The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge

Particularly if you WANT to learn about things like evolution and how the theory of evolution explains the evidence of life on earth, whether that evidence is the fossil record, the genetic record, the historic record and the world around us.The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities ... and it is a FACT that this has been observed to occur in virtually every living species ... The process of anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the long term evolution of the entire (breeding) population of a species over multiple generations ... and it is a FACT that this too has been observed to occur, and it is fully explained by the process of evolution.The process of cladogenesis involves an evolutionary branching event of a parent species into two or more closely related sister species, where the parent population and each daughter branch (and any subsequent smaller branches) form a nested hierarchy called a "Clade"; a process that leads to the development of a greater diversity of species in the world ... and it is a FACT that this has also been observed to occur, and it is fully explained by the process of evolution.The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis (phyletic speciation), and the process of cladogenesis (divergent speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies), 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. And many creationists could be compared to the Three Stooges, hitting each other with 2x4,s or poking the others in the eye, rather that provide substantiative evidence for their (often crackpot) concepts, and how they don't work together to arrive at any kind of consensus on those concepts ...Concepts such as are bandied about by IDologists making silly claims like proteins are both hardware and software ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : topic connection

Are you picturing something about the speed of it? Because that's the wrong definition of spontaneous...

quote:

---

adjective
1.
coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned:
a spontaneous burst of applause.
2.
(of a person) given to acting upon sudden impulses.
3.
(of natural phenomena) arising from internal forces or causes; independent of external agencies; self-acting.

---

Well "spontaneously" seems wrong from that point of view too. It would suggest that amino acids can just assemble into protein chains by themselves, rather than being fastened together by ribosomes.

No arguments here about species evolving. It has limits though. Argue with me all you want on your beliefs, but you need to stop calling it "fact" when you assume we came from elements billions of years ago, with no external help. There is NO evidence to that, simply theory.So, we agree that things evolve. We disagree on the limits.

Perhaps before we go any farther, you would explain just what you mean by the term, "theory."

This foolishness is not only off the topic of the thread but also does not appear to be a reply to anything anyone has posted. Perhaps if you learned to use the reply button we'd know what you thought you were replying to.

Yes, it is hard to argue with facts. Where? How are those limits implemented? How does evolution stop happening? Curiously we know that at one point life did not exist and at a slightly later point simple single cell life existed. We also know that since that first life that there has been an increasing number of forms (we call them species) of life, and I would call those facts that the first life was simple in form.AND we can equally say:... you need to stop calling it "fact" when you assume we came from elements billions of years ago, with some undefined kind of external help. There is NO evidence to that, simply belief.Personally I would take theory over belief, as theory is based on an educated evaluation of evidence while belief is just opinion.Now belief may be enough to think ID research would be a good idea, but once you start doing that research you need to involve theory, testing and falsification ...Are you willing to have your beliefs falsified? There is no evidence of any limits or of any way for limits to arise. Perhaps you can clarify how those limits act? At what level within the body is further change prevented?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : finished

What are your aims and hypotheses? What experiments would you run?

What experiments would you do to test what these limits are?

How do you know that life started as simple organisms?? How "simple" is the most simple organism? With the increase in knowledge and technology, we know that no life is simple.It is funny that you call your stance a "theory" and my stance a "belief". You have no proof, but you have a very interesting story that tries to dispense with a higher power. Look under a microscope once in a while and study the complexity of the most "simple" forms of life without bias Edited by mram10, : No reason given.

You should still learn to use the reply button. You'll find it at the bottom right of the message you want to reply to. That way, people will know what and whom you're replying to.Next week maybe I'll teach you some rocket science.

You continue to post such absurdities even after you have been shown that is totally false.Why do you continue to post falsehoods?

Carnak the Magnificent says:Military background. Works in sales.

Mram graces us with yet another weekend PRATT fest. Here we see Claim CB010.1 followed by CA202.

What's the difference between living and non-living?