Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We? No it's clearly you who is missing the education and understanding of evolution.
There is no faith involved in evolution...only evidence.
Don't confuse the Creation Myth found in the bible with Evolution.
Creation Myth = Faith
Evolution = Facts based on empirical evidence.
You underestimate Jerwade. Evolution is based on inferences drawn from indirect evidence which is slightly different than facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
Empirical evidence is information acquired by observation
or experimentation. Where shall we begin? (Big grin).
You underestimate Jerwade. Evolution is based on inferences drawn from indirect evidence which is slightly different than facts.
Wrong once again. Evolution is based on direct observation, on direct experimental observation as well as many other forms of evidence. Theories are not established on indirect evidence.
Leave Evolution to the real scientists who actually know much more about it than you guys who make these claims based on ignorance about the subject.
You guys have enough issues with trying to support your bible so leave the science to the real scientists.
Now back to the bible speak.
Here are the facts:
The simple fact that all the scriptures were written by people, who by virtue of their placement on planet earth, had little to no access to scientific knowledge or even common sense. They lived during a time that their world view would be considered today to be very narrow and unworldly. These people knew nothing of the facts that are now relevant in today’s world in the 21 Century. They knew nothing about the origins of life, the relationship between the mind and brain, they did not even know that mental illness actually existed in humans. They knew nothing about DNA or viruses. Nothing about computation, technology or even electricity. None of this is in scripture. They had no idea why people became sick and died.
They were no more knowledgeable than your average ISIS warlord today. They had no problem with slavery or owning people and treating them like farm equipment. Neither Jesus nor his apostles couldn’t see that slavery was worth condemning.
Our knowledge of the Universe is changing, not because we want to get rid of God, but because the more we learn the less we need this God outside of the Laws of Physics and Chemistry and Biology. Science does more than this. It does not just tell us about the world…it makes the world a better place by getting rid of the vile, awful, immoral, works like the Bible. The worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated society today is the worldview given to us by science.
It makes total sense as to why so many people are abandoning this book.
You underestimate Jerwade. Evolution is based on inferences drawn from indirect evidence which is slightly different than facts.
He just confused you with a fundy, Jer!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
Wrong once again. Evolution is based on direct observation, on direct experimental observation as well as many other forms of evidence. Theories are not established on indirect evidence.
Leave Evolution to the real scientists who actually know much more about it than you guys who make these claims based on ignorance about the subject. <snip>
Leaving aside your incredible hubris and presumptuousness about those of us who post here, without dragging this into an extended discourseI will just present one example of what I am referring to.
From evidence to inference: probing the evolution of protein interaction networks.
Ratmann O, Wiuf C, Pinney JW.
Abstract
The evolutionary mechanisms by which protein interaction networks grow and change are beginning to be appreciated as a major factor shaping their present-day structures and properties. Starting with a consideration of the biases and errors inherent in our current views of these networks, we discuss the dangers of constructing evolutionary arguments from naïve analyses of network topology. We argue that progress in understanding the processes of network evolution is only possible when hypotheses are formulated as plausible evolutionary models and compared against the observed data within the framework of probabilistic modeling. The value of such models is expected to be greatly enhanced as they incorporate more of the details of the biophysical properties of interacting proteins, gene phylogeny, and measurement error and as more advanced methodologies emerge for model comparison and the inference of ancestral network states.
I did not say it was all one thing or the other, but there is significant inference in evolution theory . . . significant. The only direct observation of evolution I am familiar with is Lenski, et al.'s 2009 "Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli."
Leaving aside your incredible hubris and presumptuousness about those of us who post here, without dragging this into an extended discourseI will just present one example of what I am referring to.
From evidence to inference: probing the evolution of protein interaction networks.
Ratmann O, Wiuf C, Pinney JW.
Abstract
The evolutionary mechanisms by which protein interaction networks grow and change are beginning to be appreciated as a major factor shaping their present-day structures and properties. Starting with a consideration of the biases and errors inherent in our current views of these networks, we discuss the dangers of constructing evolutionary arguments from naïve analyses of network topology. We argue that progress in understanding the processes of network evolution is only possible when hypotheses are formulated as plausible evolutionary models and compared against the observed data within the framework of probabilistic modeling. The value of such models is expected to be greatly enhanced as they incorporate more of the details of the biophysical properties of interacting proteins, gene phylogeny, and measurement error and as more advanced methodologies emerge for model comparison and the inference of ancestral network states.
I did not say it was all one thing or the other, but there is significant inference in evolution theory . . . significant. The only direct observation of evolution I am familiar with is Lenski, et al.'s 2009 "Genome evolution and adaptation in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli."
That's the best you've got? WOW just WOW!
Quote:
In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.
LOL...you missed this in the conclusion of that ancient paper....ancient by today's standards of DNA and protein understanding.
Quote:
However, an evolutionary line of thinking is essential to guard against overinterpretation of seemingly unexpected features of these networks and to evaluate more precisely the plausible explanations of the data.
You clearly don't know anything about evolution or the evidence that we have that supports it to the level of a scientific Theory.
Keep your lame attempts and lack of evolutionary understanding to yourself...it holds no value here. I am not interested in your Piled High and Deep garbage.
Let's see your evidence to support your god delusion and all the bible myths.
LOL...you missed this in the conclusion of that ancient paper....ancient by today's standards of DNA and protein understanding.
You clearly don't know anything about evolution or the evidence that we have that supports it to the level of a scientific Theory.
Keep your lame attempts and lack of evolutionary understanding to yourself...it holds no value here. I am not interested in your Piled High and Deep garbage.
Let's see your evidence to support your god delusion and all the bible myths.
1. The Science Journal said Man has a Soul (Fact).
2. Go YouTube and in the search box type HushWhisper and look at those videos of what was found on the planet. The Story of Creation is in picture form on this planet, along with images of it's Creator.
1. The Science Journal said Man has a Soul (Fact).
2. Go YouTube and in the search box type HushWhisper and look at those videos of what was found on the planet. The Story of Creation is in picture form on this planet, along with images of it's Creator.
Those are good starting points.
1. Without evidence IT IS opinion.
2. Again, opinion and PERSONAL INTERPRETATION---really, there is a picture of God in the videos?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
