Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Let us reason together.
Inactive Member

Message 126 of 152 (34872)
03-21-2003 7:25 AM

Therefore, the general predictions of evolution are:
1. Given heritable variation over time, new species can and do arise.
2. Over sufficiently long time periods, due to various mechanisms surviving populations will vary sufficiently from the parent population to constitute new taxa.
In other words (Although, I know you evos just hate these self-evident terms):
1. Microevolution
2. Macroevolution
First, it is entirely debatable what exactly constitutes a new species.
Second, macroevolution has never been observed. The extrapolation of alleged microevolution is merely assumed (not predicted). Fact is, nobody can "predict" the next stage of evolution with regards to Quetzel's #2 above (#1 predictions specific as to future new species are equally non-existant). Never seen an evolutionist even try. This would appear to make the ToE unfalsifiable. Accordingly, ToE is a useless theory which carries zero worth for the present and future. Most alarming, however, is that, unlike all the rest of real science, #2 cannot even be demonstrated in the present.
Making inferences from the alleged data contained in the earth's crust are not equivelant to making meaningful predictions about the future. Predicting precisely what new taxa will evolve in the future from the descendants of humans (or any other organism alleged to have a common ancestor with a trilobyte) would be more in line with what constitutes a real prediction (imperative to real science) with regards to ToE.
I won't hold my breath.
But the story telling is entertaining...

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by nator, posted 03-21-2003 7:43 AM Zephan has not replied
 Message 130 by Quetzal, posted 03-21-2003 9:35 AM Zephan has not replied
 Message 132 by Karl, posted 03-21-2003 10:44 AM Zephan has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 133 of 152 (34925)
03-21-2003 1:53 PM

Electrons have never been observed, either. Does this mean that they do not exist?
Objection noted...
What do you think?
And why is it that there is no ToE (theory of electrons)?
Unlike evolution, we can demonstrate the properties of electrons in real time. The fact that we can predict the future behavior manifested by electrons on a rather consistent basis may have even contributed to the developement of the electron microscope (ya think?), which of course, like all other advancements in science, evolution had nothing to do with at all.
Same thing with nuclear physics. Unlike evolution, we can demonstrate and predict (in real time) the behavior manifested by atoms under certain conditions. Perhaps you've heard of the superconducter? And surely Hiroshima and Nagasaki haven't been forgotten?
So, to put ToE on par with the electronic microscope, the superconducter, and the atom bomb is quite the non-sequitur, non?
Unless the point was to prove the irrelevancy of ToE to real science...
In summary, then, things like gravity, electrons, and the properties of atoms can be demonstrated in real time WHEREAS ToE cannot.
Turn a fruitfly into a bee or grasshopper and ToE may be able to place itself on par with the other discoveries of science able to be demonstrated and observed in real time.

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by edge, posted 03-22-2003 12:46 AM Zephan has not replied
 Message 138 by nator, posted 03-22-2003 8:51 AM Zephan has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024