What about the differences between chimps and humans?

[Astrid]

It’s because of “us guys” that you can no longer own slaves. Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it. Religious people have a way of sweeping these things under the carpet, then acting like they were the one responsible for emancipation.

It's like the CCP claiming credit for China's economic growth,
which is just grotesque.

 

[Astrid]

Do you think the discussion would be more productive if you avoided the snide, contemptuous style? I think it would.
Scientists have often commented on the singular lack of such an example. Probably more comments have been made about the misinterpretation that many have made of that lack.

• I wonder if you have actually read the work. It is jammed pack with examples of biological change as evidence by domestication of animals and the snapshot of organisms in nature and reasonable projections as to their past. (Not to mention the evidence implicit in fossils.)
  
• I say snapshot because it should be self evident that since speciation generally takes a considerable time in human terms it was not likely Darwin would have had the opportunity to witness it first hand.

Edit: I completely overlooked your opening sentence. That is one use of a scientfic hypothesis, but it may also be of value in determining what has happened in the past.

It's why I put same person on ig.
Let me know if it changes, meanwhile I
don't need to be treated to that sort of
contemptuous abuse.

 

[Frank Robert]

? A scientific hypothesis find its merit in its usefulness to predict future events.

Let me explain, based on observations ... oh, wait. That doesn't apply here. Darwin wrote a book entitled, "On the Origin of Species" without a single observation of speciation (whatever that is). Doesn't that fact put his book in the Sci-Fi section?

Perhaps you had a bad dream.

Creationists tend to have a naive understanding of science. Darwin's writings were theoretical and his insights spawned 10s of thousands of scientific hypothesis for nearly two centuries. Even today Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is central to modern biology. How many scientists have a similar record?

 

[Astrid]

You said that smoking is a sin. I just want to know how you know what is a sin and what isn't, especially if it's not in the bible. My former co-religionists can always check with the pope and his minions, what do you guys do? I really don't know protestants do these things. I never had any interest in other religions.

There's a Bible verse that can be interpreted to
justify or condemn whatever you want.

 

[o_mlly]

Do you think the discussion would be more productive if you avoided the snide, contemptuous style? I think it would.

Yes, yes. Of course you are right. But we don't want to take all the fun out of these discussions, do we?

Scientists have often commented on the singular lack of such an example. Probably more comments have been made about the misinterpretation that many have made of that lack.

• I wonder if you have actually read the work. It is jammed pack with examples of biological change as evidence by domestication of animals and the snapshot of organisms in nature and reasonable projections as to their past. (Not to mention the evidence implicit in fossils.)
  
• I say snapshot because it should be self evident that since speciation generally takes a considerable time in human terms it was not likely Darwin would have had the opportunity to witness it first hand.

Edit: I completely overlooked your opening sentence. That is one use of a scientfic hypothesis, but it may also be of value in determining what has happened in the past.

"I wonder if you have actually read the work." "Snide" point given!

Yes, but it has been awhile. One cannot use observations of microevoluiton to demonstrate anything more than microevolution. Extrapolation is reasonable only from evidence that is the same in kind but not observed.

 

[o_mlly]

Perhaps you had a bad dream.

Snide point given! Pls refer to "Ophiolite"s Point of Orderliness"

Creationists tend to have a naive understanding of science. Darwin's writings were theoretical and his insights spawned 10s of thousands of scientific hypothesis for nearly two centuries. Even today Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is central to modern biology. How many scientists have a similar record?

I'm a scientist. I'm encouraged by the movement away from paleontology to molecular biology and organic chemistry to evidence how evolution events. Physics, as any physicist will attest, is the ultimate science to explain how everything works. I think we'll get there sooner than later.

 

[Frank Robert]

One cannot use observations of microevoluiton to demonstrate anything more than microevolution. Extrapolation is reasonable only from evidence that is the same in kind but not observed.

The natural processes of both micro and macro evolution are the same, the evidence of macro-evolution is demonstrated from predictions of common ancestry.

 

[Ophiolite]

"I wonder if you have actually read the work." "Snide" point given!

I apologise if you took it as such. I often preface a query in conversation withe words "I wonder if . . ." I apply when I am doubtful, but wish to tactfully enquire what perhaps I am meant to take as a given. Such was the use here.

One cannot use observations of microevoluiton to demonstrate anything more than microevolution.

But we can use sequences of microevolution to demonstrate macroevolution.

Extrapolation is reasonable only from evidence that is the same in kind but not observed.

Which is exactly what we do, envisaging a sequence of micro changes on an observed trajectory.

 

[o_mlly]

The natural processes of both micro and macro evolution are the same, the evidence of macro-evolution is demonstrated from predictions of common ancestry.

A prediction is not evidence.

