Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.0

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, and that’s a problem. Some of evolution is fanciful narrative, not necessarily founded in fact.

The science of consciousness is particularly full of BS like “Of course animals can think, that’s how they are able to survive.” But that ignores the very important philosophical question: why does ANY material structure, under any process or arrangement, have the capacity to be subjectively aware? Why does the Universe have that capacity?

As I said in earlier iterations of this thread, evolution is a no-go for religious argument against a material monist world view. MUCH better are issues with QM and the effects of observation, and the complete inability of science to even define mind, let alone study it without begging the question.
 
Glark said:
40.png
Techno2000:
What food supply did the butterfly hog up to cause the demise of its previous incarnations?
Click to expand...
I once saw a butterfly eat a kangaroo. Then for dessert it ate a pineapple.
Click to expand...
:crazy_face:…
 
Techno2000 said:
It’s a slooow subtle hardly even noticeable change,that takes millions of years.
Click to expand...
Except when it doesn’t. I have already showed you the example of the Marbled Shrimp, which was a single (shrimp) generation.

rossum
 
vz71 said:
I would be more convinced of random if there was a mistake recorded.

But billions of years later, we have no mistakes to show.
Click to expand...
I have already posted one example: Pharaoh Tutankhamen had a club foot.

rossum
 
Replace it with “has zero grandchildren”.

All you have to do is count, and counting is not vague.

rossum
 
Glark said:
My grandfather had a pile of stardust sitting in his back yard. Fifty years later it’s still there and hasn’t changed at all - how come?
Click to expand...
Your grandfather’s pile is not the size of a planet. If it was the right size, then you would have to wait about 500,000 million years, not fifty.

rossum
 
Glark said:
It’s my understanding that evidence from contemporary creatures shows that mutations are overwhelmingly disadvantageous to survival.
Click to expand...
I would need to see a reference for that.

All synonymous mutations are neutral, and a large proportion of non-synonymous mutations are neutral as well, 30-40% IIRC.

rossum
 
Glark said:
This creature is not a “missing link”; it a bird, for Pete’s sake!
Click to expand...
How many birds do you know with teeth and a bony tail? Archaeopteryx has both. Later birds lost the bony tail, but kept the teeth for a time. Later still they lost the teeth as well.

You do realise that feathered dinosaurs also had teeth and a bony tail, but lacked wings, that had feathered forelimbs instead.
Code: 
                    Feathers Flight   Bony Tail  Teeth
                    -------- ------   ---------  ------
Dinosaurs              No       No      Yes        Yes  :  Stegosaurus
Feathered Dinos       Yes       No      Yes        Yes  :  Jinfengopteryx
Archaeopteryx         Yes      Yes      Yes        Yes  :  Archaeopteryx
Early Birds           Yes      Yes       No        Yes  :  Ichthyornis
Modern Birds          Yes      Yes       No         No  :  Corvidae
Archaeopteryx is a transitional; it shows characteristics from two related groups: feathers and flight from the birds, teeth and a bony tail from the dinosaurs.

rossum
 
rossum said:
40.png
Techno2000:
It’s a slooow subtle hardly even noticeable change,that takes millions of years.
Click to expand...
Except when it doesn’t. I have already showed you the example of the Marbled Shrimp, which was a single (shrimp) generation.

rossum
Click to expand...
I thought you said Marbled Crayfish, either way it didn’t cause any other shrimp or crayfish to die out.
 
Last edited:
Glark!
Yey! Good to see you lightening up. I was getting worried about your blood pressure. In one on-line article, the tooth-fairy is described as a “uniquely American cross-pollination of two preexisting figures: the mouse that sneaks into a child’s bedroom and performs the cash-for-teeth swap, and the general “good fairy,” a traditionally European figure that slowly made its way over the Atlantic.” Quite how a mouse pollinates a fairy is not explored.
Glark said:
Question: What is a theory that can’t be tested? Answer: Nothing more than a useless, pointless story.
Click to expand...
Ah! An infallible way of passing exams. Ask a question; answer it yourself, and tell yourself you’re correct! Let’s see if I can do it …
Question: Give an example of a useless, pointless story (theory that can’t be tested)? Answer: Creationism!
 
Last edited:
I’m not criticizing evolution by saying it’s a religion. I’m pointing out facts is all. The left screams no religion in schools but accepts the religion of evolution being taught.

I’ve already posted some obvious flaws with evolution that make it factually impossible. It’s easy to criticize something that’s not possible.
 
I’d like to see proof that a Archaeopteryx ever had offspring that weren’t Archaeopteryx.
 
Show me where, exactly, the red band in a rainbow turns to orange, and you’ll have your answer.
 
One must examine carefully the base assumptions that evo is all built on.

It tells us a lot. Biomimicry.
 
Glark said:
Thanks, but I’ve heard it all before. I believe it’s only a matter of time before the Church declares (ex cathedra) that microbe-man evolution is incompatible with the Catholic faith. Perhaps it would be wise to prepare yourself for the shock.
Click to expand...
Not at all likely because the modern church has been, and is likely to continue, accepting science. Even deChardin is looked at differently, as they should, imo, which is not to say he was right on his “Noosphere” but that this should be open for discussion. His work on human evolution was monumental, and it’s men and women like him that should not be deterred but welcomed.

This, and the ToE, much like the Big Bang Theory, offer no obstacles to the Church in reality. It may be more difficult for many of the “old-timers” to accept these, but the Church cannot and should not try and stop scientific progress and some tough debates, imo. If the Church were to try and stop scientific analysis, I, as a scientist, would leave in a heart-beat, much like I left my fundamentalist Protestant Church roughly 50 years ago.
 
We could easily say - “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” The a priori bias of not letting “the Divine foot in the door” means science has painted itself into a corner. Science by its own definition has a limited say about the universe.

ID, the science looks for evidence of design. “Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Dawkins

But is cannot be so! They have to concoct all sorts of stories to keep it going. It comes down to 2 world views.
 
Every single finding is presupposed by evolution is true. It is unfalsifiable and always has an answer. Way too many of the science articles are just storytelling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top