Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
67 online now:
ramoss (1 member, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,036 Year: 5,148/6,534 Month: 568/794 Week: 59/135 Day: 5/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Nature belongs to ID
RAZD
Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 106 of 146 (662229)
05-13-2012 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vanessa
05-06-2012 12:38 PM


Pantheism?
Hi Vanessa, and welcome to the fray.

Sorry if I'm coming in a little late on the discussion, but I hope my comments put some different light on this debate. I apologize for the length, but it is in response to all your posts on this thread thus far.

I attended a five day Intelligent Design conference to see if it really was 'religion masquerading as science'. ...

Curiously, I am a Deist, the classic type of intelligent design faith, deism is a faith, and the modern "neo-Paleyist" intelligent design crowd are mostly christians proposing a watered down deism.

Anything that can design parts of the universe and then implement them in undetectable manner are gods by definition.

Proponents that claim it is not religion are like the Wizard of Oz saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" ...

... The arguments were robust and compelling, ...

They are designed to appear that way to the undereducated and gullible audiences they cater to, mostly christian fundamentalists that want to believe their faith has a scientific basis (the foundation for "creationism" pseudo-science).

Pardon me for saying it, but from your posts you appear to be somewhat under-educated in what biological evolution actually involves.

... but I believe it's all for naught. ID in its present incarnation will not usurp current evolutionary theory for two reasons - ...

One of which is that science will only be overturned by more science. Pseudo-science is incapable of affecting reality or altering it in any way, no matter how robust and compelling the arguments appear.

Science is robust and compelling because it is founded on objective empirical evidence that is used to form hypothesis about reality, and the hypothesis is then used to make validation test predictions to test it against objective empirical evidence that should result if true or should not result if false.

Pseudo-science is not tested, which is why it is pseudo-science.

If ID is to succeeds it must lay claim Nature. Nature is God's work ...
Message 11: ... Evolution as explained by Naturalism claims to show how 'Nature did it' . And this is where I take exception. Nature does not develop life by arbitrary events but through systems and processes, ...
Message 18: You say: "Sorry but belief in a god is a religion"
Then my religion is Nature.

Have you looked at Pantheism?

quote:
Pantheism is the view that the Universe (or Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Greek (pan) meaning "all" and the Greek (theos) meaning "God". As such, pantheism denotes the idea that "God" is best seen as a process of relating to the Universe.[2] The central ideas found in almost all pantheistic beliefs are the view of the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

Message 11: Nature does not develop life by arbitrary events but through systems and processes, whether it is seed to sapling to mighty oak, caterpillar to pupal to butterfly, egg to chick to eagle.
Message 17: My first argument is against the title of 'Naturalism' to explain a process that has little of anything to do with Nature. Nature does not develop life through accident - an egg is fertilised by a sperm and implants itself in the wall of the uterus where a complex process kicks in to develop the baby. The system is in place before the egg is fertilised. The baby is the result of the system - without a system there is no baby. ...

This is not evolution but the biological growth and development of organisms. Evolution is how these developmental processes change over many generations:

The process of evolution involves the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

Message 44: ... I argue it is the same for life on Earth, a system of development is in place before the first cells on Earth first formed. I hold up Nature as evidence. Nature develops life through predetermined systems. ...

The "predetermined systems." for the development of life on earth is evolution ... via random mutation and selection and other evolutionary systems.

Mutation can cause change in the composition of hereditary traits carried by individuals of a breeding population, but not all mutations do so. In addition there are many different kinds of mutations and they have different effects (from small to large).

Natural Selection and Neutral Drift can cause change in the distribution of hereditary traits within the breeding population, but they are not the only mechanism that does so.

The ecological challenges and opportunities change when the environment changes, the breeding population evolves, other organisms within the ecology evolve, migrations change the mixture of organisms within the ecology, or a breeding population migrates into a new ecology. These changes can result in different survival and reproductive challenges and opportunities, affecting selection pressure, perhaps causing speciation, perhaps causing extinction.

Mutations of hereditary traits have been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, rather than an untested hypothesis.

Natural selection and neutral drift have been observed to occur, along with the observed alteration in the distribution of hereditary traits within breeding populations, and thus this aspect of evolution is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

... I hold up Nature as evidence. ...

