H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
So what? They still all die.
- Status
T
Techno2000
Guest
Unless they keep reproducing and multiplying… why wouldn’t that be the case?Techno2000:
So what? They still all die.
B
Bradskii
Guest
I did something stupid this morning and my wife called me an idiot. So I just called into this thread and now I don’t feel so stupid any more.benjamin1973:
Well if you stare at a caterpillar or a tadpole you couldn’t see it change either…what’s your point ?
P
PetraG
Guest
The things he has said about the virtue of religion are a lot worse than silly.
E
edwest211
Guest
Good for you. Nice to see you again.
P
PetraG
Guest
Science looks for laws that show a predictable pattern to the behavior of energy and matter.
A scientist looks at a kettle of boiling water and says it is boiling because of heat is being transferred from the element below the water to the water and giving it sufficient energy to enter the gas phase. Whether someone wanted a cup of tea or not is besides the point.
T
Techno2000
Guest
When life gives you lemons, make lemonade
E
edwest211
Guest
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Sam Harris has a few things to say about religion.
R
rossum
Guest
“Adapted” from one foot long to five feet long? That is a big “adaptation”. Would a 30-foot tall human be just another “adaptation”?
Where does “adaptation” stop and evolution begin. What is your objective measure of the difference?
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Nevertheless, there was purpose involved.
B
buffalo
Guest
Size is an adaptation. Will 12 foot humans do?
If an astronaut has a family in space how tall will they be?
R
rossum
Guest
ID science tries to search, but it has no tested search method. It has claimed its methods work, but has not subjected those methods to rigorous testing. The claims are so far unsupported by evidence.
The one method that was tested, Behe’s Irreducible Complexity, was not tested by ID scientists but by mainstream scientists. IC was found to be partly correct: IC systems cannot evolve by direct paths, and partly incorrect: IC systems can evolve by indirect paths. Hence, IC cannot be used as a design detector because IC systems can evolve.
Unless and until IC scientists subject their proposed methods to rigorous testing they will not get much traction in science. Thus far, ID’s proposed methods amount to little more than “It sure looks designed to me.”
rossum
E
edwest211
Guest
The starting premise with evolution is “it only looks designed but it’s not.” And that illustrates the conflict.
B
buffalo
Guest
And why I repeatedly say - schools should have mandatory philosophy class where ID and evolution are explained. Neither can be in the science classroom.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
No, you’ve gone wildly astray. You are muddling up groups of creatures with individual creatures. Let’s recap…
Q. What does the first inkling of a change in species look like?
A. A single mutation in a single organism makes its DNA slightly different from all the others. Maybe it is a gene for an enzyme which makes its fur curly.
Curly fur is marginally warmer than straight fur, but other homeostatic processes mean that there is very little difference ion the behaviour of the curly-haired animal from all the others. Perhaps it is not as successful at breeding as the others. It may not have as many offspring as usual, but it passes its gene on to a few of them.
Generations pass. The older animals die of disease, accident or predation. The younger ones breed. The handful with curly hair have fewer offspring than the others, but the gene is still passed on to some of their offspring. Another mutation interrupts the production of melanin in the skin, so some of the animals now have paler fur, but none of them notice.
smooth
Twenty generations later, the climate begins to change. It gets colder. Now the curly haired variety have a distinct advantage over the straight-haired ones. In the breeding season, the curly-haired ones produce more offspring per couple than the straight-haired ones. The aged grandparents notice, shortly before they die, that the younger generations seem to have a greater proportion of curlies than their generation did.
Twenty generations later, the process hasn’t changed. The greater reproductive success of the curlies means that there are more curly babies than straight ones. When it snows, the paler ones are slightly less visible than the darker ones, so for that brief time, predation of the darker ones is slightly greater than of the paler ones.
And so it goes, generation after generation. Animals are born, live, have babies and die. Almost the whole population has inherited the curly gene. Occasionally a smooth-haired animal is born. Sometimes it lives to breed, and the odd smooth haired family occurs, but on the whole, successive generations are nearly all curly-haired now. As the temperature continues to changes, being inconspicuous in the snow becomes an important factor in reproduction.
After a thousand generations, one of two possible scenarios has occurred. Either there are hardly any brown, smooth-haired animals, and they are all pale and curly-haired, or the original group has split into two, one living out in the snow, and one hiding deep in the woods.
And so it goes.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
At this point, Edwest looks in and mutters “speculation”, and buffalo jumps up and down squeaking “empirical”, or “abductive”, but do not be led astray. Of course it’s speculation, and of course it’s abductive. You are right to suppose that no-one has watched this transformation, and that no experiments have been set up to observe it. All we have are the bones of the ancestors, and the genes of the descendants. My story is no more than an explanation for the observations. That’s what the science of evolution is.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
A very good idea, and some schools do. Mine did - a Benedictine monastery, as it happens. That’s how I know how weak the science of Creationism is, and how strong the theology of Evolution.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
Righto! Historical science is an attempt to reconstruct one time past events.
T
Techno2000
Guest
So, evolution already knows what the future climate will be, and has everything prepared beforehand?
B
buffalo
Guest
And now we have fresh info and why ID is gaining strength as the better explanation.
We are in a much better position to understand the limits of “evolution”, what it can do and what it cannot do.
Numerous, successive slight modifications is still the evolution requirement.
The two mutation rule is being confirmed by empirical experiments. They have found and published “peer reviewed” papers showing there are not enough probabilistic resources and time to accomplish these supposed functional advantages.
We are applying solid science to these experiments. The question - is there a step wise process in which proteins and genes can evolve? If so is it within the limits of evolution or outside the limits. Numerous, successive and slight modifications…
Here is one:
When Theory and Experiment Collide
Essential reading.....a trillion trillion years or more
IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com
Last edited:
- Status