Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution A Proven Fact?


  • Please log in to reply
632 replies to this topic

#621 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 234 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 16 January 2017 - 01:05 PM

Ahhh but the problem is, they didn't, "discover" the notion that molecules will become men, for they do not. Therefore, "science" accepts unfalsifiable gibberish stories. 

science has been unable to demonstrate the molecules to man scenario, correct.
science has identified why it hasn't been able to demonstrate it though.

The problem is one of delineation. You must discern that which is the baby and that which is the bathwater. I am not throwing out the baby with the bathwater for I accept all of the things which operational science has uncovered, but the problem is, historical philosophies are enjoying the REPUTATION of operational science, but they aren't operational science!

at one time i would've said you are right.
evolutionary theory was indeed based on historical events, some of which could never be proved.
in my opinion, the current change in evolutionary theory is going to change all of that.
epigenetics is proof evolution is an operational paradigm.
it's my opinion that epigenetics will be found to be the primary force of evolution.
macro evolution will likely be found to be the result of epigenetics not being able to stabilize the genome.
this will result in a cascade (series) of major changes.
the above opinion of mine fits well with available data.

#622 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 17 January 2017 - 10:39 AM

science has been unable to demonstrate the molecules to man scenario, correct.science has identified why it hasn't been able to demonstrate it though.at one time i would've said you are right.evolutionary theory was indeed based on historical events, some of which could never be proved.in my opinion, the current change in evolutionary theory is going to change all of that.epigenetics is proof evolution is an operational paradigm.it's my opinion that epigenetics will be found to be the primary force of evolution.macro evolution will likely be found to be the result of epigenetics not being able to stabilize the genome.this will result in a cascade (series) of major changes.the above opinion of mine fits well with available data.



"epigenetics is proof evolution is an operational paradigm"


hmmm... Now if only Epigenetics could solve little problems like irreducible complexity, chicken or egg, symbiotic relationships, and a myriad of others you might be on to something... LOL

BTW, If you like, I could give you dozens of sticky little wickets to show you just what I am talking about!

#623 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 234 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 17 January 2017 - 12:59 PM

"epigenetics is proof evolution is an operational paradigm"


hmmm... Now if only Epigenetics could solve little problems like irreducible complexity, chicken or egg, symbiotic relationships, and a myriad of others you might be on to something... LOL

BTW, If you like, I could give you dozens of sticky little wickets to show you just what I am talking about!

the thing is, this stuff must conform to physical laws, or there is a physical law to explain it.
then again we are faced with such things as conciousness.

yes, abiogenesis does indeed have some problems.
it doesn't stop there though.

i really don't think creationists have much to worry about when it comes to "evolution disproving god".
it won't happen.
life has to come from previous life.

#624 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 583 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 18 January 2017 - 10:34 AM

science has been unable to demonstrate the molecules to man scenario, correct.
 

For the very simple reason that there is no "molecules to man scenario".

1) Humans aren't the pinnacle or end point of evolution

2) Evolution hasn't any goal, not humans, not swans and not jelly fish.



#625 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 234 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 18 January 2017 - 10:59 AM

For the very simple reason that there is no "molecules to man scenario".
1) Humans aren't the pinnacle or end point of evolution
2) Evolution hasn't any goal, not humans, not swans and not jelly fish.

this doesn't make any sense.
there has to be a molecules to first life, AND, there must be first life to man.
neither of the above has been demonstrated.
furthermore, science has no idea how life could have got here, they use the term "no plausible scenario".

#626 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 18 January 2017 - 03:12 PM

the thing is, this stuff must conform to physical laws, or there is a physical law to explain it.then again we are faced with such things as conciousness.yes, abiogenesis does indeed have some problems.it doesn't stop there though.i really don't think creationists have much to worry about when it comes to "evolution disproving god".it won't happen.life has to come from previous life.


"the thing is, this stuff must conform to physical laws, or there is a physical law to explain it."

And if there isn't?
"

#627 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 234 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 18 January 2017 - 03:24 PM

"the thing is, this stuff must conform to physical laws, or there is a physical law to explain it."

