| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"John Clancy McDonald kookwoman1\@kooksof theworld.net" |
| Date: |
20 Jan 2008 07:04:36 PM |
| Object: |
Is Evolution a Fact? |
“EVOLUTION is as much a fact as the heat of the sun,” asserts Professor
Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary scientist. Of course,
experiments and direct observations prove that the sun is hot. But do
experiments and direct observations provide the teaching of evolution
with the same undisputed support?
Before we answer that question, something needs to be cleared up. Many
scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things
may change slightly. Charles Darwin called this process “descent with
subsequent modification.” Such changes have been observed directly,
recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal
breeders. These changes can be considered facts. However, scientists
attach to such slight changes the term “microevolution.” Even the name
implies what many scientists assert—that these minute changes furnish
the proof for an altogether different phenomenon, one that no one has
observed, which they call macroevolution.
You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his
famous book The Origin of Species: “I view all beings not as special
creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings.” Darwin
said that over vast periods of time, these original “few beings,” or
so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved—by means of “extremely
slight modifications”—into the millions of different forms of life on
earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and
produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes
into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution.
To many, this second claim sounds reasonable. They wonder, ‘If small
changes can occur within a species, why should not evolution produce big
changes over long periods of time?’
The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
1. Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2. Natural selection leads to the production of new species.
3. The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and
animals.
Is the evidence for macroevolution so strong that it should be
considered a fact?
.
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 04:20:07 PM |
|
|
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:LGnnj.2877$Sa1.1459@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
(snip)
Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?
Step off the roof of the nearest building and let us know and whether you
were able to gather empirical data and hard evidence.
Me falling off the roof would be the RESULT of gravity. Prove gravity's
physical existance as you would prove anything else exists.
God is invisable? So is GRAVITY. But wait! God does not exists. Then gravity
must not exist either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 05:01:42 PM |
|
|
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> writes:
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:LGnnj.2877$Sa1.1459@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
(snip)
Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?
Step off the roof of the nearest building and let us know and whether you
were able to gather empirical data and hard evidence.
Me falling off the roof would be the RESULT of gravity. Prove gravity's
physical existance as you would prove anything else exists.
Science does not attempt to prove that anything exists, it attempts
to construct models of "what happens". Hopefully models which can be
manipulated mathematically, with an eye to seeing if the model
predicts ever more of "what happens" in the real world.
If you step off your roof over and over, the same things will
happen over and over. That's the only thing science cares about.
The first great model along these lines was Newton's, and his model
was so successful at describing and predicting "what happens" that
we still use it today.
But Newton refused to speculate on "what it was", or "how it worked" --
"hypotheses non fingo". He had no interest in proving anything exists.
God is invisable? So is GRAVITY. But wait! God does not exists. Then gravity
must not exist either.
Science has no problem with something being invisible. So if you
can come up with a model which will successfully describe what
God does, and even better predict what He will do in a way that
we can test, then science will cheerfully accept the existence
of God.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 06:11:18 PM |
|
|
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in message
news:1ysnj.60114$Mu4.30171@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:LGnnj.2877$Sa1.1459@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
(snip)
Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?
Step off the roof of the nearest building and let us know and whether you
were able to gather empirical data and hard evidence.
Me falling off the roof would be the RESULT of gravity. Prove gravity's
physical existance as you would prove anything else exists.
God is invisable? So is GRAVITY. But wait! God does not exists. Then
gravity must not exist either.
No, God is 'invisible'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
29 Jan 2008 06:35:26 PM |
|
|
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uaunj.13385$1f.3664@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in message
news:1ysnj.60114$Mu4.30171@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:LGnnj.2877$Sa1.1459@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
(snip)
Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?
Step off the roof of the nearest building and let us know and whether
you were able to gather empirical data and hard evidence.
Me falling off the roof would be the RESULT of gravity. Prove gravity's
physical existance as you would prove anything else exists.
God is invisable? So is GRAVITY. But wait! God does not exists. Then
gravity must not exist either.
No, God is 'invisible'.
you have the logic of a fly on *****.
you know what you are eating stinks, yet you gobble away thinking you are
nourished.
Psalm 47:7 For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with
understanding. 8 God reigneth over the heathen: God sitteth upon the throne
of his holiness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
29 Jan 2008 08:41:11 PM |
|
|
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in message
news:RCPnj.62535$vt2.1003@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"Ralph" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:uaunj.13385$1f.3664@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
"adman" <C72545@hottmail.net> wrote in message
news:1ysnj.60114$Mu4.30171@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:LGnnj.2877$Sa1.1459@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
(snip)
Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?
Step off the roof of the nearest building and let us know and whether
you were able to gather empirical data and hard evidence.