 

[driewerf]

Even not when demonstrably wrong.

Faith: believing something, even when science shows otherwise.

Science is notorious for demonstrating things that are later shown to be wrong.

Geocentrism, Phlogiston theory, Nebraska Man, Pluto, Thalidomide, the list goes on.

I'm not going to update my profile with every issue of Scientific American that comes out.

Science is notorious for showing things right. Entire libraries full of it.

 

[Frank Robert]

Snide point given! Pls refer to "Ophiolite"s Point of Orderliness"

I apologize for the remark.

I'm a scientist. I'm encouraged by the movement away from paleontology to molecular biology and organic chemistry to evidence how evolution events. Physics, as any physicist will attest, is the ultimate science to explain how everything works. I think we'll get there sooner than later.

Whether or not physics is the ultimate science is not a justification to degrade Darwin's recognized scientific insights and contributions.

 

[Frank Robert]

A prediction is not evidence.

Quibble over the word evidence if you want but the fact remains that a prediction is the outcome you would observe if your hypothesis were correct.

 

[Frank Robert]

Science is notorious for demonstrating things that are later shown to be wrong.

You are complaining that science is self correcting.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are complaining that science is self correcting.

Nope. I'm saying I'm not going to change my beliefs with every new discovery that comes around.

As I understand it, heliocentrism had a long probation period with religion, until it was finally accepted.

That's why Galileo was placed under house arrest (which turned out to be a blessing in disguise).

People today fault religion for not jumping on the heliocentric bandwagon fast enough; but you have to realize that some things take more time to accept than others.

 

[o_mlly]

Whether or not physics is the ultimate science is not a justification to degrade Darwin's recognized scientific insights and contributions.

Good scientists are always skeptics. I don't degrade but I do critically examine the claims.

Leaving the evidentiary issues aside for now, examine the rationale. Natural selection by random mutations identifies the environment as the ultimate change agent underlying all the diversity and complexity of living beings. But the evidence on earth's environment is that it is cyclical, not directional. How can a change agent that is cyclical be the cause of directional changes, eg, diversity and complexity in creatures? One might say that once a creature evolves it retains the beneficial trait forever. But that would cancel out the random gene assumption. I'm not saying it cannot be rationalized, almost anything can.

 

[o_mlly]

Quibble over the word evidence if you want but the fact remains that a prediction is the outcome you would observe if your hypothesis were correct.

Hardly a quibble. To paraphrase your post: "If your hypothesis were correct then you would observe the outcome." Do you have that observation yet? If not then we must hold the prediction in abeyance ie., not evidence; for now, just another opinion.

Say, I hypothesize that on Oct. 30, 2022, the human race will be extinct. Is that evidence? Should we proceed to live according to the hypothesis. I'm not.

 

[Astrid]

Perhaps you had a bad dream.

Creationists tend to have a naive understanding of science. Darwin's writings were theoretical and his insights spawned 10s of thousands of scientific hypothesis for nearly two centuries. Even today Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is central to modern biology. How many scientists have a similar record?

Putting the best face on it and all,
most are quite sincere.
But sure, creationists are ignorant of science,
aggravated by recourse to
creationists sites and their lies.
There are, after all, no known data showing
ToE or deep time to be false, and one even
moderately skilled in the art knows that.

So to debate requires that one employ deception
of some sort.

Those few who are knowledgeable yet
talk yec anyway may be in a severe cognitive
dissonance fix, or merely cynical about their
dishonesty- not a rare thing among preachers,
unfortunately, as scandals big and small so often
reveal.

 

[Frank Robert]

Nope. I'm saying I'm not going to change my beliefs with every new discovery that comes around.

Hypothesis and theories are provisional and do not claim proof.

As I understand it, heliocentrism had a long probation period with religion, until it was finally accepted.

There is no obligation for science and religion to agree but it is good when they do.

That's why Galileo was placed under house arrest (which turned out to be a blessing in disguise).

It was a valuable lesson for both sides.

People today fault religion for not jumping on the heliocentric bandwagon fast enough; but you have to realize that some things take more time to accept than others.

I like the Catholic teaching that science and the Christian faith are complementary.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are, after all, no known data showing
ToE or deep time to be false, and one even moderately skilled in the art knows that.

Interesting word choice ("the art"), in light of the fact of who I believe are in control of teaching the arts & sciences today.

 

[AV1611VET]

I like the Catholic teaching that science and the Christian faith are complementary.

God gave us science to make our lives better, and to discover, at the proper time, His "easter eggs" implanted in His creation.

As I said before, my favorite example of this is oil.

 

[Frank Robert]

So to debate requires that one employ deception
of some sort.

I have given this a lot of thought and now view it not as deception but as the a type of denial associated with addictions.