- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,810
- 52,555
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Now show those same steps in creating a living organism (with no scientific help) from non-living materials (that means no scientific lab to play around in).
Then you must be okay with science since scientists don't do that.I'm not the type of person who likes others telling "this is how it is, you just have to believe us".
Pehaps this explains it simply enough for you to understand:And it seemed very redundant and meaningless to me back then (some 50 years ago) as it does to me today. It sounds like some say "world salad", to a true science at heart person it makes sense but to the common person, a theory and a hypothesis are just an idea - same words, same meaning. As I mentioned in another post, when I explain somewhat complex topics to people, who aren't affluent in the area, I break it down so even a 10 year old can understand it (if necessary). Science needs to start communicating with the common man world better.
It's funny, there are people with PhDs and they don't align with the evolution theory. Just because I'm very rusty on my "theory" and "hypothesis" definition does mean I can't present an argument against evolution. And as for the anti-intellectualism, oh boo hoo, like that is a real victimhood. That's like a rich person saying "people don't understand me and like me because I run the water all day long so that I can keep the freshest water in my Olympic size swimming pool".They can if the common man has a high school education.
Among those with genuine PhDs in relevant fields, the number who reject common descent is really, really tiny. Vanishingly small.It's funny, there are people with PhDs and they don't align with the evolution theory.
Go for it. I've been looking at creationist arguments for several decades and have yet to see a good one, but anything is possible.Just because I'm very rusty on my "theory" and "hypothesis" definition does mean I can't present an argument against evolution.
So based upon the masterclass article you gave me it should be the Hypothesis of Evolution not the Theory of Evolution. Because with the little information science has from our past (remember only 50 pieces of a 100,000 piece puzzle), they are just making educated guesses (yes, they may have some facts but nearly enough to form a TheoryPehaps this explains it simply enough for you to understand:
A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. In other words, a hypothesis is an educated guess about the relationship between multiple variables....A scientific theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that is widely accepted among the scientific community and supported by data. Scientific theories are confirmed by many tests and experiments...
Read the link; it seems about as simple as one can make it and still be accurate.
It's funny, there are people with PhDs ...
I beg to differ. I am finding more scientific people each day questioning evolution or Darwinism.Among those with genuine PhDs in relevant fields, the number who reject common descent is really, really tiny. Vanishingly small.
So we're back to where we were a while ago when I asked you to post an example of scientists saying "you must believe us" and you didn't reply.Not when it comes to evolution they aren't.
I was hoping you'd show upWhich stands for "Doctor of Philosophy."
These guys are top-notch philosophers.
But bottom-of-the-barrel theologians.
You tried, I appreciate that. What can I say but that I'm just a ordinary common person. I'll do my best not to bother you anymore. I know I can be a pain.Hvizsgyak, I'm replying like this since this is the only way I can see myself addressing this issue, and after seeing your other comments on this thread, because I... I really cannot figure out your problem.
You say that science should share a stage with Biblical creationism, then you also say that the Enuma Elish should be given the same sort of scrutiny as any other scientific work. You also say in response to Bradskii that you don't understand scientific parlance and that scientists should dumb it down for you and you seem to have no desire to actually want to educate yourself and find that science uses a whole different and particular language set, just the same as any other specialised subject. You seem to have the most basic understanding of science and yet also seem to ONLY want to stick to that basic understanding and think that everything can fit into the basic slot. You mention alternate theories and yet when asked on them you bring up Christian Biblical creationism and the ancient Akkadian creation story, both of which are much more theological than scientific.
I am stuck exactly on what you want from this thread. I really am. Because you're confusing the hell out of me.
I'm sorry River Jordan, I lost my train of thought. Non-living material coming together (by itself) to create a simple form of life. I think that's where I was going with my thoughts.So we're back to where we were a while ago when I asked you to post an example of scientists saying "you must believe us" and you didn't reply.
Can you give an example this time?