Me falling off the roof would be the RESULT of gravity. Prove gravity's
physical existance as you would prove anything else exists.
God is invisable? So is GRAVITY. But wait! God does not exists. Then
gravity must not exist either.
No, God is 'invisible'.
you have the logic of a fly on *****.
you know what you are eating stinks, yet you gobble away thinking you are
nourished.
Psalm 47:7 For God is the King of all the earth: sing ye praises with
understanding. 8 God reigneth over the heathen: God sitteth upon the
throne of his holiness.
And you have the intellect of a flea. When you understand my post come back.
Until then stay away.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 04:28:36 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:20:07 -0600, "adman" <C72545@hottmail.net>
wrote:
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:LGnnj.2877$Sa1.1459@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
(snip)
Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?
Step off the roof of the nearest building and let us know and whether you
were able to gather empirical data and hard evidence.
Me falling off the roof would be the RESULT of gravity. Prove gravity's
physical existance as you would prove anything else exists.
That was the parsimonious definition of gravity, moron - the
attractive force between masses. The definition has been refined since
to include subsequent knowledge in terms of curvature of space time.
Now provide a similar definition of "God" with the same kind of
justification. Starting with an observed effect.
Hint: it can't be done because there is nothing observed to give even
a minimal definition.
God is invisable? So is GRAVITY. But wait! God does not exists. Then gravity
must not exist either.
A stupid, dishonest, brainwashed idiot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Anacker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 04:46:48 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee , 01.28.2008:
God is invisable? So is GRAVITY. But wait! God does not exists. Then gravity
must not exist either.
I recomend an evening class about logic for absolute beginners. Maybe
together with an evening class about physics for braindeads. But I'm
afraid both wouldn't help you any further.
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.biology,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism
--
Lieblingsvideos auf youtube:
Judas Priest - Diamonds and Rust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4rNgXS850o
und unplugged
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdbVQ72jfsU&feature=related
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 04:56:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:46:48 +0100, Richard Anacker
<116@taunus-biker.de> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee , 01.28.2008:
It was the idiot hiding behind the anonymity of "adman" who said it,
not I.
God is invisable? So is GRAVITY. But wait! God does not exists. Then gravity
must not exist either.
I recomend an evening class about logic for absolute beginners. Maybe
together with an evening class about physics for braindeads. But I'm
afraid both wouldn't help you any further.
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.biology,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Anacker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 05:27:23 PM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee , 01.28.2008:
It was the idiot hiding behind the anonymity of "adman" who said it,
not I.
Of course, beg your pardon.
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.biology,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism
--
Lieblingsvideos auf youtube:
Joan Baez - With God on Our Side (Live 1966)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pih1hVdflnQ&feature=related
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 08:36:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:27:23 +0100, Richard Anacker
<116@taunus-biker.de> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee , 01.28.2008:
It was the idiot hiding behind the anonymity of "adman" who said it,
not I.
Of course, beg your pardon.
No problem.
Turns out "adman" is another of the net.psychopath Jabriol's fake ids.
Thanks...Chris
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.biology,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 11:10:10 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:36:40 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:27:23 +0100, Richard Anacker
<116@taunus-biker.de> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee , 01.28.2008:
It was the idiot hiding behind the anonymity of "adman" who said it,
not I.
Of course, beg your pardon.
No problem.
Turns out "adman" is another of the net.psychopath Jabriol's fake ids.
Unless Jabbers has stopped using Google and switched from Verizon to
Bell South, 'adman' isn't him.
Thanks...Chris
greets
richie
X'Posted to: alt.religion.jehovahs-witn,alt.biology,alt.talk.creationism,alt.atheism
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
01 Feb 2008 08:22:42 AM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:36:40 -0500, Christopher A.Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:27:23 +0100, Richard Anacker
<116@taunus-biker.de> wrote:
Christopher A.Lee , 01.28.2008:
It was the idiot hiding behind the anonymity of "adman" who said it,
not I.
Of course, beg your pardon.
No problem.
Turns out "adman" is another of the net.psychopath Jabriol's fake ids.
Unless Jabbers has stopped using Google and switched from Verizon to
Bell South, 'adman' isn't him.
adman is a jabbering idiot alright ......... but I'm not convinced he is
THE 'Jabbers' we have come to loathe ...... for starters ...... adman
may be illiterate like Jabriol ..... but his style of illiteracy is
distinctly different ...... and he doesn't carry on about Carol at every
opportunity ......
--
MA ....Yoiks .... and away .....
Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity
.............. and I'm not sure about the Universe ..........