And if there isn't?
"

this is how science finds out the laws that govern our universe.
chemical valence is a perfect example of how this happens.
when chemistry was in its infancy, nothing was known about the atom except it was hypothesized to exist.
various experiments revealed that certain atoms combined together, and more particularly it was in integral units.
this led to the "valence bond" theory for atoms, and it has been verified over and over to be true.
there was no equation for this stuff, so scientists figured it all out by testing, hypothesizing, and researching.

#628 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 18 January 2017 - 03:34 PM

Fair enough.
 
I don't think Goku is too bad, I don't think he would wittingly try to twist my words, or at least I suspect he wouldn't but perhaps he slightly quote-mined me. I'll let him have it since he isn't such a bad lad. At least he does have genuine knowledge and I give him credit for that. But you're right that there are a lot of people that like to misrepresent our position!
 
Sometimes I am too cynical and I think in my own mind that logical things are so clear that every person that does not see them and accept them is up to something, but I think the Guru's motives aren't so bad, he has simply left the path Yoda advised him to stick to, and has temporarily flirted with the dark side of the force. But because he at least strives for knowledge, I shall re-Christen him, " Darth Atreyu", until he comes back from the dark side. 
 
;)   :yoda: 



"Sometimes I am too cynical and I think in my own mind that logical things are so clear that every person that does not see them and accept them is up to something,"


That is EXACTLY the same problem that I have.. I fail to realize that the cradle to grave indoctrination and brainwashing of the lie of Darwin has actually made many people BELIEVE that the Mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth is somehow "Scientific" A complete FRAUD..

#629 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 18 January 2017 - 04:54 PM

For the very simple reason that there is no "molecules to man scenario".
1) Humans aren't the pinnacle or end point of evolution
2) Evolution hasn't any goal, not humans, not swans and not jelly fish.


"For the very simple reason that there is no "molecules to man scenario".


You sure got THAT right..

#630 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 January 2017 - 01:44 PM

Driewerf said :

driewerf, on 18 Jan 2017 - 11:34 AM, said:

For the very simple reason that there is no "molecules to man scenario".
1) Humans aren't the pinnacle or end point of evolution
2) Evolution hasn't any goal, not humans, not swans and not jelly fish.

Another name for goal is effect. So you are saying evolution has no effect (goal). Any process though not conscious has an effect or goal. You are deluding yourself.

#631 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 633 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 19 January 2017 - 03:39 PM

Driewerf said :
Another name for goal is effect. So you are saying evolution has no effect (goal). Any process though not conscious has an effect or goal. You are deluding yourself.

Those don't mean the same thing at all. Goal specifically implies intent, and doesn't even necessarily imply an effect.

#632 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 19 January 2017 - 10:43 PM

Baloney. If there is a cause there will be an effect. If you are going to claim that a bird evolved then it is the effect of evolution (goal) or the result (effect) of natural selection.



#633 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 234 posts
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 20 January 2017 - 08:18 AM

Baloney. If there is a cause there will be an effect. If you are going to claim that a bird evolved then it is the effect of evolution (goal) or the result (effect) of natural selection.

I would say that Dr. Koonin's essays on where evolutionary biology is today are quite close to the the mark. The concept of natural selection as the foundation of evolutionary change has been largely superseded, mostly through the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, who have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.
. . .
Here's what Dr. Koonin writes (see above):
"There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a nonadaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation."

Kimura, Ohta, Jukes, and Crow dropped a monkey wrench into the "engine" at the heart of the modern synthesis — natural selection — and then Gould and Lewontin finished the job with their famous paper on “the spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm”. The rise of evo-devo over the past two decades has laid the groundwork for a completely new and empirically testable theory of macroevolution, a theory that is currently facilitating exponential progress in our understanding of how major evolutionary transitions happen. And iconoclasts like Lynn Margulis, Eva Jablonka, Marian Lamb, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, and David Sloan Wilson are rapidly overturning our understanding of how evolutionary change happens at all levels, and how it is inherited.
. . .
The modern synthesis is dead — long live the evolving synthesis!
- evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/modern-synthesis-is-dead-long-live.html




3 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users


    what if