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.
Which would be a potential falsification of ToE.As far as I know a mammal in the Cambrian layer hasn't been found
But could there be other reasons aside from evolutionary ones, for there being no mammals in the Cambrian layer, which would lead Birch to believe that every observation can be conveniently fit within the evolutionary model?So you now understand that ToE CAN be falsified (the aforementioned mammal in Cambrian layer).
Progress!
The key tenets of evolution would likely be Darwinism vs Lamarckism, alleged evidence of common ancestry, evidence from the fossil record, and as well as quite simply the very concept of a development of organisms from random mutations over millions of years into the diverse set of species we see today.What do you see as the "key tenets?"
God says one thing ..you(man)say another -whose word shall i exercise faith in do you think ?
Oh thats very incorrect.
ToE implies a literal reading of Genesis (religious dogma) is wrong.
God says one thing ..you(man)say another -whose word shall i exercise faith in do you think ?
Perhaps precision would help in questions.
You say ToE, there is no such thing.
And it is certainly not a fact as Dawkins says!
ToE is not a precise scientific definition.
ToE is a complex mish mash of much smaller (eg molecular biology genetic inheritance) theories, unproven and part proven hypotheses like "common descent"
I can also produce a plausibility argument that ensures common descent is only ever a hypothesis from pure logic. If life was sufficiently probable to happen somewhere by accident, then it was clearly probable enough to happen in several places. And if that is so, then there may be one or many common descendants, so disproving the ability to prove common descent!
The reality is we know that small changes can lead to adapting characteristics so the morphology of species can drift.
But knowing you can get closer to the moon by walking across the earth, is a long way from the intellectual leap that you can get to the moon by the same process of walking!
there is no evidence of the birth of a new species with for example different chromosome numbers
All there is is conjecture, and that is not an easy problem to solve, since it involves two unlikely genetic accidents, that are even more unlikely to produce a viable life form, but lucky enough to happen close enough to mate with each other.
In short big holes in an assumption.
Jury is out.
???It says nothing about any holy book.
.
No, but seeing something in a lab, over whatever timeframe, is more convincing then making educated guesses about fossil records and genome similarities from the distant past.
It's still detective work, it isn't seeing something happen in front of you. You look at similarities and patterns and make conclusions.Comparing genomes and observing the nested hierarchies thereof, is done right before your eyes, using DNA of extant species.
And the same goes for comparative anatomy of fossisl, by the way.
None of both require a timemachine.
As far as I am aware the Chromosome 2 fusion evidence (as a mechanism for ape to human, rather than biologic possibility) is little more than conjecture, not least because the genomic material so produced, or even at the fusion site, is at best similar, not the same. But also the hooker...it needs two of these accidents to occur, be viable organisms for mating, and find each other to breed. You make it sound far more defined than it is.
Perhaps you should ask the opposition question, how did the higher numbers of chromosomes come to be, to allow a fusion. Surely the fewer number is a stage on route to the larger, not the other way round.
Evolution occurs. There are species which were once alive on the Earth which are no longer, and species now alive which have not always been. There are a large number fossilized remains of once living creatures which strongly suggests that this diversity occurred through frequent accumulating small changes. New species have been observed to form from existing ones in the same manner. That is evolution. It's a fact.Then why is it a theory.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
Gravity is also both a theory and a fact. There is a theory of gravity, it works quite well. Surely just because there is a theory of gravity you won't jump off of a cliff stating that "gravity is just a theory"?Then why is it a theory.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
But could there be other reasons aside from evolutionary ones, for there being no mammals in the Cambrian layer, which would lead Birch to believe that every observation can be conveniently fit within the evolutionary model?
That's correct, but the theory of evolution makes no mention of it. As a practical matter, the proposition that biological evolution has occurred over long periods of time and that all living things share a common biological ancestor contradicts the way some people read the holy book, but that is not the fault of the theory of evolution.???
Genesis... thats part of a holy book, right? I mean a book people consider holy.
Which would lead ToE to be falsified.But could there be other reasons aside from evolutionary ones, for there being no mammals in the Cambrian layer, which would lead Birch to believe that every observation can be conveniently fit within the evolutionary model?
The part is that this may not be a unique observation upon which the ToE is the sole explanation. If other explanations exist, then this observation's falsifiability is irrelevant, because it may be a moot point to begin with.Which would lead ToE to be falsified.
What part of that are you not understanding?
and then he wrote it on our hearts by the holy Spirit ..if you say any of what is written is only what man says then your faith is no longer in God but in man. but that makes man a God unto himself .. But by your statement you annul the word of god and lower it to the mere ramblings of men . but then you name yourself after the dragon to ,so why should be surprised . If you believe any of it is ;just what men say ' then you can have faith in none of it .Keep in mind God's word is what man says God's word is. Jesus never wrote anything down and the Gospels were written decades after his life on Earth.
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?