- A. Einstein
Does Schrdinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
29 Jan 2008 12:08:05 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:20:07 -0600, adman wrote:
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:LGnnj.2877$Sa1.1459@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
(snip)
Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?
Step off the roof of the nearest building and let us know and whether
you were able to gather empirical data and hard evidence.
Me falling off the roof would be the RESULT of gravity.
If your falling off the roof is the result of gravity, then your falling
off the roof demonstrates that gravity must exist in order for the result
to occur.
Geez, you just can't get much more straightforward than that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 09:28:39 PM |
|
|
adman said the following on 1/28/2008 2:20 PM:
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:LGnnj.2877$Sa1.1459@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
(snip)
Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?
Step off the roof of the nearest building and let us know and whether you
were able to gather empirical data and hard evidence.
Me falling off the roof would be the RESULT of gravity. Prove gravity's
physical existance as you would prove anything else exists.
God is invisable? So is GRAVITY. But wait! God does not exists. Then gravity
must not exist either.
How does one test for the effect of God? You can jump off a roof and
fall and that's a test. Another test is to drop a pen and see if it falls.
How do you do the same for God?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act *
* of the whole American people which declared that *
* their legislature should make no law respecting *
* an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the *
* free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of *
* separation between church and state." *
* --Thomas Jefferson, 1802 *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 04:31:20 PM |
|
|
adman wrote:
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:LGnnj.2877$Sa1.1459@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
(snip)
Where is the empirical data and hard evidence that gravity exists?
Step off the roof of the nearest building and let us know and whether you
were able to gather empirical data and hard evidence.
Me falling off the roof would be the RESULT of gravity. Prove gravity's
physical existance as you would prove anything else exists.
God is invisable? So is GRAVITY. But wait! God does not exists. Then gravity
must not exist either.
Does the sun exist or not?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ebataitis" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 10:42:14 AM |
|
|
adman wrote:
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:D5mnj.3005$7d1.334@news01.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:b7lnj.2867$Sa1.1883@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other
There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty.
We
accept or reject the idea on faith.
Science goes on faith also. Science also uses faith-based theories to
explane its positions.
Take gravity as an example. The effects of gravity can be measured. But
gravity itself cannot be seen or measured as an physical substance.
Ever step on a scale?
The result of the scale is the EFFECT gravity has on me. It is not
gravity itself.
Take taxes as an example. The effects of taxes can be measured. But taxes
itself cannot be seen or measyred as a physical substance.
Exactly.
Can you prove that taxes exist? No,
OK, I can see this is going nowhere.
you can only measure the effect that
taxes have on your paycheck that indicate tax must exist.Can you see taxes?
Can you hold taxes in your hand? No. But you can feel the effect of taxes.
There no effect without cause except in the subatomic realm.
Likewise with gravity, we can feel its effects, but we cannot hold gravity
and look at it. So science takes the same leap of faith to believe gravity
exist based on the effects of gravity.
Do you believe the sun exists?
Then science laughs at others when they take the same leap of faith when
they believe in a creator because of the effects they experience from that
creator
They laugh at silly ideas yes.
The only thing i have seen evolve over the last few hundred years is science
itself.
Thanks heavens it has.
.
|
|
|
| User: "adman" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 04:21:31 PM |
|
|
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:GBnnj.2875$Sa1.1973@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
"ebataitis" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:D5mnj.3005$7d1.334@news01.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
"Elmer" <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:b7lnj.2867$Sa1.1883@news02.roc.ny...
adman wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other
There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty.
We
accept or reject the idea on faith.
Science goes on faith also. Science also uses faith-based theories to
explane its positions.
Take gravity as an example. The effects of gravity can be measured.
But gravity itself cannot be seen or measured as an physical
substance.
Ever step on a scale?
The result of the scale is the EFFECT gravity has on me. It is not
gravity itself.
Take taxes as an example. The effects of taxes can be measured. But taxes
itself cannot be seen or measyred as a physical substance.
Exactly.
Can you prove that taxes exist? No,
OK, I can see this is going nowhere.
you can only measure the effect that taxes have on your paycheck that
indicate tax must exist.Can you see taxes? Can you hold taxes in your
hand? No. But you can feel the effect of taxes.
There no effect without cause except in the subatomic realm.
Likewise with gravity, we can feel its effects, but we cannot hold
gravity and look at it. So science takes the same leap of faith to
believe gravity exist based on the effects of gravity.
Do you believe the sun exists?
Then science laughs at others when they take the same leap of faith when
they believe in a creator because of the effects they experience from
that creator
They laugh at silly ideas yes.
The only thing i have seen evolve over the last few hundred years is
science itself.
Thanks heavens it has.