The evidence is that evolution occurs in every generation of every species. The nature of evolution is pervasive in all forms of life.

... Nature develops life through predetermined systems. ...

Mutations are observed that cause death and disability, that prevent the organism from surviving and/or breeding ... if all those mutations were "predetermined" then they were predetermined for failure.

If, on the other hand, the system is predetermined to then use selection for testing which mutations survive to reproduce, then again we are talking about how evolution works.

In other words, there is no conflict between your belief and evolution (the real evolution) as it is the system that your nature uses.

Message 62:
Percy says: I understand that you believe processes were designed before they were employed, but no evidence exists if this, and things that actually happened usually leave evidence behind. The evidence that is available indicates a process of gradual change over time ...
(Oops my quoting didn't work. (I fixed it for you))

Exactly! That is what I believe. I also believe the evidence to support this view is persuasive. I look forward to explaining my position in greater detail as soon as I get home to my own beloved computer with a standard keyboard and I can type at speed again. I hope to hear from you again at that time.

If one were going to design a process that would develop the diversity of life as we see it, it the fossil record, in the genetic record, throughout history and prehistoric documents, and throughout the world around us, then one would be hard pressed to make a better system than evolution.

This of course is where my Deism comes in: that the universe is designed to operate in the way we see it operating. The laws of physics are designed to work the way they do, and the process of evolution is designed to create the diversity of life we see.

One last thing - our fossil evidence better supports the theory of Punctuated Equilibria which states that biology was static over large periods of time (Equilibria) and then something happens (punctuation) and biology takes a great leap forward in complexity and diversity. Please refer to the Cambrian Explosion as one example.

Punctuated Equilibrium is one of the processes of evolution that involves founder populations type evolution.

Curiously not all fossil evidence supports Punk Eek, some shows definite gradualism in evolution. The cambrian explosion actually occurred over a very long period of time and shows many aspects of gradualism rather than punk eek.

Message 71: No, we have never seen life evolve from simple organisms to complex ones through mutation. It is a theoretical statement. This is my point. ...

Multicellular forms have been observed forming from unicellular life forms. New species have been observed to evolve from a parent population. These are not theoretical statements.

The process of Divergent Speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the daughter populations results in different, independent, evolutionary responses in the daughter populations to their respective and different ecological challenges and opportunities (including the existence and impact of the other daughter population/s on survival).

Independent evolution within each subpopulation results in divergence of the subpopulations from each other. Divergent speciation forms a branching pattern of descent from a common ancestor pool, and results in added diversity of species. Further instances of divergent speciation adds further to the branching pattern and results in a nested hierarchy pattern.

These long term changes in hereditary traits and in population distributions is sometimes called macroevolution, even though the evolution occurring is still within the breeding populations.

Phyletic speciation with the development of new species by extended micro evolution in a lineage of descent has been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of long term (macro) evolutionary developments is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

Divergent speciation with the development of new species by the reproductive isolation of daughter populations has been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of long term (macro) evolutionary developments is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

The formation of nested hierarchies of descent from common ancestor populations has been observed to occur, and thus this aspect of long term (macro) evolutionary developments is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.

... Nature develops life through systems - in which the organism transforms in it's life cycle - egg to chick, foetus to baby, caterpillar to butterfly. This is how Nature works. This is what our fossil record looks like.

And the "organism transforms in it's life cycle" through the process of evolution. It has been observed happening. The process of evolution is a fact.

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.

Message 86: No one knows how life formed on Earth. We are all in the same boat trying to figure it out. ...

Correct, we know there was a point when the earth formed over 4.5 billion years ago where there was no known life, and we know that the oldest fossils of life are over 3.4 billion years old, and we know that there is a lack of information on what happened in between those dates. Studying that issue is the field of abiogenesis, not evolution -- evolution only applies once life exists, by whatever means.

Message 91: Nature develops life through identifiable systems and processes but we choose to explain the evolution of life as the result of arbitrary cosmic events and chromosomal abnormalities. But this is not how Nature works - look at how a plant grows, how a baby gestates, how a butterfly forms - in each case the development of life is part of a system with transformative stages - just like our fossil record. Does this not make you curious?

Again you are talking about an organisms biological development and not evolution.

