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.
the evolution of species is based on mutation-their has never been 1 case in whichg a mutation has benefited the genes.
There are days that I would agree with you, because the whiteness of many humans is the result of gene mutation and I sometime question how that whiteness has benefited humans, not because I think that there is anything inherently wrong about white people, just that the fact that this mutation has lead to Europeans to see themselves as superior to other humans as a result of nothing more than an physical adaptation that allows them to absorb more vitamin D as a result of their migrating to a less sunny clime.
If you're talking about macroevolution, how can that be empirically tested if you can't observe it happening or reproduce it?
It was a long time coming folks but there it is, that simple sentence that really says....'I haven't actually got a clue about the subject I am trying to dismiss.'
It was a long time coming folks but there it is, that simple sentence that really says....'I haven't actually got a clue about the subject I am trying to dismiss.'
Ye gods!!
How about actually explaining why you think I'm wrong instead of resorting to insults? All your insults do is prove that you are biased because they show clearly that for you this issue is very personal.
How about actually explaining why you think I'm wrong instead of resorting to insults? All your insults do is prove that you are biased because they show clearly that for you this issue is very personal.
You don't see the phrase "'I haven't actually got a clue about the subject I am trying to dismiss.' " as being insulting? Do you think it was actually respectful?
You don't see the phrase "'I haven't actually got a clue about the subject I am trying to dismiss.' " as being insulting? Do you think it was actually respectful?
Yes, I saw the phrase. Insulting, hardly. Disrespectful, perhaps. But I think that if it is anything it was at worst discourteous.
You don't see the phrase "'I haven't actually got a clue about the subject I am trying to dismiss.' " as being insulting? Do you think it was actually respectful?
The statements you make concerning the study of evolution clearly show you have no idea what you're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jremy
A question: If you're talking about macroevolution, how can that be empirically tested if you can't observe it happening or reproduce it?
The same way we can study crime scenes without actually having been there to observe it. We do not need to see something to know that it has occurred.
To quote the FightingAtheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by FightingAtheist
In normal scenarios, creationists do not have such high standards of proof. If, for instance, they found a half-eaten deer carcass surrounded by wolf paw prints, the reasonable conclusion is that the wolves ate the deer. If subsequently they found wolves near by, covered in deer blood, and analyzed the vomit of one wolf and found that it contained deer meat that would be further evidence in support of the rather obvious conclusion that wolves ate the deer in question.
Now, if some wolf-loving skeptic wanted to protect the wolves from this charge of murder, he could adopt the creationist strategy and utilize unreasonably high standards of proof to shield him from criticism. He could argue, for instance, that because no one "observed" the wolves eating the deer, we could doubt the conclusion.
For this skeptic, all the evidence pointing towards the wolves means nothing to him if we cannot directly observe the event in question. He could also remark that the wolf theory leaves out certain details. For instance, it doesn't tell us exactly how many wolves were involved, or whether the wolves first attacked from the right or left side, or whether the deer happened to be looking down at its feet when the attack occurred. They could argue that deer are faster than wolves so it is impossible. The skeptic could argue that these "gaps" in the theory rule out the wolf hypothesis.
Of course, any reasonable person can see that the wolf skeptic sets his standards of proof way too high. We need not directly observe the event, nor explain every trite and inane detail in order to know that the wolves did indeed eat the deer. The evidence of the eaten deer carcass, the wolf paw prints, and blood spattered wolves, the deer meat in the vomit, and so on, all show without a doubt that the deer was eaten by the wolves.
The realm of faith does not lie within the jurisdiction of science. That's the erroneous assumption you're making here. Science is not the measure of all things.
Faith: believing things without evidence, and even contrary to it. Science doesn't work in the fields of faith because faith is not a scientific position. Faith is not a measurement of truth or reality.
Quote:
...but just for the record, an example of argument by design, as I see it, would be the human body: various systems working together to accomplish a purpose.
Read: Evolution. The human body is incredibly complex, and it would be ridiculous to presume it just "popped" into existence as is. Instead, it evolved over a very long period of time, adding bit by bit, until you have what you see today.
And even then, the human body is far from ideal or perfect in any way, it just is good enough. Evolution works with what exists, adding or taking away so that the organism is "good enough" to survive. Antropormophizing of course.
Quote:
Which of course does not mean that he does not exist. It just means that you personally don't recognize the revelation that points to his existence. But that's in the realm of faith, since I mentioned revelation.
Faith and revelation are not reliable measures of truth or reality.
Quote:
Back to science: The lack of perception does not in itself rule out the existence of something. If it did, then we would have to say that the planet Pluto had never existed prior to its discovery in 1930. If science can deal only with the observable, then it follows that that which it cannot perceive cannot be accepted or dismissed on its own grounds. The honest scientist should say, "God might exist, but I personally don't see any evidence for his existence."
Science is agnostic. The scientist may not be. We'll get to that later.
Quote:
That really doesn't destroy the argument. You don't have to observe the process of manufacturing to see that something has been intelligently designed. I never saw my computer actually being manufactured, yet I know beyond all doubt that it was designed by intelligent people. It has functioning parts that all work together as a system to accomplish some purpose(s). It would be ludicrous and insane to suppose that such an intricate device came about by chance. That is essentially the argument by design, as I understand it.
It would be insane to suggest such an intricate device like your computer came about by chance or in its current state. The computer has come from a long range of mathematical devices: one could even say as far back as the abacus. This of course, doesn't include that computers are not self-replicating.
The same way we can study crime scenes without actually having been there to observe it. We do not need to see something to know that it has occurred.
I was of the understanding that in order for a scientific theory to even be taken seriously as a theory, it must be falsifiable and testable. That of course means that the theory must be tested. How do you test something that has allegedly happened in the past? Is my view of the scientific approach mistaken?
I was of the understanding that in order for a scientific theory to even be taken seriously as a theory, it must be falsifiable and testable. That of course means that the theory must be tested. How do you test something that has allegedly happened in the past? Is my view of the scientific approach mistaken?
Evolution is not something that has just happened in the past, it is an ongoing process. Life on currently on Earth is not a "final product."
Similarly, several of our other theories, like plate tectonics, are not easily observed, and are also things that have taken place in the past. People don't seem to challenge this one.
the evolution of species is based on mutation-their has never been 1 case in whichg a mutation has benefited the genes infact its the opposite the cells will always fight against a mutated gene-species have the ability to adapt but never to change into another species
life comes from life
Oh lord save me. Oh well: here goes, briefly. "... there's never been a case in which a mutation has benefitted the genes"??? On what do you base this nonsense? Please provide your documented source for this stupid statement. Each and every stable and retained DNA change (with the now spectacularly available tool of genome mapping) within the documented ancestry of species has proven to be of some measurable advantage, else it would have failed.
Yes, most allare lethal, being based on chance and all, but then, those would hardly be expected to survive and show up in subsequent offspring, now would they? "Only the strong survive", etc.
Logic 101, frankly.
Perhaps you'll now tell me (us) that mutations don't occur, or if they do, they are not then tested against the niche in which the organism lives?
Do tell. If you agree that they do occur (and you pretty much haveto admit that. I can show you down in the lab any day. Wanna come?), what consequences do you suppose result? Nothing?
"In fact.... cells always fight against a mutated gene...".
So.... just where again did you get your biosciences & genetics training, dobeable?
Two massive errors in four lines. Pretty good. I'd love to see a further paragraph of your composition and ideas on bioscience.
Help me here, Mystic. You gotta be at least a little embarrassed....
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.