You are a smart person.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 08:06:37 AM |
|
|
In article <b7lnj.2867$Sa1.1883@news02.roc.ny>,
Elmer <nylicens@frontiernet.net> wrote:
adman wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other
There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty. We
accept or reject the idea on faith.
Science goes on faith also. Science also uses faith-based theories to
explane its positions.
Take gravity as an example. The effects of gravity can be measured. But
gravity itself cannot be seen or measured as an physical substance.
Ever step on a scale?
out of curiosity how would you establish f equals kx
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
29 Jan 2008 01:12:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:53:11 GMT, Elmer <nylicens@frontiernet.net>
wrote:
adman wrote:
"Dave Oldridge" <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9A3341DEF361doldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159...
so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other
There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty. We
accept or reject the idea on faith.
Science goes on faith also. Science also uses faith-based theories to
explane its positions.
Take gravity as an example. The effects of gravity can be measured. But
gravity itself cannot be seen or measured as an physical substance.
Ever step on a scale?
Sheest!
Loaves & Fishes?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
28 Jan 2008 05:13:09 AM |
|
|
you can express both in almost the same way with one difference
darwin - the method of genetic change is pure random
id - the method of genetic change is not pure random
The randomness of new mutations with respect to needed functions is
observed, not hypothesized. If there is some kind of divine intervention
how many changes have been observed as they happened
and attributed to specific events?
there is no scientific observation of the majority of actual genetic
change as it happens
nor does biology have a mathematics that allows us to compute
from these assumptions observables like speciation rate
This is just plain 180 degreews wrong. A good deal of measurements jave
show me the derivation of say speciation rate derived solely
from assumptions about how nucleotide is changed or displaced
deriving speciation rate from say speciation rate
tells you nothing about the method of nucleotide change
so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other
There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty. We
intelligent design does not require identifying a designer
to argue otherwise is an ignorance of science works
(which is an old trick of the tobacco institute)
when youre working quantatively with numbers strong enough
to derive numerical probabilities
you can establish correlations without identifying the causation
in this case if we could actually predict things like speciation
we could compare prediction to observation
Christians. But some are so insecure in their faith that they must
needs manufacture evidence out of whole cloth and then insist that we
prove that all evolution (excepting domesticated species)
must be caused by only random genetic change
and then you get to talk about whole cloth
so if after five years we observe speciation
we cannot prove that pure chance could operate that quickly
nor can we prove that pure change would require more time
What else was at work here?
do you believe?
at this point the argument devolves to unsupported claims
about blind watchmakers and evolution being too fast
You're sputtering.
its called mathematics
a concept foreign to most biologists
scientifically mu is supported by the evidence
You're sputtering (and making incorrect claims about the evidence).
show me your derivation of probabilities
as usual such statements are not statements of fact available to
humans they are statements of faith and opinion
Mitation rates are readily measured. They are not statements of faith.
observed rates are measured
unless you have observed a sufficient number of genetic changes as they happen
and can attribute each observed change to a specific identified event
then you have not established what caused the mutation
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
29 Jan 2008 12:53:48 AM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mair_fheal-04619D.03130928012008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
you can express both in almost the same way with one difference
darwin - the method of genetic change is pure random
id - the method of genetic change is not pure random
The randomness of new mutations with respect to needed functions is
observed, not hypothesized. If there is some kind of divine
intervention
how many changes have been observed as they happened
and attributed to specific events?
Lots of them.
there is no scientific observation of the majority of actual
genetic change as it happens
nor does biology have a mathematics that allows us to compute
from these assumptions observables like speciation rate
This is just plain 180 degreews wrong. A good deal of measurements
jave
show me the derivation of say speciation rate derived solely
from assumptions about how nucleotide is changed or displaced
deriving speciation rate from say speciation rate
tells you nothing about the method of nucleotide change
It's not intended to. That task is performed by those who study the
actual chemistry of the changes.
so there is no scientific evidence to decide one or the other
There is no possible scientific test of God's universal sovereignty.
We
intelligent design does not require identifying a designer
to argue otherwise is an ignorance of science works
(which is an old trick of the tobacco institute)
ID needs positive physical evidence of its primary hypothetical entity
and should be intensely curious about its nature, IF ID wants to be
deemed science. But you see it doesn't. Its proponents want to change
the definition of science so that their non-science doctrines can be
taught AS science. It's a deception from the ground up.
when youre working quantatively with numbers strong enough
to derive numerical probabilities
you can establish correlations without identifying the causation
in this case if we could actually predict things like speciation
we could compare prediction to observation
We do.