And again, I repeat, evolution is an observed, documented, process of involving the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

This is a feedback response system that is repeated in each generation:

This is how nature works, this is what the objective empirical evidence shows.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : wiz


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vanessa, posted 05-06-2012 12:38 PM Vanessa has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 114 of 146 (662327)
05-14-2012 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Vanessa
05-14-2012 3:40 AM


work in progress
Hi Vanessa,

Many people in this forum mistake 'evolution' to mean a particular theory - and only that theory. ...

Curiously, everybody here is using the terminology used in biological sciences. In science terms are used to mean specific things so that everybody understands what they are talking about.

quote:
University of Michigan Website:

Definitions of Biological Evolution

We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?

  • Definition 1:

    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation

  • Definition 2:

    The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity

Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.

A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels.


We link these by showing that (micro)evolution (a) over many generations results in "phyletic speciation" -- sufficient change within a lineage of descent from an ancestral population that the offspring population is a different species (also called arbitrary speciation), and (b) in isolated populations can cause divergent speciation, and that the process of divergent speciation is what forms the nested hierarchy. Here is an example of both forms of speciation in the fossil record:


(I've added the color lines, the original image without color lines is fig 10 from Gingerich, P.D. 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution at the species level in early Tertiary mammals, American Journal of Science 276:1-28.):

The red lineage shows phyletic speciation, while the green purple and blue lines show divergent speciation (and the purple lineage died out).

This is one example of many.

quote:
Berkely University Website:

The Definition:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.


You could vastly improve your understanding of the field of biological evolution if you took a week to go through this whole website, which is designed as a teaching aid for high school biology teachers.

You can see that they are talking about evolution the same way, and you can also compare this to the definition I gave you earlier:

The process of evolution involves the change in the frequency distribution and composition of hereditary traits within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

And I can add:

The process of Phyletic Speciation involves a lineage of descent from an ancestor population accumulating sufficient differences through (micro) evolution that, when compared to the ancestor population, it would appear to be a different species.

And:

The process of Divergent Speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

Many people in this forum mistake 'evolution' to mean a particular theory - ...

And as I said before,

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

Like saying money only refers to Ammerican dollars - there is different currencies, there are different theories/explanations of evolution.

In the biological sciences, curiously, we are only interested in "Ammerican dollars" (biological evolution), while other science may be interested in other uses of the term (stellar evolution in astronomy is a different "currency" of evolution, the chemical evolution of life in abiogenesis is another different "currency" of evolution).

Amusingly, when you are dealing with things valued in American dollars, then it makes sense to use the terminology of American dollars and not some other currency.

The approach preferred on this site is what I call 'auto-naturalism', ...

Interestingly it matters less than the amount of ant frass in Antarctica what you call things: if you are not using scientific terminology properly then you are just not discussing science but some personal fantasy.

See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking..

Auto-naturalism no longer makes sense. Nature is far too complex - in fact we have yet to determine its parametres. Yet many writers here have decided what Nature 'isn't', before we've figured out what Nature 'is'.

No, we have tentatively accepted the current scientific theories as the best working explanations of the observed objective empirical evidence. That not all is known is acknowledged, but we expect that every test of every hypothesis, whether the result is negative (the concept is invalidated and discarded) or positive (the concept appears valid so far) brings us to a closer and closer approximation of reality.

Figuring out everything is a work in progress.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Vanessa, posted 05-14-2012 3:40 AM Vanessa has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 11:45 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 125 of 146 (663252)
05-22-2012 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 11:45 AM


really now
Hi again Vanessa,

Yes, we do not yet know how life evolved. Current theory (which you fail to properly identify in your post) states that random mutation is the method by which new information is introduced in the genome. ...

There is so much wrong here I hardly know where to begin. The science that covers how life began is abiogenesis, and while there are several hypothesis currently being tested there is no over-reaching theory ... yet.

Evolution only applies once we have life - a breeding population of life, and this is a gray area (when life begins), and it is not helpful to confuse these different aspects of science.

It is hysterical that you say I didn't "properly identify" the theory of evolution after I listed the definitions of evolution from two universities from their resources for teaching evolution. Curiously I have not had one actual biologist take issue with my statements about the process and theory of evolution (except to help me refine them), including my father who used to teach biology at the University of Michigan.

