Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Darwinism is wrong
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 7 of 305 (202749)
04-26-2005 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jianyi Zhang
04-26-2005 5:09 PM


Re: read my website
http://eggsfirst.net !!
no just kidding.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 04-26-2005 5:09 PM Jianyi Zhang has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 8 of 305 (202753)
04-26-2005 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jianyi Zhang
04-26-2005 11:57 AM


3. Lack of explanatory power
Beside lack of transitional fossils
well, the lack of what creationists are willing to call transitional fossils. that's not a lack of fossils, it's a lack of will. granted, we don't have enough dots that any idiot playing "connect the dots" could see that the work's already been done for him. but there's enough that we can make a picture.
such as chicken-egg paradox
uh. you know what came first? something that was only almost a chicken.
atavisms
recessive traits. genetics makes life easier.
bottleneck effect
explain.
Cambrian explosion
hard parts. we have lots of pre-cambrian fossils, really. it's just that HARD PARTS fossilize a lot better than soft ones.
few speciation in big mammals
since we're only changing a little bit at a time, and big animals have a lot more little bits than small ones, it'd stand to reason...
4. Un-falsification
Because RMNS model has no predictory power, there is no way falsifying it, and you cannot prove it wrong by scientific methods. In other words, it stands in any outcomes. By Popperian criteria, Neo-Darwinism is a pseudo-science.
prediction: species will give to birth to animals of roughly the same genetic makeup, and all change will be gradualy compounding, even when accelerated.
falsification: if one species gave birth to another.
falsification: if no compounding changes took place.
as one may notice, we have two things that would falsify random-mutation-natural-selection. either of those things would disprove it. we can observe that the second is untrue: we breed cats and dogs and can see the changes pretty plainly. the first, to my knowledge has never occured.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jianyi Zhang, posted 04-26-2005 11:57 AM Jianyi Zhang 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