Christians. But some are so insecure in their faith that they must
needs manufacture evidence out of whole cloth and then insist that we
prove that all evolution (excepting domesticated species)
must be caused by only random genetic change
and then you get to talk about whole cloth
So far, not OTHER cause has been observed. When you do observe a
designer meddling, then we'll all come watch, OK?
so if after five years we observe speciation
we cannot prove that pure chance could operate that quickly
nor can we prove that pure change would require more time
What else was at work here?
do you believe?
What I BELIEVE is the Nicene Creed. I accept biological evolution
because the evidence supports it.
at this point the argument devolves to unsupported claims
about blind watchmakers and evolution being too fast
You're sputtering.
its called mathematics
a concept foreign to most biologists
scientifically mu is supported by the evidence
You're sputtering (and making incorrect claims about the evidence).
show me your derivation of probabilities
1. Why are your impressed by the fact that nature is chock full of
events with extremely tiny prior probabilities?
2. You are the one making strange claims here, so show YOUR work.
as usual such statements are not statements of fact available to
humans they are statements of faith and opinion
Mitation rates are readily measured. They are not statements of
faith.
observed rates are measured
unless you have observed a sufficient number of genetic changes as
they happen and can attribute each observed change to a specific
identified event then you have not established what caused the
mutation
You're sputtering again. If your "standard" of evidence was adhered to
we'd still be praying for Thor to spare us instead of grounding our
buildings and towers.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
29 Jan 2008 04:44:40 AM |
|
|
prove that all evolution (excepting domesticated species)
must be caused by only random genetic change
and then you get to talk about whole cloth
So far, not OTHER cause has been observed. When you do observe a
thank you for playing
youre not doing science
youre doing dogma
a hypothesis stands or falls on its own
not because nobody can come up with a better alternative
thats what this whole testability is about
What I BELIEVE is the Nicene Creed. I accept biological evolution
i dont
i regard it as a political statement of the early church
the gospels doesnt spend a lot of time detailing the nature of jesus
concentrating rather on what he had to say
a few centuries later the church comes up with a load of dogma
and demands people accept it without proof because of political necessity
im comfortable saying there are aspects of jesus i dont understand
i dont know and i dont need to know
observed rates are measured
unless you have observed a sufficient number of genetic changes as
they happen and can attribute each observed change to a specific
identified event then you have not established what caused the
mutation
You're sputtering again. If your "standard" of evidence was adhered to
we'd still be praying for Thor to spare us instead of grounding our
buildings and towers.
actually it was this standard evidence
that started off modern physics and chemistry
what physics got with newton that biology doesnt have
is a mathematical tool that allows us to get into the heart of the matter
and make numerical prediction
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
31 Jan 2008 04:40:13 AM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mair_fheal-F136E6.02444029012008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
prove that all evolution (excepting domesticated species)
must be caused by only random genetic change
and then you get to talk about whole cloth
So far, not OTHER cause has been observed. When you do observe a
thank you for playing
youre not doing science
youre doing dogma
So imputing and UNobserved cause is doing science while imputing an
OBSERVED cause is doing dogma? Is this your cult's version of newspeak?
a hypothesis stands or falls on its own
not because nobody can come up with a better alternative
thats what this whole testability is about
Yep and people keep testing evolution and getting the same result...one
which you cannot except because the heretics in charge of your spiritual
education don't want you to.
What I BELIEVE is the Nicene Creed. I accept biological evolution
i dont
i regard it as a political statement of the early church
So you're not a Christian. I can accept that. Just don't tell me you
ARE one when you're not.
the gospels doesnt spend a lot of time detailing the nature of jesus
concentrating rather on what he had to say
a few centuries later the church comes up with a load of dogma
and demands people accept it without proof because of political
necessity
im comfortable saying there are aspects of jesus i dont understand
i dont know and i dont need to know
That's nice.
observed rates are measured
unless you have observed a sufficient number of genetic changes as
they happen and can attribute each observed change to a specific
identified event then you have not established what caused the
mutation
You're sputtering again. If your "standard" of evidence was adhered
to
we'd still be praying for Thor to spare us instead of grounding our
buildings and towers.
actually it was this standard evidence
that started off modern physics and chemistry
No it wasn't. Nobody, for example, has ever observed a complete orbit of
Pluto. That doesn't mean we do not know the orbit.
what physics got with newton that biology doesnt have
is a mathematical tool that allows us to get into the heart of the
matter
and make numerical prediction
Which happen to be wrong at high gravitational gradients and velocities,
but hey, it was a good approximation.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
31 Jan 2008 06:14:50 AM |
|
|
So imputing and UNobserved cause is doing science while imputing an
OBSERVED cause is doing dogma? Is this your cult's version of newspeak?
how many dna changes have been observed?
