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

this proves evolution occurs but it still doesnt prove darwin is right...

Dave Oldridge wrote:

Speciation occurs when subpopulations become genetically isolated from
one another. Given the observation that new genetic information is
continually arising, it is a mathematical certainty that isolated
groups will diverge. It's also been observed that continued
divergence of this type eventually results in genetic incompatibility.
Since this is textbook speciation and it HAS been observed, your
statement above is contrary to observation.

Where has it been observed, duplicated or falsified?

“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?

On Jan 22, 6:24�pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:

On Jan 22, 5:59�pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@big-loony.cow> screeched:

On Jan 20, 8:04 pm, John Clancy McDonald <""kookwoman1\"@kooksof

theworld.net"> wrote:

"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?

No!
Evolution is not even Science yet.

You misspelled " Creationism/ID is not even or ever science. "

Evolution IS science. Deal with it.

EVOLUTION IS CRAP. HOW ABOUT THAT?