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.
Can you at least try not to form a strawman when you make a post?You would also have to include why some animals thought life would be better in the water after all....and then crawl back into the water and become a dolphin once again reorganizing its lungs and legs.
Can you at least try not to form a strawman when you make a post?
Why life left the sea can be explained to you. So can why some life went back to the sea. There is no problem at all explaining these observed events. As I sad all of the time, when you don't understand ask questions politely. That means no opinions in your questions. Just a simple question of what you don't understand and would like the answer to.
What makes you think that? All I am pointing out is that this experiment demonstrates natural selection and it could be very useful. It does not support the theory of evolution directly, but then there is no need to. By any legal standard of "proof" the theory of evolution was proven beyond a reasonable doubt over a hundred years ago. "Yeast" is not always just a colony of fungi. He obviously had some bacteria in his and the environment that supported the bacteria that could breakdown plastic were clearly at an advantage. You had to misinterpret my post to try to bring in Lamarck.You realize that you almost have to revert to Lamarckian evolution for
that, don't you? Like the giraffe got the long neck by stretching for the
leaves at the top of the trees. Discredited many years ago.
But coming back anyway, it seems. Zombie evolution theory.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/
Well, if the bacteria added themselves by having the audacity to be in the landfill dirt the kids added to the mix, then I might agree with you. Personally, however, I view that when you add dirt hoping to find bacteria in it, that shouldn't count as bacteria adding themselves. From the article "The Record reports that Burd mixed landfill dirt with yeast and tap water, then added ground plastic and let it stew." Learn to read.No, the article says that he added yeast. Yeast are fungi and the active agents were bacteria. They are in a totally different biological kingdom. Your claim would be akin to claiming that he added animals when he added plants. The bacteria may have had a boost by the yeast, but it seems that they "added" themselves. Natural selection, not artificial.
What the hell does repeatability have to do with whether a theory can make novel predictions? Nothing. Pay attention.What makes you think that this experiment is not repeatable? And it may have very useful information. Now you are merely clutching at straws trying to put down a very nice piece of work.
Natural Selection. "Many theories have been put forward to explain how evolution happens. The theory accepted by most scientists is the theory of natural selection. This was first proposed by Charles Darwin."There is no "theory of natural selection" that I know of. It is merely an observed fact. Yes, natural selection almost seems tautological, as I said it is an observed fact. It is not a theory. Why did you make that error?
Tautologies need demonstration now?
Well, if the bacteria added themselves by having the audacity to be in the landfill dirt the kids added to the mix, then I might agree with you. Personally, however, I view that when you add dirt hoping to find bacteria in it, that shouldn't count as bacteria adding themselves. From the article "The Record reports that Burd mixed landfill dirt with yeast and tap water, then added ground plastic and let it stew." Learn to read.
What the hell does repeatability have to do with whether a theory can make novel predictions? Nothing. Pay attention.
Natural Selection. "Many theories have been put forward to explain how evolution happens. The theory accepted by most scientists is the theory of natural selection. This was first proposed by Charles Darwin."
The theory of natural selection is definitely a theory. It's just not a scientific one.
So if I put out some horse food and capture any wild horses that wander by to eat that food. Then I breed those horses to make more, that's an example of natural selection?At times yes. You don't seem to understand how this was simply a case of natural selection . Weren't you one of the people falsely claiming that this was not natural selection? If so for you at the very least this seems to be the case.
We're not discussing whether the experiment is scientific. We're discussing whether the theory of natural selection is scientific. Imre Lakatos put it this way: "...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..."Once again, you are the one not paying attention. Repeatability is key for a test being scientific.
There was a link right there in the text. It's that blue part that you can click on.Hmm, no links. And in a scientific discussion if a theory is not a "scientific one" then it is not a theory. You just contradicted yourself, again. And you forgot a valid source that supports your claim. Source please.
We're discussing whether the theory of natural selection is scientific.
Imre Lakatos put it this way: "...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..."
That was not what was done. Failed analogy, try again.So if I put out some horse food and capture any wild horses that wander by to eat that food. Then I breed those horses to make more, that's an example of natural selection?
We're not discussing whether the experiment is scientific. We're discussing whether the theory of natural selection is scientific. Imre Lakatos put it this way: "...nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific..."
There was a link right there in the text. It's that blue part that you can click on.
Just as Marxists can find endless confirmations for their theories, so too Darwinists can find endless confirmations for their theories. What does that prove other than that the theory can accommodate all data it is fed?Natural selection is not a theory. It's an observable fact.
I disagree. Confirmations are at best neutral to the theory in question. There are invariably an infinite number of alternate theories that fit the data.In 1973. Pulling 40+ year old quotes up looks like desperation. Would you agree that if a scientific theory makes accurate predictions, the strength of the theory is increased? Meet Tiktaalik Roseae. An accurate prediction that Dr. Shubin and his team made about where they would find the transition between fish and tetrapod.
Just as Marxists can find endless confirmations for their theories, so too Darwinists can find endless confirmations for their theories. What does that prove other than that the theory can accommodate all data it is fed?
I disagree. Confirmations are at best neutral to the theory in question. There are invariably an infinite number of alternate theories that fit the data.
And you complain about others not paying attention. Those two bacteria would not have been the only ones introduced into the experiment. They were the two that thrived. That is natural selection at work in an artificial environment. One reason that experiments are done is to minimize the variables. He did that with an artificial "diet".That's exactly what was done. Bacteria were taken from a landfill site, fed with plastic, and then harvested. No natural selection was involved.
You can't read, can you?Care to provide any data for evolution that you think means something else?
Simple. The theory of Christianity postulates that mankind will exist. Mankind exists. Does this confirmation make Christianity more likely or is it merely neutral to the theory?How would making a prediction and then having that prediction come true be neutral to a theory?
Take a remedial math class. Here's a starter:Please explain these infinite number of explanations that fit the data of accurate predictions by evolution.
The data do not support your conclusion.And you complain about others not paying attention. Those two bacteria would not have been the only ones introduced into the experiment. They were the two that thrived. That is natural selection at work in an artificial environment. One reason that experiments are done is to minimize the variables. He did that with an artificial "diet".
Yes.Care to provide any data for evolution that you think means something else?
Jorge bought some fruit at the market. He spent $600 on fruit. Bananas cost $1 each. Apples cost $2 each. Oranges cost $3 each. How many of each kind did he buy?
The problem is underdetermined. Jorge might have bought 600 bananas. He might have bought 300 apples. He might have bought 200 oranges. He might have bought 100 bananas, 100 apples, and 100 oranges. He might have bought 199 oranges, an apple, and a banana. I could sit around all day listing new possibilities for how many and what kind of fruit he bought.
That's the point of the word underdetermined.
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?