Yep and people keep testing evolution and getting the same result...one
which you cannot except because the heretics in charge of your spiritual
education don't want you to.
youre not dealing with what i write
youre dealing with what you want me to write
So you're not a Christian. I can accept that. Just don't tell me you
ARE one when you're not.
nicean creed came out of the arian and other controversies
which came out of the churchs decision thtat its way to political power
was to become the infallible source of all truth
the creed declares jesus existed before creation
the gospels is silent on this matter
the creed also declares there must be only one church
which ah-ha the people making the creed were in charge of
given how upset you are to have dogma on darwin challenged
i can see why you dont want to have church dogma challenged either
im comfortable saying there are aspects of jesus i dont understand
i dont know and i dont need to know
That's nice.
yes it is
you should cast aside your fears and try it someday
what physics got with newton that biology doesnt have
is a mathematical tool that allows us to get into the heart of the
matter
and make numerical prediction
Which happen to be wrong at high gravitational gradients and velocities,
but hey, it was a good approximation.
it was newtons ability to make numerical predictions
that itself showed the shortcomings in his work
we can apply the same standards to einsteins work
and see where gr is incomplete
darwins inability to make numerical predictions
means untestable aspects of his work remain dogma
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
01 Feb 2008 05:02:41 PM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mair_fheal-FEC745.04145031012008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
So imputing and UNobserved cause is doing science while imputing an
OBSERVED cause is doing dogma? Is this your cult's version of
newspeak?
how many dna changes have been observed?
Countless. The earliest measurements began with Alan Robertson's work in
the mid 1950's.
Yep and people keep testing evolution and getting the same
result...one which you cannot except because the heretics in charge
of your spiritual education don't want you to.
youre not dealing with what i write
youre dealing with what you want me to write
You're writing sheer nonsense and demonstration only your ignorance.
So you're not a Christian. I can accept that. Just don't tell me
you ARE one when you're not.
nicean creed came out of the arian and other controversies
which came out of the churchs decision thtat its way to political
power was to become the infallible source of all truth
Boy has someone been feeding you a lot of revised history!!!
the creed declares jesus existed before creation
the gospels is silent on this matter
That's nice. Sola scriptura is not a tenable doctrine as it is not
supported in tradition and is not taught in scripture. Thus it fails ALL
testsof doctrinal authenticity.
the creed also declares there must be only one church
which ah-ha the people making the creed were in charge of
given how upset you are to have dogma on darwin challenged
i can see why you dont want to have church dogma challenged either
There is no degma on Darwin. And you've not challenged anything except
the straw men you've created out of your ignorance.
im comfortable saying there are aspects of jesus i dont understand
i dont know and i dont need to know
That's nice.
yes it is
you should cast aside your fears and try it someday
I'm not afraid of much. But spiritual midgets with an agenda and heavy
weaponry do scare me.
what physics got with newton that biology doesnt have
is a mathematical tool that allows us to get into the heart of the
matter
and make numerical prediction
Which happen to be wrong at high gravitational gradients and
velocities, but hey, it was a good approximation.
it was newtons ability to make numerical predictions
that itself showed the shortcomings in his work
Numerical predictions are useful, but they are not the whole of science.
However, it IS interesting to note that applying the same objective
measure to observed morhological change and to that recorded in the
fossil record yield the same figure. You might argue that this is mere
coincidence but I do not believe it is.
we can apply the same standards to einsteins work
and see where gr is incomplete
darwins inability to make numerical predictions
means untestable aspects of his work remain dogma
No, it just means that the tests must be other than numeric. However
much of the genetic evidence is MORE than numeric. It's very clear.
For example, humans and chimps have GULO genes that have been severely
ravaged by (apparently) the same mutation. Evolution explains this
easily, even predictiong such artifacts. Do you have an alternative
explanation?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
01 Feb 2008 05:38:16 PM |
|
|
So imputing and UNobserved cause is doing science while imputing an
OBSERVED cause is doing dogma? Is this your cult's version of
newspeak?
how many dna changes have been observed?
