Evolution is not science

[HitchSlap]

He was still a finch. Our entire world is driven by information and an information code (RNA/DNA). ALL of the information for every kind of finch is there in every finch which ever lives.

I'll bet dollars to donuts you won't give us a succinct definition of "information."

 

[HitchSlap]

but evolution changed the size of the beak

Not according to cdesign proponenstsists... goddoesit.

 

[fireof god98]

I'll bet dollars to donuts you won't give us a succinct definition of "information."

its like talking to a dolphin

 

[AV1611VET]

I'll bet dollars to donuts you won't give us a succinct definition of "information."

QV please:

In reading about entropy just now (symbolized by the letter H), I came across this definition:

A measure of the loss of information in a transmitted message.
​

Thus I would like to submit this as the equation for the entropy of the Bible:

• ΔH(Bible)=0

In English, it simply states that the change [Δ] in the entropy [H] of the Bible equals zero.

Put another way, there is no change in the loss of information in the Bible.

The Telephone Game, which relies on entropy, does not apply.

 

[fireof god98]

Not according to cdesign proponenstsists... goddoesit.

but i assume you do not?

 

[HitchSlap]

but i assume you do not?

Don't what?

 

[fireof god98]

Don't what?

believe god made everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

QV please:

A totally nonsensical definition of inventory.

Remember to be able to use that definition you have to substantiate your claims first. You forgot that all important step.

Entropy really does not have to much to do with information at any rate. That is a mistake that many creationists make. Do you know the units of entropy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

believe god made everything.

Why would you?

 

[fireof god98]

Why would you?

i do not. i believe that Darwin had it when he wrote "on the origin of the species" agree?

 

[AV1611VET]

A totally nonsensical definition of inventory.

Inventory?

 

[Pyramidologist]

More on the evoutionists faith:

''The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened.'' - Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene (1989) p.14

[On invertebrates] ''And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.''
- Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229

 

[Pyramidologist]

The problem I have with macro-evolution is that it is claimed to be science, yet it is not observable, testable or repeatable. Therefore by definition it is not science. Note that I am NOT saying creationism is science either - it cannot be observed either. Historical events by definition are one-off and non-scientific, unless there were direct observers. Therefore neither evolution or creation should be taught in science classes - both are a religion. My belief in creation comes from my faith in the Bible, the evolutionists faith lies also in non empirical science, what cannot be observed, and atheistic naturalism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem I have with macro-evolution is that it is claimed to be science, yet it is not observable, testable or repeatable. Therefore by definition it is not science. Note that I am NOT saying creationism is science either - it cannot be observed either. Historical events by definition are one-off and non-scientific, unless there were direct observers. Therefore neither evolution or creation should be taught in science classes - both are a religion. My belief in creation comes from my faith in the Bible, the evolutionists faith lies also in non empirical science, what cannot be observed, and atheistic naturalism.

It is observable. It is observable in the fossil record. And it is largely testable too. In most cases if a certain fossil is found at a certain location another scientist can repeat a search there and find another example of the same fossil.


And that is in only the fossil record. A biologist can tell you how it is observable and testable in the DNA of various animals. Claiming that evolution is unobservable and untestable only shows your ignorance. It does not show any flaws in the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

More on the evoutionists faith:

''The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened.'' - Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene (1989) p.14

[On invertebrates] ''And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.''
- Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229

Sorry, you don't seem to know the definition of the word "faith". There is a difference between faith and beliefs based upon logical deduction.

 

[fireof god98]

Sorry, you don't seem to know the definition of the word "faith". There is a difference between faith and beliefs based upon logical deduction.

firm belief in something for which there is no proof =merriam-Webster dictionary

 

[kellhus]

The problem I have with macro-evolution is that it is claimed to be science, yet it is not observable

Except it has been observed. The problem is that Creationists, when presented with the scientific papers documenting it, prefer to stick their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes, and scream "LALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!!!" at the top of their lungs until everyone else gives up trying to hold an adult conversation with them in disgust at which point they crow and congratulate themselves.

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." --Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

 

[Subduction Zone]

firm belief in something for which there is no proof =merriam-Webster dictionary

That is the 2b definition. And it is not quite correct since there is no "proof" of anything in science. There is evidence, and that would be a better word. There is evidence that supports Dawkins' beliefs, there is not enough evidence to form a theory yet. And the belief that science will find an answer is not faith based either. It is a reasonable conclusion based upon part results.

 

[Stethacanthus]

Never heard of Jerry Coyne, but he is wrong. As a student of ecology with a twin brother on the forefront of Evolutionary Biology and Abiogenesis, I can tell you that we and even I have seen examples.

I suggest studying up on Immunology, which relies entirely on the Theory of Evolution.

Look up the experiment of Drosophila synthetica in which a species of fruit fly produced another species which can interbreed with its own kind, but not the original species. That proves that the species barrier is permeable and confirms that "macroevolution" as you are describing is in fact possible and recorded.

I would advise you also to look at isolated populations. I spent a good month in Australia three years ago and saw an entirely different set of organisms from what I have experienced in the USA, which is exactly what the Theory of Evolution suggests.

I understand and admire your skepticism of what you read as long as it is not selective skepticism. Anyone can be wrong or lie to you, even through a book. Happens all of the time. I suggest doing some more research before you take something like that at face value.

Any questions, I believe there is a message feature.

 

[gungasnake]

Never heard of Jerry Coyne, but he is wrong. As a student of ecology with a twin brother on the forefront of Evolutionary Biology and Abiogenesis, I can tell you that we and even I have seen examples.

I suggest studying up on Immunology, which relies entirely on the Theory of Evolution.

Look up the experiment of Drosophila synthetica in which a species of fruit fly produced another species which can interbreed with its own kind, but not the original species. That proves that the species barrier is permeable and confirms that "macroevolution" as you are describing is in fact possible and recorded.......

Sorry, but google searches do not turn up anything to suggest that anything resembling a new KIND of creature has ever been created by experiments with fruit flies. Even brain-washed sites like evo-wiki don't claim that:

Fruit fly experiments produce only fruit flies - EvoWiki

Experiments with fruit flies began in the early 1900s and have been conducted continuously since then, and have involved more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of anything resembling humans to any extent at all on this planet. Such experiments have involved repeatedly subjecting flies to everything in the world known to cause mutations and purposefully recombining mutants so as to speed up any process of evolution many times.

Those experiments were meant to prove macro-evolution, and claiming that new species of fruit flies have been produced do not cut it. By all rational accounts, the experiments have all failed in their original purpose. A number of prominent scientists have given up on evolution and renounced it because of those experiments, including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt:

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2501

Norman Macbeth highlighted the late evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt’s thoughts about the fruit fly: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species” (1971, p. 33). The bottom line of all experiments ever done on fruit flies is that they stay fruit flies.

You need to tell your twin brother that he's wasting his life studying false sciences.