No, you're still not getting it. You see, Darwin made a lot of predictions, based on his theory. And a huge number of them have since been confirmed to be true.So based upon the masterclass article you gave me it should be the Hypothesis of Evolution not the Theory of Evolution.
Well, let's ask a knowledgeable YE creationist:Because with the little information science has from our past (remember only 50 pieces of a 100,000 piece puzzle), they are just making educated guesses (yes, they may have some facts but nearly enough to form a Theory).
FYI that's not an anti-evolution statement. All it says is they are skeptical that all of life's history can be attributed to mutation and selection, which I promise you every evolutionary biologist agrees with.I beg to differ. I am finding more scientific people each day questioning evolution or Darwinism.
Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory
Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newmanthenewamerican.com
You need to show where the scientists who do origins research have said "you have to believe us" as you claimed.I'm sorry River Jordan, I lost my train of thought. Non-living material coming together (by itself) to create a simple form of life. I think that's where I was going with my thoughts.
I was hoping you'd show up.
Your dismissal of the very most basic of terminology that serves as a barrier to your understanding is telling. (And I speak of understanding, not acceptance.)And it seemed very redundant and meaningless to me back then (some 50 years ago) as it does to me today.
First of all they are definitely not the same word (different lengths, start with different letters) nor are the meanings that hard to distinguish. Calling it "world" salad is nothing more than an excuse to not engage in what is being discussed.It sounds like some say "world salad", to a true science at heart person it makes sense but to the common person, a theory and a hypothesis are just an idea - same words, same meaning.
Wealth has nothing to do with it.As I mentioned in another post, when I explain somewhat complex topics to people, who aren't affluent in the area,
I told you already. We'll deal with you and others like you at the HS level. You're an adult right? You're not mentally impared, right? You actually graduated from HS, right? Then you shouldn't have any problem with us treating you with the respect of not talking down to you like a small child.I break it down so even a 10 year old can understand it (if necessary). Science needs to start communicating with the common man world better.
@River Jordan already talked about this article, so I'll leave that to him.I beg to differ. I am finding more scientific people each day questioning evolution or Darwinism.
Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory
Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newmanthenewamerican.com
An article on a creationist site about a computer scientist. That guy isn't a scientist. "Computer science" isn't a science it is a branch of applied mathematics. His "conversion" means absolutely nothing.Five Years Ago, Gelernter Gave Up on Darwin | Evolution News and Science Today
David Gelernter is one of a growing number of scientists and thinkers bold enough to look beyond a Darwinian paradigm.evolutionnews.org
I agree these people are Creationists or Intelligent Design followers but they are starting to realize Darwinism isn't all that it is cracked up to be.
Before I respond to your post evolution is not about the creation of life, abiogenesis is the relevant theory.If only all of science was explained so nicely. Thank you for that very well layout response. Now let's see if some one can do the same non-living materials coming together to create a living organism. In you example above, you had a problem with the Toyota Camry headlights. I'm sure it was investigated and many thoughts on the cause were pondered. After much investigation, the problem was identified and a solution was installed to correct the problem. Everything was there to make the investigation a success.
Now show those same steps in creating a living organism (with no scientific help) from non-living materials (that means no scientific lab to play around in). Can the steps be as nicely laid out as the Toyota Camry's problem?
