T
Techno2000
Guest
That’s the problem, how can any transitional form be better fit if it has to start out as just a small little modification.
Last edited:
- Status
E
edwest211
Guest
Little, small modifications eventually - somehow - lead to a more fit animal? And evolution is unguided?
T
Techno2000
Guest
And apparently the environment waits for the organism to get fit.
E
edwest211
Guest
Strange. Very strange.
B
buffalo
Guest
The abstract lays it out. If you are not interested, others may be.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
See my review, above.
B
buffalo
Guest
Comments on the Royal Society Meeting
“The Modern Synthesis, while undoubtedly productive for a time, is a misconception of reality that has reached the limits of its explanatory power. The problems are fundamental. No amount of cosmetic surgery is going correct them.”
“To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species. It is collaboration in its various forms that causes biological evolution. Hence I’m surprised by calls for extending the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis. You can’t extend something that is broken. Surely what is needed now, after 65 years, is using the empirical evidence to develop a new paradigm for biological evolution.” Jim MacAllister
“The Modern Synthesis, while undoubtedly productive for a time, is a misconception of reality that has reached the limits of its explanatory power. The problems are fundamental. No amount of cosmetic surgery is going correct them.”
“To the contrary, Darwinian competition causes not the evolution of species but the destruction of species. It is collaboration in its various forms that causes biological evolution. Hence I’m surprised by calls for extending the neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Synthesis. You can’t extend something that is broken. Surely what is needed now, after 65 years, is using the empirical evidence to develop a new paradigm for biological evolution.” Jim MacAllister
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
If I followed a religion, believing that its claimed “Sacred Scriptures” and “Word of God” were mostly myths and fairy tales, I would consider myself a fool of the first order.
Based solely on your first-hand knowledge of fossils, would you conclude that man evolved from microbes? Of course not, so your belief that the fossil record demonstrates Darwinian evolution must be based on the opinions of others.
All creationists who spend time on atheist sites debating evolution regularly cop the “dishonest” accusation. And here you are, regularly hurling the “dishonest” accusation. Interesting.
Contrary to your assessment, I haven’t noticed any dishonesty on the part of any creationists here, although I admit it’s quite obvious that all the creationists on this thread (including me) have massive problems and need to have an good look at themselves in the mirror, give themselves an uppercut, then submit themselves to re-training in a concentration camp … but not for dishonesty. I think I accused you of dishonesty once, and for that, I apologise, as you may have not been knowingly dishonest, but merely very dazed and confused.
As for my short-comings and mistakes, I am sorry. As for my dishonestly, I will submit my all my posts to my Confessor and he can decide where and when I’ve been dishonest.
(Continued …)
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
You are officially very dazed and confused. Perhaps you have reached this odd conclusion because you don’t realise that atheists believe in Darwinian evolution regardless of the lack of evidence for it in the fossil record.
I may have been dazed and confused.
You are dazed and confused - since when does expressing on honest opinion add up to dishonesty?
Besides, here are two indisputable facts that are well known to the Cognoscenti:
- Any adult Christian who fails to perceive that the theory of evolution is obviously an atheist construct must be be very naive. (“The theory of evolution is universally accepted, not because it can be proven true, but because the only alternative is special creation (by God), which is clearly incredible” - Dr. D.N. Watson).
- To swallow the junk science that makes up 99.9990847% of the theory of evolution, one must be very gullible … not to mention lacking any aptitude for science.
B
benjamin1973
Guest
Only if you cause them to breed.
G
Glark
Guest
There is no empirical evidence for the alleged evolutionary events of the distant past and there is no such thing as “indirect empirical evidence”. Empirical evidence is, by definition, direct. If there is no direct observation, there is no empirical evidence.
R
rossum
Guest
You are wrong. Your existence is indirect empirical evidence that your great^20-grandmother lived and had at least one child. Direct evidence would be identifying her, her name, age at death etc.
Starlight is indirect evidence of a star in a given directions. The only direct evidence is the photons we detect; we do not directly detect the star. We only have indirect evidence.
A great deal of science uses indirect empirical evidence.
rossum
E
edwest211
Guest
Pope Benedict
"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
"Benedict added that the immense time span that evolution covers made it impossible to conduct experiments in a controlled environment to finally verify or disprove the theory.