Countless. The earliest measurements began with Alan Robertson's work in
the mid 1950's.
he observed the effects of changed dna
not the changes themselves
Yep and people keep testing evolution and getting the same
result...one which you cannot except because the heretics in charge
of your spiritual education don't want you to.
youre not dealing with what i write
youre dealing with what you want me to write
You're writing sheer nonsense and demonstration only your ignorance.
i win
That's nice. Sola scriptura is not a tenable doctrine as it is not
catholic *****
feh
Which happen to be wrong at high gravitational gradients and
velocities, but hey, it was a good approximation.
it was newtons ability to make numerical predictions
that itself showed the shortcomings in his work
Numerical predictions are useful, but they are not the whole of science.
retreat noted
However, it IS interesting to note that applying the same objective
measure to observed morhological change and to that recorded in the
fossil record yield the same figure. You might argue that this is mere
coincidence but I do not believe it is.
since you dont have a deduced rate to compare to
it is irrelevant to the matter at hand
ive never said there is no evolution
darwins inability to make numerical predictions
means untestable aspects of his work remain dogma
No, it just means that the tests must be other than numeric. However
actually for this specific question you do need numbers
since it about discovering a probability function
much of the genetic evidence is MORE than numeric. It's very clear.
For example, humans and chimps have GULO genes that have been severely
ravaged by (apparently) the same mutation. Evolution explains this
easily, even predictiong such artifacts. Do you have an alternative
explanation?
the question isnt evolution
the question is whether you can prove the mutation is random
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
03 Feb 2008 12:21:00 AM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mair_fheal-F27E08.15381601022008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
So imputing and UNobserved cause is doing science while imputing
an OBSERVED cause is doing dogma? Is this your cult's version of
newspeak?
how many dna changes have been observed?
Countless. The earliest measurements began with Alan Robertson's
work in the mid 1950's.
he observed the effects of changed dna
not the changes themselves
Yep and people keep testing evolution and getting the same
result...one which you cannot except because the heretics in
charge of your spiritual education don't want you to.
youre not dealing with what i write
youre dealing with what you want me to write
You're writing sheer nonsense and demonstration only your ignorance.
i win
That's nice. Sola scriptura is not a tenable doctrine as it is not
catholic *****
In other words, you're unable to defend your protestant *****.
feh
Which happen to be wrong at high gravitational gradients and
velocities, but hey, it was a good approximation.
it was newtons ability to make numerical predictions
that itself showed the shortcomings in his work
Numerical predictions are useful, but they are not the whole of
science.
retreat noted
Abject ignorance noted.
However, it IS interesting to note that applying the same objective
measure to observed morhological change and to that recorded in the
fossil record yield the same figure. You might argue that this is
mere coincidence but I do not believe it is.
since you dont have a deduced rate to compare to
it is irrelevant to the matter at hand
This is a lie.
ive never said there is no evolution
darwins inability to make numerical predictions
means untestable aspects of his work remain dogma
No, it just means that the tests must be other than numeric. However
actually for this specific question you do need numbers
since it about discovering a probability function
much of the genetic evidence is MORE than numeric. It's very clear.
For example, humans and chimps have GULO genes that have been
severely ravaged by (apparently) the same mutation. Evolution
explains this easily, even predictiong such artifacts. Do you have
an alternative explanation?
the question isnt evolution
the question is whether you can prove the mutation is random
No such proof is necessary. The mutations are OBSERVED to be
statistically random with respect to future needed function.
That doesn't mean they ARE random, just that they cannot be distinguished
from actually random ones.
Bit then, you're obviouly vastly overrated by your only real fan, who is
a complete narcissist.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
03 Feb 2008 12:51:52 AM |
|
|
That's nice. Sola scriptura is not a tenable doctrine as it is not
catholic *****
In other words, you're unable to defend your protestant *****.
dont need to
since you dont have a deduced rate to compare to
it is irrelevant to the matter at hand
This is a lie.
where is it
all youve presented are observed rates
the question isnt evolution
the question is whether you can prove the mutation is random
No such proof is necessary. The mutations are OBSERVED to be
statistically random with respect to future needed function.
do say (and say and say)
youre still making the same mistake
i guess youre intellectually incapable of understanding that
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
04 Feb 2008 06:24:05 AM |
|
|
mariposas rand mair fheal <mair_fheal@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:mair_fheal-8291A0.22515202022008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net:
That's nice. Sola scriptura is not a tenable doctrine as it is not
catholic *****
In other words, you're unable to defend your protestant *****.
dont need to
Not yet.
since you dont have a deduced rate to compare to
it is irrelevant to the matter at hand
This is a lie.
where is it
all youve presented are observed rates
So? How would you suggest we "deduce" one and why would it be better
than an observed rate? We deduce from the observed mutation rates and
from the observed rate of morphological change that these are ongoing.