You are obviously not a biologist, not even a hobby biologist - a person that has studied biology but doesn't hold a degree in it, because you do not appear to understand what evolution actually is and don't seem willing to learn. Further your purported theory is not just wrong, but it is an absolutely false portrayal of the theory of evolution, a hoax.

Biology in general and evolution in particular does not use or care about "information" because (a) it has not been defined in a way that can be measured and compared, and (b) it is irrelevant to the increase in diversity of life. Life can become more diverse through simplification as easily as through increased complexity, and the theory of evolution explains ALL the increases in diversity, not just ones that go in one direction.

Cave fish evolve to lose sight because it improves their use of energy for survival and breeding, and in doing so they increase the diversity of types of fish.

If someone told you that "random mutation is the method by which new information is introduced in the genome" was the theory of evolution they lied, they hoodwinked you and fooled you with a hoax.

Mutations can add to a genome and they can subtract from a genome, and both add diversity, both can produce novel traits that are selectable and that can lead to increased success in survival and reproduction. Evolution is concerned with what leads to increased success in survival and reproduction.

You would do well to forget everything you think you know about biology, and then go take a course at a local university.

... Like saying new computer programs are developed by random mutation in the computer code of existing programs - like saying my media player will one day evolve into publishing program simply by me using it. You like this explanation. Cool, it's yours, though I personally think it is inadequate.

Curiously, neither your media player, nor the software used, reproduce, neither have random copy errors, and thus there is absolutely no way that these are comparable to evolution: your straw man fails, not because they don't change, but because it is not a proper portrayal of evolution.

You would do well to forget everything you think you know about biology, and then go take a course at a local university.

My issue is the assumption that any argument to this theory is religiously driven and unscientific. What you are erroneously stating is that evolution can only happen one way - through arbitrary mutation. I claim 'certainty is the enemy of science'.

Your issue is that you don't know squat about biology in general and evolution in particular.

You would do well to forget everything you think you know about biology, and then go take a course at a local university.

I take the position of Galileo and Einstein, who both believed and spent the last years of their lives looking for - a unified theory of all things ...

Another false statement. Einstein was interested in unifying the four forces in physics and could have cared less about biological evolution.

... We should not be content to accept a collection of theories to explain the evolution of the solar system, another for the beginnings of life on Earth and yet another for evolution of life. It is a poor patchwork quilt of life and Nature does not work like that. ...

Amusingly science works that way, because you have to understand the jigsaw puzzle pieces before you can assemble them.

... I am much more interested in finding the truth.

Then start by eliminating everything that is false in your understanding of life, the universe, and everything (-Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide).

You would do well to forget everything you think you know about biology, and then go take a course at a local university.

You can start with learning from Berkeley U. and U. of California Museum of Paleontology Teachers Guide website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

To learn the truth you need to start with facts, but more importantly you need to eliminate false concepts.

Message 117: The definition of evolution on this site is narrowed down to a single interpretation - a theory of development through mutation. I will not accept, nor use that definition of evolution - it is an insult to Nature.

So you are now talking about Vanessology and not biology or evolution.

Nowhere in Nature does life develop through mutation. It is wrong to assume (and call it Naturalism) that all life on Earth developed this way.

Not by mutation alone, but hand in hand with selection in the dance of life.

Mutations occur in every offspring. The process of evolution has been observed and is a fact. The process of speciation has been observed and is a fact. It is wrong to assert that these cannot explain the diversity of life without providing some reason, some barrier to these processes.

Message 121: You are giving mutations abilities far beyond what has been shown - we are talking about the evolution of all life on Earth - life which we have yet to define, yet to develop - how can you be so certain how it formed when we haven't yet figured out what it is.

And again, mutation does not act alone in evolution, but hand in hand with selection in the dance of life.

Evolution only applies once you have a breeding population of life, so the definition of life is rather irrelevant to evolution, but if you are interested in pursuing that topic see Definition of Life. It's a gray area indeed.

quote:
Message 69: Personally, I think the best working definition I've seen, is that life is some physical arrangement of atoms and molecules that is potentially capable of evolution (the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities) and the formation of nested hierarchies of descent.

ie - it is life when it can undergo the processes of evolution ... which is a back-door kind of definition, but it also emphasizes that abiogenesis ends when evolution begins and evolution begins when abiogenesis ends.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added replies to other posts


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 11:45 AM Vanessa has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(3)
Message 134 of 146 (663276)
05-22-2012 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 5:47 PM


Re: work in progress
Hi again Vanessa, just a few comments.

