|
|
Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by JP(Homo sapiens) on January 17, 1999 at 19:35:57:
In Reply to: What science is. posted by Rich on January 17, 1999 at 16:07:37:
: Oh they have a theory alright. They have murder weapons galore. They have all of that. You would go away for life.
If they have a theory for macroevolution , you
havn't told me what it is yet, unless you still
insist natural selection somehow creates new
genes.
: : And again, the cirstantial evidences you named
: : are up for question:
: : 1. fossil record: have already been through my arguments
: : against this.
: You are blind to the fossil record. No offense, but you are just too hard to convince. Science would get no where if we kept trying to demonstrate to cynics that a wheel is a wheel. A whale with legs is a whale with legs, a tetrapod with gills is a tetrapod with gills, a dinosaur with feathers is a dinosaur with feathers. What do you want?
First of all, the example that was given for
"dinosaurs with feathers" was not the case at all.
Archaeopteryx had feathers, but was it a dinosaur?
This suggests it was warm blooded. The other
example given(SInosaurus) turned out to be
abandoned by evolutionists as they do not know
exactly what the animal's relationship is.
: : 2. developmental biology: Are you still trying to
: : p this off as evidence of evolution? Of course,
: : by any model used, you would expect stages in early
: : embryonic development to be similar. Since the
: : embryonic animal begins its existence in each case
: : as a single celled union of two parental cells,
: : and the following cell multiplication must operate
: : for some time in the same type of environment,
: : and since futhurmore many of the structures developed
: : would be somewhat similar, it would be natural
: : that the developing embryos would look much alike
: : in an early stage of development. Quite early
: : in developent, however, significant differences
: : begin to emerge, and these superficial resemblences
: : give way to the appropriate distinctive characteristics.
: : The differences are much more pronounced, even in early
: : stages of development. Incidentally, no competent
: : evolutionists still use this as evidence for
: : evolution.
: Oh puh-lease, developmental biology is an incredibly hot topic in macroevolutionary ysis. Homeotic genes and the process of devlopment are essential cues. Homologies are essential clues to relatedness. That all chordates share gills, a notochord and a post tail are superficial? On what planet? I don't think you are from this planet. Perhaps you are from the gas giants.
Oh come on, do you really think that the development
of fish and humans is the same, which have vastly
different DNA codes?
: : 3. Anatomical atavisms: Many of these that are
: : mentioned , or were mentioned in the past, turned
: : out to indeed have a function. Man, in his
: : ignorance and arrogance, sometimes thinks he
: : knows what all the function of everything is.
: : And I don't know if you could say that goosebumps
: : in humans have no function whatsoever.
: O.K. if it seems to make sense in the light of evolution, then you say, "well, how do you know?" I don't, but reasonable people can make a legitimate case. I don't find you to be reasonable. You wish to question the nose on your face.
Originally, evolutionists thought this about the
thymus gland, because it had no known function
in the adult animal. They also thought this
about the appendex. Both turn out to have
functions, and I think goose bumps have a function
too, albeit not one that would save anyones life.
:
: : 4. Molecular biology. As I have mentioned before,
: : this proves nothing about evolution, just in the
: : case of homologous structures. Again, proving
: : causation in science on the basis of correlation
: : is a dangerous premise. Also, what would you
: : expect the DNA codes of organisms with similar
: : anatomical parts or morphological similarities to
: : be, vastly different? If two organisms have arms
: : that look similar, I would expect the DNA coding
: : for them to be similar, based on any model used.
: OK, so are you giving a different model. I'm waiting. God created all creatures the way he did. Then there is no scientific explanation for the geography of species. God just made things that way. That all mammals in Auatralia are marsupials does not mean that they share a common ancestor, but that God was feeling "pouchy" that day? Give me more, give me a better explanation.
I never said species could not change within there
original genetic types, or adapt to new
environments, or be isolated and be the predominant
type in a particular place.
: : 5. I'm not a geologist, so I won't comment on this.
: : However, I always thought it funny that scientists
: : postulated that the early earth would have just the
: : right atmosphere to allow life to appear, based on
: : the fact that life exists and evolution created it.
: You are ignorant of the scientific method. Scientists that study the early atmosphere do not ume anything. They look for corroborating evidence. There is no evidence of plants. There is no evidence of oxygenated rock strata. There is no evidence that oxygen would be common on a newly formed planet. There is evidence that the early atmosphere was a reducing not oxidating environment. These are not umptions, but hard experimental work.
If I am so ignorant to the scientific method, how
come they are the ones trying to apply science
to something they could never see? The facts are,
nobody can know exactly what the early earth was
like, apart from clues gathered from today, of
what the earth was like. You could make no
observations of the early earth, and make no
tests to test your models about it. We are more
in the realm of speculation of what might have been,
similar to speculations about the origins of life,
then strict science. Who then is ignorant of
the scientific method? You who think if we can
dream up a possible scenario to make things work,
then it is true?
: : 6. Genetic changes in populations. No one
: : questions that this can occur, however, this is
: : not macroevolution. The extrapolation of microevolution
: : to macroevolution is not valid, and is bad science.
: You have no idea what is and what is not science. I will say it again, microevolution does not prove evolution, it is merely one of tools that evolutionary biologists use. No one says that if you show microevolution that you have demonstated the entire process of macroevolution. But people do argue that it is a reasonable mechanism.
If natural selection is a reasonable mechanism for
macroevolution, why don't you explain to me how
this occurs? No one here has shown me how natural
selection can build up the genome of a single
stranded polynucleotide to a multichromosome
system.
Somehow I managed to get through 20 science cles,
all the while being ignorant to the scientific method.
The state university must be really slipping.