One does not "deduce" something in a vacuum with no observed data (unless
one is a scholastic like most creationists, in which case you "deduce"
things from your scriptural interpretations all the time without
reference to the real world).
the question isnt evolution
the question is whether you can prove the mutation is random
No such proof is necessary. The mutations are OBSERVED to be
statistically random with respect to future needed function.
do say (and say and say)
youre still making the same mistake
The alleged mistake is non-existent.
i guess youre intellectually incapable of understanding that
I guess you're intellectually incapable of rational discussion.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
.
|
|
|
| User: "mariposas rand mair fheal" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Evolution a Fact? |
04 Feb 2008 12:38:13 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9A3A2CC606ECCdoldridgsprintca@64.59.135.159>,
Dave Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
where is it
all youve presented are observed rates
So? How would you suggest we "deduce" one and why would it be better
than an observed rate? We deduce from the observed mutation rates and
from the observed rate of morphological change that these are ongoing.
i suppose i can give this one last chance to seep into your brain
the basic ideas have been known for millenia
the earth is more or less a sphere
sun the moon the planets orbit each other
heavy objects fall toward the center of the earth when not supported
the actual arrangements of what orbited what varied
but the basic ideas where there
along with an elegant theory from aristotle
that explained why heavenly objects travelled in perfect circles
and why objects fell with constant velocity
all was wonderfulness
then galileo measured the speed of falling objects
and discovered they had constant acceleration not constant velocity
and tycho brahe measured the heavens
and could not fit objects like mars into a perfect circle
so it was when the numerical predictions of aristotlean physics
were actually tested empirically that we learn theres something wrong
even though some assumptions of the theory could not be directed tested
(such as the moon was composed of a different type of matter
than found anywhere on earth)
from these numerical predictions could be made and tested to observation
then comes newton with his universal gravitation that explains
keplers calculation from brahe of ellipitical rather than circular orbits
and from galileo observation of constnat acceleration
newton then uses his theory to calculate details of the moons orbit
and to make numerical prediction based on his theory
subsequent observation agree with his prediction to a sufficient degree
so that newton and rest of the world had real reasons to accept his theory
other than its just the newest shiny object
or oh gosh that makes calvinism actually sensible
(and no newton isnt the end of the story
but its his own ability to make numerical prediction that can be tested
that spelled his demise
just einstein is also having problems under extreme conditions)
One does not "deduce" something in a vacuum with no observed data (unless
one is a scholastic like most creationists, in which case you "deduce"
things from your scriptural interpretations all the time without
reference to the real world).
you are presenting two observations
a - life evolves at the rate x today
b - life evolved at rate x in the past
we can conclude from this that
the underlying mechanism of evolution has likely remained the same
however this tells us nothing about the mechanism
except we can be confident that it exists and has remained unchanged
over billions of year
nothing in that confirms nor denies dna change is random (1)
do say (and say and say)
youre still making the same mistake
The alleged mistake is non-existent.
catholic logic
an authority figure says it must be
and you must agree
i guess youre intellectually incapable of understanding that
I guess you're intellectually incapable of rational discussion.
logically we have two conditionals
if genetic change is purely random then life will evolve
if genetic change is not purely random then life will evolve
and one observation
life evolves
from which you make the demand
genetic change is purely random
please explain under what theory of logic this constitutes a rational conclusion
(2)
my demand by the way is
genetic change is purely random or it is not purely random
which is a deduction constitent (the excluded middel) with classical logic
now if we can ever get to the point of numerical predictins
p - if genetic change is purely random then life will evolve at rate y
q - if genetic change is not purely random then life will evolve at rate z
at this point we can compare y and z to x above
and we can actually compute a confidence that x is closer to y than z
thus supporting p over q
or that x is actually closer to z thus supporting q over p
in lieu of numerical predictions all we have are emotionalism and dogma
and political motives rather than science in demanding either p or q
now be rational show the precise error in the above presentation
pointing the exact faulty statement and erroneous conclusion
or just declare it anathema and flounce away in triumph
--
1 oddly enough we actually have an existent proof of intelligent design
ie intelligent design has actually be directly observed
and that its effects (and effectiveness) have been observed
in some cases we can even name the designer
domesiticated plants and animals have been subject to intelligent design
for maybe 10000 or 15000 years as farmers control their breeding
and we now have genetic engineering tinkering with dna sequence directly
2 an alternative would be a statistically signficant number
of observations of actual dna changes as they happen
this is not merely putting fruitflies in a bottle
and coming back a few years later saying oh they changed
this actually observing a signficant fraction of dna strands
under natural conditions
detecting each nucleotide sequence change
and tying the event to a specific causation
such as gamma ray or mutagen or recombination alternation
i suspect i have more mitosis and dna events happening unobserved
in any single day in my own body
then have been actually observed in the whole history of biology (3)
3 footnotes prove im doing science and rational discussion
so there pbbbbbbbblt
arf meow arf - everything thing i know i learned
from the collective unconscience of odd bodkins
sacramento - political pigsty of the western world
or a babys arm holding an apple
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