| Model-Based Reality | Core Idea | Predictions | Supporting Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Population Genetics (Hardy–Weinberg framework + extensions) | Evolutionary change is modeled via allele frequency shifts under selection, drift, mutation, migration. | - If no evolutionary forces act, allele frequencies remain constant.- Selection will shift frequencies toward adaptive alleles.- Drift has stronger effects in small populations. | - Allele frequencies in large, isolated populations stay stable across generations unless perturbed.- Long-term allele tracking in wild populations (e.g., industrial melanism in Biston betularia).- Experimental populations in labs (e.g., Drosophila) confirm drift/selection predictions. |
| Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution | Most molecular changes are selectively neutral and fixed by genetic drift. | - Molecular clock: roughly constant substitution rates over time.- Synonymous substitutions occur faster than nonsynonymous ones.- High genetic variation in populations without proportional phenotypic change. | - DNA/protein sequence comparisons across taxa show clock-like divergence rates.- Synonymous site variation matches drift predictions.- Polymorphism patterns in many species fit neutral expectations. |
| Fisher’s Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection | The rate of increase in mean fitness is proportional to the genetic variance in fitness. | - Populations with more additive genetic variance adapt faster.- Fitness gains plateau as variance is used up. | - Artificial selection experiments (e.g., maize oil content) show rapid gains then plateau.- Quantitative genetics studies in agriculture and natural populations. |
| Adaptive Landscape (Wright’s fitness landscapes) | Populations move on a “landscape” of fitness peaks and valleys. | - Multiple stable adaptive peaks exist.- Populations can get stuck on local peaks.- Genetic drift in small populations can allow escape to higher peaks. | - Microbial evolution experiments show adaptation to multiple fitness optima.- Observed divergence of isolated populations adapting to different niches. |
| Price Equation Framework | Evolutionary change is the sum of selection and transmission effects across generations. | - Predicts trait change based on covariance with fitness.- Allows decomposition of multilevel selection (genes, individuals, groups). | - Quantitative trait studies match predicted selection gradients.- Multilevel selection in social insects, cooperative breeders. |
| Coalescent Theory | Genealogies of alleles can be traced backward to a most recent common ancestor, under drift and other forces. | - Predicts distribution of genetic variation and coalescence times given population size history.- Bottlenecks shorten coalescent times. | - Mitochondrial DNA studies date human MRCA (“mitochondrial Eve”).- Genome-wide variation patterns match demographic history models. |
| Endosymbiotic Theory (as formalized by evolutionary cell biology) | Mitochondria and plastids originated from free-living bacteria engulfed by a host cell. | - Organelles retain bacterial-type DNA and ribosomes.- Closest relatives of organelles should be specific bacterial clades. | - Mitochondrial DNA phylogeny matches α-proteobacteria.- Chloroplast DNA matches cyanobacteria.- Double membranes and bacterial-like translation machinery. |
Project Steve here we go.I beg to differ. I am finding more scientific people each day questioning evolution or Darwinism.
Over 1,000 Scientists Openly Dissent From Evolution Theory
Over 1,000 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a "Dissent" statement expressing skepticism about Darwin's evolution theory. by Alex Newmanthenewamerican.com
Five Years Ago, Gelernter Gave Up on Darwin | Evolution News and Science Today
David Gelernter is one of a growing number of scientists and thinkers bold enough to look beyond a Darwinian paradigm.evolutionnews.org
I agree these people are Creationists or Intelligent Design followers but they are starting to realize Darwinism isn't all that it is cracked up to be.
There are holes to be punched into these examples but I'll need to investigate further. So this is saying that these subjects are the "go betweens" of the parenthesis subjects? Is there a continuous unbroken line from the single celled organism all the way down the line to Homo sapiens? If so, please give me the website. I want to make sure science hasn't used a sledge hammer to make the square "go betweens" fit into circular holes.No, you're still not getting it. You see, Darwin made a lot of predictions, based on his theory. And a huge number of them have since been confirmed to be true.
A few for example:
There would have to be transitional forms between birds and other dinosaurs.
There would be transitionals between reptiles and mammals.
Some mechanism to allow the persistence of useful new traits must exist. (in Darwin's time, ideas of inheritance ruled out such persistence)
A well-fitted population in a constant environment would evolve very little.
A change in environment would lead to evolution of a population in that environment.
There are many more. How many would you like to see? As you learned, an hypothesis becomes a theory after many of its predictions are confirmed by evidence.
Well, let's ask a knowledgeable YE creationist:
Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between
rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
Dr. Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?