanism is found that explains the model and mechanism that accounts for the new evidence then theories change. So far nothing in Shapiro's work seems to require such change or is unexplained. Further he in no way points to any directed non-natural methodology. Edited by jar, : add an 'h' to wen. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
frako writes: This would be simple to test starve a few mice for say 10 generations ad compare how much modification happened to their dna compared to the control group that has been fed for their 10 generations. And eliminate any from of selection by randomly and artificialy breading the population of mice. my guess the number of mutations from generation 1 to generation 10 in both the tes mice and the control mice would bethe same. Try rewording, I have a hard time understanding how you get to ten generations if you starve gen 1? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It doesn't much matter how it appears to you. Many of us have explained that his use of terms leaves a lot to be desired, but he is still talking about nothing but plain old natural causes.
If and when there is enough evidence for others to take Shapiro seriously, it's possible that the Theory will change again, but never to the extent that Intelligent Design or Special Creation will be more than stuff to laugh about. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
If and when there is enough evidence for others to take Shapiro seriously, it's possible that the Theory will change again, but never to the extent that Intelligent Design or Special Creation will be more than stuff to laugh about. He is talking about natural genetic engineering that is nonrandom as I point out in reply to message 8 by taq. If in fact the theory does change in accord with Shapiro and others who are researching about a 21st century theory of evolution that does not rely on random mutation, but rather information in the cell that engineers change then Special Creation will become something that Science will have to deal with. Fortunately, it is simply that you totally misunderstand what he is saying and Special Creation will never be more 5than a joke and something for Christian con men to use to keep the gold coming in. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: jar wrote;
Fortunately, it is simply that you totally misunderstand what he is saying and Special Creation will never be more than a joke and something for Christian con men to use to keep the gold coming in. If you will recall Shapiro told me in his reply to me e-mail, "You have understood my position pretty well..." So perhaps you can enlighten me on what I am missing.I assume your comment on Special Creation is based upon some scientific finding, and I don't believe all who do have faith in Special Creation, in my case as per the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, are all "con" men. Not all that support Special Creation are con men, most are simply the suckers that get conned. There is NO evidence of any outside non-natural influence or guidance. It really is that simple. As I said in my first reply, the whole question is pretty much irrelevant. The Theory of Evolution will change as additional evidence comes forward but it is also impossible for any evidence to come forward that does not point to entirely natural unguided events. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
Not all that support Special Creation are con men, most are simply the suckers that get conned. There is NO evidence of any outside non-natural influence or guidance. That is a distrubing message. Is it your view that anyone who belives in God, that God has a hand in creation, is getting conned? As for any evidence of non-natural influence or guidance, of course it cannot be proven under a microscope, but one only need look at the Universe, and the wonder of life, and deduce how did this happen? I would hope you would meditate on these issues and at least consider that there may be an influence that science cannot prove by physical evidence. I know this message is off post. That is my last sermon and I truely don't want to argue religion or faith with you. Actually I am a devout Christian and yes, I firmly believe that anyone that believes in Special Creation is either getting conned or if they claim to be a scientist or educated, a con man. Of course there can also be a few that are simply insane. Start a thread on it if you would like, I'd be glad to discuss the subject. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
Actually I am a devout Christian and yes, I firmly believe that anyone that believes in Special Creation is either getting conned or if they claim to be a scientist or educated, a con man. Of course there can also be a few that are simply insane. What can I say? Could you please defineyour meaning of "Special Creation?" That any living thing is something more than the result of natural evolution or that any living thing (for that matter any thing, living or otherwise) was the special desired creation of any GOD. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
There is more. Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yup. At the molecular level there is no equipment to be sentient.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
bluegenes writes: jar writes: Yup. At the molecular level there is no equipment to be sentient. You said:
Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language. I didn't see any specification of any level in that sentence. And we were discussing cellular and genetic changes. No brain there. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
bluegenes writes: jar writes: And we were discussing cellular and genetic changes. No brain there. Yes, we were. And your sentence expanded the discussion to "biological, chemical and physics processes". Here it is again. It is wrong.
jar writes: Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply a perversion of the English language. Here's a correction: Using a term like "sentient" to describe biological, chemical and physics processes is simply not a perversion of the English language. Utter nonsense. Sorry but that is simply silly. Go play with Straggler. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes:
I admit that I accept the work of Shapiro, a world renown molecular biologist at the University of Chicago, who happens to be outfront of the old dogma defenders of a theory that is being devasted by molecular biology discoveries. And you sir stand on your immutable belief that there cannot be a God, because if there is, your life is shattered. God save the Queen and Atheism. What utter crap you post. First, as has been pointed out to you several times, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion or atheism and certainly nothing to do with Christianity. Stop trying to play that stupid, stupid card. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
shadow71 writes: jar writes;
What utter crap you post. First, as has been pointed out to you several times, this has absolutely nothing to do with religion or atheism and certainly nothing to do with Christianity Have you missed the many posts that ridicule "creationists"? There are many on this board that hold the belief that anyone who opposes the modern synthesis, do so on religious beliefs, and therefore must be ridiculed and dismissed as believers and therefore not intelligent assayers of the theory. Did you say:
quote: You really can't get anything straight can you? YOU inserted religion and even said that you began with the conclusion. YOUR posts are more than enough to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Creationism and Intelligent Design are NOT science but only an attempt to palm the pea, con the rube, sell the snake oil. The fact is, the Theory of Evolution has been modified and will continue to be modified when the weight of evidence warrants it. But YOU seem to start with the conclusion you want and then try to find support for your position. Sorry Charlie, that is NOT how science works. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
As I said back in Message 3 this thread seems to be pretty much pointless from the git-go, but that doesn't mean that I can't learn from the posts even if they are unrelated to the topic.
So I have a few questions. Looking at sexual critters ... mutations happen. In some cases, for example under stress, mutation rates increase. BUT, those mutations are only selected in the next generation. Now at the next generation the selection filter may or may not be the same as what caused the mutation rate increase. Is that correct so far? Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So is what is being discussed (Shapiro and inferences based on Shapiro) unrelated to sexual organisms from the git-go?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024