You are completely right, it was a poor example.

Good. The path to truth is being able to learn when you are wrong.

... To maintain this seat of power we are subjected to outlandish attacks on religion. ...

There is no war on religion. What there is involves a myopic religious view with proponents waging war on science, philosophy and other beliefs, and crying when they can't get their way.

Looking for truth also means rejecting false religious beliefs.

I attended an Intelligent Design conference and I asked a Christian woman if the truth of life were found out and it didn't agree with her Christian teachings, could she accept it. She didn't answer, but she found me the next day and said she would keep her Christian beliefs. I appreciated her honesty.

It isn't honesty, it is an inability to accept truth, to realize when one has false beliefs and be willing to change them.

... But we now know variance in phenotype will not create new biological structures and systems. So we've declared it is mutations in DNA - this is not natural. Nature does not develop life in this way. Nature develops life through systems and processes - no ad hoc mutations in sight.

Once again you have made statements that are wrong, terribly wrong.

Variance in the phenotype is due to mutations, selection acts on the phenotype (whether artificial via animal husbandry or natural in the wild survival and reproduction selection).

Selection is the part of evolution that you miss when you talk only about mutations:

There is objective empirical evidence of this occurring, generation by generation in breeding populations, there is no known species where this is NOT happening.

I use the word truth deliberately because that's what we want. If you have a disease you don't want a theory about what it could be, you want the truth.

If you have just been diagnosed with a deadly disease and the truth is that there is no known cure for that deadly disease, but there is a hypothetical as yet untested cure ... do you want the truth (start checking off your bucket list) or do you want the hypothetical possibility?

Me, I'll take the hypothetical possibility rather than the dogmatic "truth"

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 5:47 PM Vanessa has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(5)
Message 135 of 146 (663280)
05-22-2012 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Vanessa
05-22-2012 6:45 PM


arrogant
Hi again Vanessa,

I refute the current explanation because I know a better one. ...

No, you are like the Christian woman at the conference, you reject the current explanation because you believe something else is true, even though there is objective empirical evidence that the current explanation -- the REAL evolution (mutation AND selection) is thus far sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.

To refute something you provide evidence that shows it is false. Denial is not refutation.

de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)

  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Note how this last entry describes the Christian woman at the conference.

... A compelling and clever theory that did not rely on meteor strikes or mutations as mechanisms of development. It is based on evidence and rational argument. It made predictions which at the time did not seem possible, yet they have come true and continue to do so. I argue from a position of knowledge. I think there is something better because there is.

I know the theory I heard 25 years ago may be false, but it clearly demonstrates that an alternative is possible. ...

As others have said: produce it and the evidence and the predictions. Preferably in a reference that can be checked, such as a scientific journal.

... I came here because I was dismayed that the current theory of arbitrary events is purported to be the only possible scientific explanation. ...

Curiously I am not aware of a "theory of arbitrary events" ...

... This is arrogant and deeply misleading to people who trust in science. As I do.

Says the person who arrogantly declares that the whole science of evolution is wrong even though she has not studied biology or evolution and cannot produce this magic theory or any evidence that shows modern evolution theory to be false.

Says the person who arrogantly declares someone who posts information from university websites that the information posted is wrong.

Says the person who arrogantly repeats assertions about what evolution is when she has been told that they are not true representations of evolution.

Arrogant is the woman at the conference who arrogantly decided that her belief was better than truth.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : subt


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Vanessa, posted 05-22-2012 6:45 PM Vanessa has taken no action

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 677 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 142 of 146 (663309)
05-23-2012 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Vanessa
05-23-2012 2:46 AM


the hypothesis
Hi Vanessa,

Great. I will present an alternative proposal for evolution.

and don't forget to post evidence supporting it.

Again I recommend a new thread for this hypothesis so that discussion of it does not take over this thread.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Vanessa, posted 05-23-2012 2:46 AM Vanessa has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022