“We cannot haul 10,000 generations into the laboratory,” he said."
G
Glark
Guest
I don’t have a problem with evidence that suggests the earth that is much older than the 6000-10,000 year time-frame that the Church seems to believed in (and as is suggested in the Roman Martyrology I quoted previously). As I read it, the Scriptures (Genesis 1) state that the earth was created before the “six days” of creation.
I also believe the Scriptures allow belief in and may even suggest a separate creation that existed on earth before the “six days” creation; a creation that was destroyed as a result of the fall of Lucifer and his angelic cohorts. (For example, regarding Lucifer before he rebelled, Ezekiel 28:11 says this: “Thus says the Lord GOD: You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God”.)
It may be that this first creation featured (along with the angels) dinosaurs and other life-forms that didn’t feature in the second (“Adamic”) creation - the fossil evidence of these changes from the first to the second creation may explain what has been falsely interpreted as evolution.
(Continued …)
G
Glark
Guest
I notice you’ve now decided to use the term, “empirical observations” as opposed to your former use of “empirical evidence”. Fair enough, attempting to correct an error is a good thing. However, please note that I wouldn’t recommend using the term “empirical observation” in a scientific discussion, as it is a tautology, since all empirical evidence is by definition, an observation.
(There’s nothing wrong with being in love with the word “empirical”, as you obviously are, but you must learn to use it correctly. Keep trying, you’ll get there in the end.)
Nice try, but you are still confused … Fossils can be circumstantial evidence and also empirical evidence - but not for the same thing. (
Elaboration: Fossils are considered by some folks to be circumstantial evidence of Darwinian evolution. The same fossils are empirical evidence that certain creatures existed in the past. However, these fossils are not empirical evidence of Darwinian evolution, as Darwinian evolution cannot be directly observed.
The sooner you can swallow your pride, admit your long-held misconception and then dump it in favour of the correct conception, the better off you’ll be.
(As has been pointed out in one of buffalo’s recent posts, science doesn’t use the term “circumstantial evidence”, but rather, “historical evidence”.)
These don’t represent empirical evidence of Darwinian evolution. Animal and plant breeding represent empirical evidence of microevolution, but not of Darwinian evolution … because microevolution can be directly observed; Darwinian evolution cannot. Therefore there is empirical evidence of microevolution, but there is no empirical evidence of Darwinian evolution - it is in fact impossible for human beings to obtain empirical evidence of Darwinian evolution. (If Darwinian (microbe-man) evolution is true, then only God has empirical evidence of it, as only He can directly observe it happening over the billions of years it took).
G
Glark
Guest
Expressing a belief (no matter how strongly held) is not the same as stating it is a fact. Can you cite Ken Ham (or any other creation-literalist) stating is a fact that God created the world in six days?
On the evolutionist side of the coin, one finds Richard Lewonitn, for example, declaring that his microbe-man evolution is not just his belief, but that it is indeed a scientific fact. Lewontin has misappropriated the meaning of “fact”, just as other evolutionists have misappropriated the meaning of “empirical evidence”.
B
Bradskii
Guest
If the small modification means that it has slightly better eyesight or it is a faster runner then it will be a better hunter. I can explain all this better in the pub…PickyPicky:
That’s the problem, how can any transitional form be better fit if it has to start out as just a small little modification.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Sorry, I have to work overnights and sleep in the afternoons.But if I had the money I would take off from work and fly out to Australia just to meet Glark.Techno2000:
If the small modification means that it has slightly better eyesight or it is a faster runner then it will be a better hunter. I can explain all this better in the pub…PickyPicky:
That’s the problem, how can any transitional form be better fit if it has to start out as just a small little modification.
If the small modification means that it has slightly better eyesight or it is a faster runner then it will be a better hunter
How long is this evolutionary process going to take?
G
Glark
Guest
Right … just as the existence of aliens explains crop circles.
G
Glark
Guest
… which reminds me - Darwin’s books were written as science-fiction in order to make some money, but the atheist scientists of the day took them seriously! Now the fiction has somehow morphed into “established scientific fact”. What a strange world we live in.
- Status