Do it without magic.

[Davian]

Miracles works for me.

How would you present that, in a biology class?

 

[SteveB28]

Trial and error. Intuition. Experiences. Sensory input.

Lots of reasons.

You've just described the scientific process.

Explain how it's not random/chance. Goalless instead of directionless

.

Natural selection is not random. It is a mathematical sorting process. Which can be predicted. It has direction. It moves towards a selection for those organisms which are better suited to their environment.

And I assume you're ok with mindless, meaningless and purposeless?

I see no issue there.

The guesses and suppositions of humanity being the result of only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless natural mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago hasn't been "rigorously tested".

Yes they have. Continuously.

Guesses don't score 97%.

So, there must be more than guessing going on.

Science has taught error in the past. Does science still teach error?

Science doesn't "teach" anything. It's a process for accumulating knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

How would you present that, in a biology class?

Are you trying to get the Bible into science class?

Don't you guys harp & moan against that?

The Bible belongs in history class.

 

[Davian]

Are you trying to get the Bible into science class?

Don't you guys harp & moan against that?

The Bible belongs in history class.

Take that up with justlookinla. He's the one that wants to fill the knowledge gaps he perceives in the biology class with "miracles".

 

[Kylie]

Common descent and natural selection do not produce new life forms. They only act on an existing life form.

And they change it into a life form that has never existed before. If you mean "new" as in "totally unrelated to any other life form", then you are correct. That is what "common descent" means. We are all descended for earlier life forms.

What part of this don't you understand?

 

[justlookinla]

Creation by a supernatural entity isn't science. I've no problem believing whatever you want, just keep it out of the science classroom. The science classroom is a place for those things which are supported by evidence. (Before you claim that there isn't any evidence, please go and do some honest and open research - there's plenty out there).

If you want to put the supernatural into science lessons, you'll have to also include every other religion's creation stories.

Keep the philosophical worldview that only random/chance naturalistic mechanisms created humanity from an alleged single life form from long long ago also. It's not science, it's simply a faith-based creationist view.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm also a primate, like my great-great-great-great ... great-great grandparents. And going even further back I'm still a placental mammal, I'm still a tetrapod, I'm still a vertebrate animal. And I'm also and still a eukaryote.

And yes, I am a new life form. I am not the same instantiation of life that either of my parents are. I can show you a picture of me standing next to my father if you'd like proof that I'm not the same organism as my dad.

-CryptoLutheran

No, you're a human just like your parents, you're not a new life form.

 

[justlookinla]

How would you present that, in a biology class?

You wouldn't.

 

[justlookinla]

You've just described the scientific process.

No I haven't. I've described the various methods used in the acquisition of knowlege. Not all use the scientific method. Heck, eve atheistic Darwinist creationism doesn't use the scientific method for it's beliefs..

Natural selection is not random. It is a mathematical sorting process. Which can be predicted. It has direction. It moves towards a selection for those organisms which are better suited to their environment.

No new life forms are created by natural selection. Natural selection only works on existing life forms.

I see no issue there.

Ok.

Yes they have. Continuously.

No they haven't. It's not possible to test the view that humanity is a result of only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless natural mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

So, there must be more than guessing going on.

Why?

Science doesn't "teach" anything. It's a process for accumulating knowledge.

Tell it to these folks.....

What Can Science Teach Us About Morality? | RealClearScience

 

[justlookinla]

And they change it into a life form that has never existed before. If you mean "new" as in "totally unrelated to any other life form", then you are correct. That is what "common descent" means. We are all descended for earlier life forms.

What part of this don't you understand?

No, common descent and natural selection does not change any existing life form into a new life form. They only take an existing life form and populate a group.

What changes a previous life form into a new life form?

 

[Davian]

You wouldn't.

Does biology involve miracles or not?

 

[justlookinla]

Does biology involve miracles or not?

Yes, all of creation involves miracles.

 

[Kylie]

No, common descent and natural selection does not change any existing life form into a new life form. They only take an existing life form and populate a group.

If there's an existing life form, then there must already be a population of them.

What changes a previous life form into a new life form?

Random mutation, with the different mutations selected by natural selection based on how much of a reproductive benefit they confer to the individual that possesses that mutation. As the generations continue and the beneficial mutations spread througout the population, the population will go from a life form that lacks the mutation to a life forms that possesses the mutation.

 

[mmksparbud]

Scientifically----What is "thought?"--how did thought come about? What produced that first "thought?"

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, you're a human just like your parents, you're not a new life form.

At which point did we have a brand new color?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SteveB28]

No I haven't. I've described the various methods used in the acquisition of knowlege. Not all use the scientific method. Heck, eve atheistic Darwinist creationism doesn't use the scientific method for it's beliefs..

As has been explained to you before, science simply refers to 'knowing'. It is the means by which we accumulate knowledge. And, ever since we swung down from trees (and possibly for some time before that), we have acquired that knowledge through observing, calculating and formulating. That's what science is.

Now, as our mode of existence has become more complex, we have formalised that knowledge acquisition into a recognised process - the scientific method. One which includes the operations of hypothesis formation, the testing of evidence against those hypotheses and the continued re-testing over time, particularly when new evidence is uncovered or observed.

This is how we have gathered all new knowledge. There is no information known to man whose emergence has been achieved by any other demonstrable means. If you have evidence of such a means, please share it.

No new life forms are created by natural selection. Natural selection only works on existing life forms.

And nor would evolutionary theory claim otherwise. You are, I presume, a human. You will only produce humans. That is the 'branch' upon which you sit. However, look back to the larger branch from whence yours shoots. You are also a primate, so you will only produce primates. But you are not the only primate occupying a division of that larger branch. And so on.

No they haven't. It's not possible to test the view that humanity is a result of only random/chance, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless natural mechanism acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago.

Because you seem fond of parroting mantras as a reply, your response often misses the mark. The scientific process has been tested continuously. Had it not been an effective means of accumulating knowledge which is of use to us, our progress would have been a net negative one. We would have become progressively more ignorant, unhealthy, unsafe and fearful. The reverse has been the pattern. The scientific method has been tested and shown to work.

Why?

Because the scientific process has yielded us results in the 97% range, rather than the 3%!

Tell it to these folks.....

I'm not debating with "these folks", I'm debating with you. If the pressure is becoming too much for you, just say so and I will go and debate with someone else!

The scientific method is not a teaching agent. It is a knowledge accumulation process. Now, people may teach others, using its findings, but the method itself is not a teacher.

 

[Star Adept]

Scientifically----What is "thought?"--how did thought come about? What produced that first "thought?"

Ooh, I know this one!

That evening turns into morning was the first unified thought accepted by man as listed in Genesis 1 as the first enlightenment.

Well, I might as well play the game if the thread's going to keep going on

 

[SteveB28]

Scientifically----What is "thought?"--how did thought come about? What produced that first "thought?"

It is one of the cerebral functions. It "came about" as a result of the evolution of sufficiently complex brains.

 

[mmksparbud]

It is one of the cerebral functions. It "came about" as a result of the evolution of sufficiently complex brains.

LOL---Who doesn't know that!! So, scientifically speaking--what had the brain that was "sufficiently evolved?"--how was this scientifically proved?? What evolved into a brain cell? Can this be reproduced in the test lab?--I would think so, even taking something that already has the beginnings of a brain cell, and then "evolve it."

 

[Davian]

Yes, all of creation involves miracles.

But this is just opinion, so it can't go in the classroom.