Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Shemjaza]

Well this is one subject that always drags on. But for my contribution;
Higher life forms require 2 sexes to reproduce. This provides a self repair mechanism where any variation that can be considered a mutation is repaired at the conception of the next generation. Thus preventing any traits from a mutation from being passed along.
Natural selection may explain which species will survive but evolution itself is a none starter.

You know that organisms with mutations can still reproduce, right? Negative and positive traits are still passed onto offspring.

There's a whole field of medicine to try to identify these before they become a problem for potential children.

 

[Brightmoon]

You misunderstand, or more precisely, you just made that up...prove evolution.

I have never put a piece of notebook paper into the business end of a blow torch, but because I know things that I have put in the blow torch flame will burn, I have a theory the paper will burn.

I can run that science experiment, see the paper will indeed burn, and now I have proof, hence, that theory has now been proven to be fact. Science has now proven the paper will indeed burn.

Simple theory, and simple proof that even you can understand.

Now, just for laughs, explain how that is not a simple science experiment, and how it does not turn my theory to proven fact?

. Because you’re misusing theory. You mean hypothesis . You ran that experiment to test that paper burning
hypothesis and to confirm a theory that certain objects will burn if subjected to an open flame

 

[Brightmoon]

Well this is one subject that always drags on. But for my contribution;
Higher life forms require 2 sexes to reproduce. This provides a self repair mechanism where any variation that can be considered a mutation is repaired at the conception of the next generation. Thus preventing any traits from a mutation from being passed along.
Natural selection may explain which species will survive but evolution itself is a none starter.

. You do realize that natural selection is an evolutionary process or was that you just typing too fast

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

you mean like this evidence?:

(image from 20 Years of Challenging Evolution: Is the Bacterial Flagellum Irreducibly Complex? | Science & Faith)

Here's the main problem with that 'evidence': you have to show that there was a designer behind it. Can't show the designer, no design and creation.

 

[Shemjaza]

Here's the main problem with that 'evidence': you have to show that there was a designer behind it. Can't show the designer, no design and creation.

What are you talking about! It's totally logical.

Every motor we see was built by people and/or robots, so it's obvious that every individual bacteria was built in a tiny factory by tiny people with tiny robots.

 

[Shemjaza]

What are you talking about! It's totally logical.

Every motor we see was built by people and/or robots, so it's obvious that every individual bacteria was built in a tiny factory by tiny people with tiny robots.

Hmmmm, I might be onto something.

We know humans make dams... but beavers also make dams.

Therefore, beavers are little humans in fur suits.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That is the coloquial definition of "proof" no doubt from a popular dictionary. The techical definition has been presented to you often enough-with sources--that we can be reasonably sure you are not being honest about it.

But your definition is not a bad one; it encompasses both the evidence required by the inductive logic of science and the argument required by the deductive logic of axiomatic formal systems. The question is, which kind of "proof" do you want?

The kind I defined of course.

Yes, paper burns; that's very observant of you. Why does it burn? What's your theory?

I don't care why it burns. Why are you asking me that?

I should ignore your questions as you did mine, so maybe you will answer them now?

 

[Kenny'sID]

How much of the science are you actually familiar with?

How much of the science of your evolution are you actually familiar with?

Enough to prove it?

 

[Kenny'sID]

. Because you’re misusing theory. You mean hypothesis . You ran that experiment to test that paper burning
hypothesis and to confirm a theory that certain objects will burn if subjected to an open flame

Everyone's an expert.

Define in detail both theory and hypothesis.

 

[Speedwell]

The kind I defined of course.

Your definition refers to two kinds of proof; which kind do you want, evidence or argument?

I don't care why it burns. Why are you asking me that?

That it burns is an observation. An explanation of why it burns would be a theory--or, at least, an hypothesis.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Your definition refers to two kinds of proof; which kind do you want, evidence or argument?

That it burns is an observation. An explanation of why it burns would be a theory--or, at least, an hypothesis.

Nope, not until you answer those questions you avoided.

 

[Speedwell]

Nope, not until you answer those questions you avoided.

You mean the one about why burning paper is or is not "proof" of burning paper? Or was there another one before that?

 

[pitabread]

Have you already completely forgotten that we found the same with living creatures?

We're not talking about living creatures, we're talking about artificially manufactured objects.

You keep making claims about phylogenetic trees and artificial objects that you've never bothered to test. And when I tested them, your claims didn't hold up.

(Also, given past experience with articles/papers you link, going forward if you link anything to support an argument you are making, I expect you will have read it and can explicitly cite how and why it supports your argument. Too many times in the past you've linked things that either contradict your argument or have nothing to do with it.)

 

[pitabread]

so you cant detect design if you will see in your first time a flying saucer for instance?

A rather moot point given that humans have never had contact with extraterrestrial beings.

Any concept of a "flying saucer" in any science fiction is based entirely on human imagination and experience.

 

[pitabread]

prove it. show us how we can falsify evolution.

Come now, you've asked this before and I'll always answer the same way: evolution is an extremely broad topic. There is never going to be a singular way to falsify all of evolution. Rather, there are numerous hypotheses related to evolution which can be independently tested and falsified.

 

[Aman777]

There is never going to be a singular way to falsify evolution.

False, since godless evolution is nothing more than the descent with modification or genetic changes in a population over time. The filthy godless name is "evolution" or the Trumpian view that only white people have God's superior intelligence and thus worthy of obtaining all of the world's money. PTL (pass the loot) is their mantra.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You mean the one about why burning paper is or is not "proof" of burning paper? Or was there another one before that?

You missed them because you didn't wan to answer, and I'm sure you can find them if you do.

 

[Speedwell]

You missed them because you didn't wan to answer, and I'm sure you can find them if you do.

LOL!

 

[Snappy1]

Nope, not until you answer those questions you avoided.

What a load.

 

[Gene2memE]

Well this is one subject that always drags on. But for my contribution;
Higher life forms require 2 sexes to reproduce.

No, they don't. There are plenty of "higher" lifeforms that reproduce without two sexes. Off the top of my head there are LOTS of species of plants and fungi that can all reproduce asexually, along with plentiful examples of crustaceans, insects, lizards, sharks, snails, spiders and snakes that can do so as well.

This provides a self repair mechanism where any variation that can be considered a mutation is repaired at the conception of the next generation. Thus preventing any traits from a mutation from being passed along.

Actually, even with creatures that reproduce by cloning themselves, you get genetic variation that allows evolution to occur. Researchers have even seen it occur in the lab: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/02/aquarium-accident-may-have-given-crayfish-dna-take-over-world

Creatures that reproduce asexually or clonally may have slower rates of variation (see this study for example), but they may also have higher rates of mutation fixation and retention over sexually reproductive species (see this study). This can be a good thing, or a bad thing though.

Natural selection may explain which species will survive but evolution itself is a none starter.

Good thing that natural selection doesn't try to explain abiogenesis then.